Only three carded athletes

tunney

Triathlon Ireland
€20,000
Aileen Reid
€12,000
Bryan Keane
Gavin Noble

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other-sports/sports-council-announces-grants-for-next-12-months-1.1333906


I would have thought that there would be more

elvis jones

tunney wrote: »

Triathlon Ireland
€20,000
Aileen Reid
€12,000
Bryan Keane
Gavin Noble

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other-sports/sports-council-announces-grants-for-next-12-months-1.1333906


I would have thought that there would be more

More money or more triathletes getting money ?

Who knows how many applied but weren't successful.

Still 48k in total in funding isn't great at all when you look at €1.7 million in total

tunney

elvis jones wrote: »

More money or more triathletes getting money ?

Who knows how many applied but weren't successful.

Still 48k in total in funding isn't great at all when you look at €1.7 million in total

Athletes, thought more athletes.

elvis jones

tunney wrote: »

Athletes, thought more athletes.

No doubt they looked at 2012 results and its a catch 22.

You can't do better without the funding and you can't get the funding if you don't do better.

sconhome

It really is a pittance when compared to some of the other sports but it's no incentive for someone to go pro.

Plenty of exceptional amateur talent racing in Irish colours but when you see the level Bryan and Gavin are racing at and 'only' getting €12k for their troubles there's not many who could afford to go pro without major financial and product backing.

elvis jones

amphkingwest wrote: »

It really is a pittance when compared to some of the other sports but it's no incentive for someone to go pro.

Plenty of exceptional amateur talent racing in Irish colours but when you see the level Bryan and Gavin are racing at and 'only' getting €12k for their troubles there's not many who could afford to go pro without major financial and product backing.

Well said when you look at the travel costs alone in traveling to ITU events.

Also there's only so much you can get from a sponsor and only so many logo's you can have on a tri suit.

Shedite27

More Importantly, the funding for the spork is down €10k, from €107 - €97

mloc123

Why should the government pay them to train?

Sponsorship I would imagine is their main source of income anyway.

BTH

You might think that three is a low number, but realistically, who else is there that should receive funding? The only other options are Conor Murphy and Russell White, and while both are putting in some solid performances, they are doing so in obscure races in Africa and Asia, racing against the lesser lights of world tri.

Certainly not trying to put the guys down, and you would hope that both would make the push into the bigger races in the next 24months, but at present they are't there, and so aren't going to get the funding.

If you want to make an argument about needing the funding to get there, then thats a completely difference discussion and I'd agree with you, but that same issue exists in every individual sport.

If you want to argue for non-ITU athletes receiving funding, the only ones racing pro (afaik, they are certainly the only ones producing top level results) are Eimear Mullan and David Vaughan and I doubt either expect to receive anything anyway as they aren't racing in an olympic sport.

sconhome

mloc123 wrote: »

Why should the government pay them to train?

Isn't the Sports Council mostly funded from the Lotto?

There is very little by way of financial backing in sponsorship, you might see a deal agreed worth €10k per year but this could be in product, bike, nutrition etc. They still need cash to train fulltime and put a roof over their head.

Peterx

mloc123 wrote: »

Why should the government pay them to train?

Sponsorship I would imagine is their main source of income anyway.

It's certainly not the prize money anyway...
1st. 1,250 AUD
2nd. 1,000 AUD
3rd. 750 AUD
4th. 500 AUD

Bryan Keane got 500 aussie dollars for finishing 4th in an ITU.

mloc123

I just think any funding they get should be a bonus....

Plenty of athletes out there that work and train, look at Mark Kenneally, who has his own physio practice.

Maybe I am a grouch today but... if you choose to do this as a career you know what to expect. It is the same with everyone, you choose our job and have a fair idea of the pay scale going in.. if you are not happy with it choose something else.

Kurt Godel

mloc123 wrote: »

I just think any funding they get should be a bonus....

Plenty of athletes out there that work and train, look at Mark Kenneally, who has his own physio practice.

Maybe I am a grouch today but... if you choose to do this as a career you know what to expect. It is the same with everyone, you choose our job and have a fair idea of the pay scale going in.. if you are not happy with it choose something else.

If you represent Ireland at the top tier of your game, its only right that that representation gets rewarded from Ireland PLC. Whether it comes from general taxation or lottery money, I'm all for funding of elites, and reckon 3 triathletes getting funded is about correct, given the profile of the athletes and the sport. In fact, looking down over the overall list, it seems pretty balanced and fair, IMO. (Delighted to see Paralympian Darragh McDonald get €40k, after the superb year he's had).

mloc123

Kurt Godel wrote: »

If you represent Ireland at the top tier of your game, its only right that that representation gets rewarded from Ireland PLC.

