This topic contains 48 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by billaws 5 months, 2 weeks ago.
Several topics on this website have stalled because of the lack of information regarding England Athletics claims regarding achievements and future plans.
ABAC has now obtained an unredacted copy of England Athletics grant application to Sport England for the cycle 2013-2017.
At last we can check claims, data and statistics. It is not a short read (682 pages) so take your time. ABAC will start analysing it , item by item, very soon. Comments welcomed.
Awesome – I expect you will be using a clear and transparent method of commissioning an independent statistician with no axe to grind ……. Oooo wait
Will this “independent” analysis include ABAC reporting on the statistics they find that are CORRECT, so that we can see how honest the report is?
How will Mr Whittingham check statistics he does not have the methodology for, or data for? Will he just make up his own version and claim the report is incorrect despite the different basis?
Looks like an ABAC fishing trip, looking for things Romona about, maybe they will prove me wrong and actually post about those stats that’s they think are correct and admit they don’t know the methodology for others.
Fangio, Your jumping the gun. ABAC is inviting anybody to look at sections which particularly interest them and to comment on statements and claims made by EA in their funding application. Up to now nobody has been able to see what they have put to Sport England. Sport England do not have the expertise to check every claim and have to take it all on trust. Not a satisfactory situation.
Rob Whittingham will be amused that you are criticising him before he has had a chance to put pen to paper.
The woodentop brothers, post under many aliases but usually as fangio and PIAA. The other names they use are to make it seem others support their warped views in total unquestioning support of whatever UKA/EA/Sport England or UK Sport put out for the gullible………….Have we ever seen them question ANYTHING “official”? No we haven’t……… Now, even the most reasonable person, “with no axe to grind” would surely question somethings published by those in charge?
As Bill says in his retort to one of the Woodwards; the unredacted document is finally available for all to see* and make their own comments and come to their own conclusions based on their own experience of what they see. They can also decide for themselves as to the veracity of whatever Rob Whittingham’s eventual analysis shows.
* There is only one reason for Sport England to deny interested parties and the sport at large, access to the funding document, (which has now only been obtained, unredacted, through an MP) and that reason is, they know it is largely false and they want to hide it from public gaze to avoid challenge. And more significantly, if proven to be substantially false in reporting the state of the sport in the application for maximum funding, they, along with UKA/EA can be subject to prosecution for fraud in obtaining lottery monies.
John, again alluding to people’s identities, is that the best you have got? Look I use a single name on here, so I don’t know where you get the idea I post under multiple identities, it is a lie.
Your post is pretty much a personal attack.
Bill, I asked what Mr Whittingham will do if he doesn’t have the methodology for the figures. You cannot check the veracity without it, but it is usually the case that if he doesn’t have the methodology he makes up his own and then claims UKA are wrong, despite it being a probable case of using different methods. So how will he deal with figures he doesn’t know the methodology for? It is a question, do you have the answer?
We all know that I point out just some of the nonsense in the ABAC reports, but I have yet to see a single retraction of the incorrect information you pump out. I can only imagine this is because you have no interest in being honest.
You really are a bunch of moronic c@nts!!
Do you actually understand what you are assessing. Gaining funding occurs and is then constantly re assessed with reductions put in by SE if necessary along the way!! I think this will occur doesn’t mean we have a legal obligation to deliver 100%. Mitigating factors will happen throughout the relationship with SE in the funding cycle. You are saying John the only thing you are looking at is the state of the Sport in 2011/12 when the application was written, what’s the point in that. It T&F season. Get out the house and enjoy yourselves.
Literally stay sat behind your keyboard waiting in glee for GB injuries, drug issues and athletes of colour to annoy you is all you lot seem worthy of.
Oh, what a laugh…the woodentops and their various alisas, especially the disgusting last one, used. ……..and the pile crap they come out with. You boys are the stereotype trolls. You hide behind aliases becuae you havent the balls to use your real names; true, isn’t it, Ross, and your dim brother, the other Woodward, (who’s so insignificant I’ve forgotten his name!) but he come out with the same shite you do, as do all your aliases. You two have done nothing of value for the sport but it amuses me that you can’t see how totally illogiocal you both are………No other REAL poster on here agrees with any of the stuff you come out with, but if it gives you a thrill and meaning to your lives, keep going.
Not me either John. But carry on lying about me it’s a really constructive way to discuss the sport.
Of course you always used your name didn’t you. Never posted as James Montgomery?
Plenty of real people have agreed. Lee Ness, DC10, Mark E, Mark W, DaveN. All of whom I have spoken to and all of whom are real people. Plenty of other casual posts too and regulars like Trickstat and paps. None of these are aliases. I changed my name because Plunkett came on here and immediately started naming himself as a personal attack on me. But I’ve only posted as PIAA since. Fangio says he only posts as Fangio. So skip the personal bullshit. These posts are seemingly somebody else who also sees that what ABAC do is cretinous.
Can I venture the opinion that any document procured in the manner you state was in fact, if not in law, illegally obtained if it were passed on to a private individual or individuals? I note that you John demand people use their real name (as you well know that I do) yet this tame member of Parliament is not named. Why were they in possession of a matter unrelated to the scope of their parliamentary activity? Was am emollient delivered? This is someone on the public purse who must behave transparently… Are the individual actors in this willing to submit themselves to scrutiny over their actions as it cannot merit claims of whistle blowing? If there is no illegality attached to them they can have no fear in doing so?
I also put it too you, how can you be sure of the veracity of said document? “I got it from an MP and I believe them”, hardly stands up to scrutiny in light of recent revelations in terms of who may or may not be barred from standing for election over irregularities.
Was it left in a brown paper wrapping? Was it put in a secret hiding spot? Delivered perhaps clandestinely on the stroke of midnight? Given certain elements of commercial confidentiality appended to the undidacted document is not majorly significant that you, Bill or whoever are in possession of a document that would not/should not be in the public domain?
Some here use UKA/EA as interchangeable terms, they are separate, is it not the EA submission we are discussing, prepared by the Senior staff of EA and presented by the CEO of EA?
As for your sterling defence of Mr. Whittingham,As a statistician he may have a long career in athletics analysis but he is indeed fallible, not being in the position to speak ‘ex Catherda’ I as a member of the ATFS have noted that he is not always right. Trying to use Power of 10 to tear down statements can be fraught with danger.
I find the need to use foul language on a public forum demeans me as a reader, you cannot point to others if you do the same yourself John. As for your comment about trolls the crown there must surely rest with Frank who seeks to drag any comment down to a nonsensically low level. His abuse of anyone who does not fit his narrow view does major damage to any credibility ABAC may attempt to present, I will hear you say that he is not a member or directly associated with the organisation, however he pitilessly and dare I say irrationally attacks with a degree of needless ferocity, what purpose does it serve? Oh yes, he is one who uses a growing string of dubious aliases. Would any party enoble him?
If I require change, I do not set up some sort of group, largely populated by larger clubs as they are a very sectional interest, rather I effect change from within, this is the principle any political active individual uses, not snipe from the sidelines, be agents of change, create credibility. If ABAC has the size of membership alluded to over posts in other threads but never innumerated, then it would have the organisational muscle to secure the two elected board positions and the two other positions which rest by right with the national council, four seats at the top table plus applying for any Non-executive positions as they arise as surely you would have the required Commercial expertise or other specialist skills within the clubs concerned. It just takes a little lobbying and delivering the ballots. Or is there a lack of choesion to carry this through?
For the large part what I witness here are the voices of the male,pale and stale, I too fit that bill but I have tried to present an agenda for a way forward but regrettably stymied by those fitting the aforementioned groupings.
I know I will draw the ire of the usual suspects (perhaps send some in to apoplexy) in what I have said above, despite that I have been at pains to present reasoned points in such debate. But to to borrow and paraphrase the statement Originally attributed to Stephen Decatur, in an after-dinner toast of 1816–1820: “Our governing body! In her intercourse with all parties may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our governing body!”
John, all you seem to want to do is lie about people you don’t agree with, pretend that they use multiple identities, when they don’t, and try to discuss their identity.
I posted legitimate concerns about the ABAC reporting, that they would use biased reporting by only reporting the figures they thought were incorrect, and incorrectly analyse those figures for which they have no methodology. Do you have any repost to those points that is yelling about posters you don’t like?
Thought not, in which case leave the discussion please you have nothing but diversion to offer.
Thanks Bill for the link. Such a shame that the Ngb refused to be open and transparent. It’s little wonder the departing Chair of National Council does not have positive word for them.
A lot to read. But a quick look at their figures on Networks looks a bit iffy.
Ps it says all responses will be treated with the strictest confidence, I have never published my offline identity, yet Officers in post at ABAC at the time seem to have tried to find it, and use it to intimidate. Is anyone expected to believe that the identity of people that give submissions to ABAC that don’t follow ABACs narrative will not have their identity shared? I have yet to see an ABAC officer who was a member of Franks abuse site Athletics Daily condemn the abuse dished out to people who did give their identity, or the abuse which regularly saw Mr Bicourt, then an ABAC officer, banned from independently moderated sites such as BBC 606, and Athletics Weekly. Yet we are supposed to feel that commentators who do not attack the report will be treated respectfully. I don’t think that is credible, so the comments submitted will be skewed towards the negative, and then most probably presented as proof that the report is universally thought to be incorrect.
Tell you what Bill, if you truly think that individuals have the right to Chose if their identity is made public speak to Comrade John about that.
SLL, what in particular looks iffy, and what stats do you have/need to check it?
Fangios.my very quick look at the huge amount proclaimed to be earmarked to support the Networks don’t appear to stack up..
As you will appreciate it’s not easy reading and flicking around so many pages using a small screen iPhone… I need to look next Monday on a bigger screen laptop. Will revert.