Indeed, I guess the problem here is we have nobody else that does.

peter kern

Peterx wrote: »

It's certainly not the prize money anyway...
1st. 1,250 AUD
2nd. 1,000 AUD
3rd. 750 AUD
4th. 500 AUD

Bryan Keane got 500 aussie dollars for finishing 4th in an ITU.

Just to be fair and stick to facts its 3000 US for comming 4th in a world cup not massive either,


Also Connor has certainly moved up this year and performed quite decently so far and has beaten athletes that made it to the olympic games in London in 2 Us races.

shotgunmcos

Kurt Godel wrote: »

If you represent Ireland at the top tier of your game, its only right that that representation gets rewarded from Ireland PLC. Whether it comes from general taxation or lottery money, I'm all for funding of elites, and reckon 3 triathletes getting funded is about correct, given the profile of the athletes and the sport. In fact, looking down over the overall list, it seems pretty balanced and fair, IMO. (Delighted to see Paralympian Darragh McDonald get €40k, after the superb year he's had).

+1 reward results with grants, not potential results

peter kern

Did the sports council not ask atheltes to not look for short term results but at the big picture ?
Given connor s progress a 6000 euro grand would have been an investment as he is certainly with an outside chance to make it to rio.
and if i can say so he is better than the A standard for marathon running.

RayCun

peter kern wrote: »

and if i can say so he is better than the A standard for marathon running.

better than the IAAF 2.17 standard or AAI 2.13 standard? When did he run it?

Colonialboy

I presume this is Tax Free.. so in real terms we should be looking at those figures x2 or thereabouts.
Im all for incentivising athletes but its not like they have made a chosen career of saving lives or doing charity work...

BTH

Colonialboy wrote: »

I presume this is Tax Free.. so in real terms we should be looking at those figures x2 or thereabouts.
Im all for incentivising athletes but its not like they have made a chosen career of saving lives or doing charity work...

What kind of nonsense logic is that?? You talking about tax? Do you know how much tax a person earning €20,000 per annum actually pays??

peter kern

RayCun wrote: »

better than the IAAF 2.17 standard or AAI 2.13 standard? When did he run it?

Sorry what i was refering too is the female Marathon olympic A standard for london was 15% behind world record and connor is certainly as close to the Brownlees in a olympic distance( yes its drafting on the bike etc etc but still I think its fair to say he is better than 2.36 Marathon for a female.Catriona Jenings for instance is certainly getting much faster since she started running seriously but so does Connor.

Krusty_Clown

peter kern wrote: »

Sorry what i was refering too is the female Marathon olympic A standard for london was 15% behind world record and connor is certainly as close to the Brownlees in a olympic distance( yes its drafting on the bike etc etc but still I think its fair to say he is better than 2.36 Marathon for a female.Catriona Jenings for instance is certainly getting much faster since she started running seriously but so does Connor.

Do they make funding decisions by comparison across sports and genders now?

In that case perhaps they should have given his funding to Fionnuala Britton, who could really do with a top-up (Those triathlon coaches don't come cheap!).

peter kern

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Do they make funding decisions by comparison across sports and genders now?

In that case perhaps they should have given his funding to Fionnuala Britton, who could really do with a top-up (Those triathlon coaches don't come cheap!).

SO krusty clown you dont think its important that athletes of very similar abilities and improvement get the same funding ?

As for your 2nd paragraph I could not agree or disagree with your statement thats something hard to define. To give it to the ones with chances to win medals or those with chances to make it to the Olympics. In an ideal world one would like to see enough money for both. Maybe some other cuts could be made to have more money available for the actual athletes rather than bureucracy in the system.

d4r3n

mloc123 wrote: »

I just think any funding they get should be a bonus....

Plenty of athletes out there that work and train, look at Mark Kenneally, who has his own physio practice.

Maybe I am a grouch today but... if you choose to do this as a career you know what to expect. It is the same with everyone, you choose our job and have a fair idea of the pay scale going in.. if you are not happy with it choose something else.

Sure he got €12,000 himself, same as Aileen reid

RayCun

peter kern wrote: »

SO krusty clown you dont think its important that athletes of very similar abilities and improvement get the same funding ?

If we're comparing across sport and gender, how competitive is female triathlon compared to male athletics? Why does Aileen Morrison get a higher grant than Mark Keneally or Ciaran O'Lionard?

sconhome

RayCun wrote: »

If we're comparing across sport and gender, how competitive is female triathlon compared to male athletics? Why does Aileen Morrison get a higher grant than Mark Keneally or Ciaran O'Lionard?

She's doing three sports. :P

RacoonQueen

d4r3n wrote: »

Sure he got €12,000 himself, same as Aileen reid

Aileen got 20,000...

Krusty_Clown

peter kern wrote: »

SO krusty clown you dont think its important that athletes of very similar abilities and improvement get the same funding ?

If you want to make comparisons you should do so within the sport. How does Connor compare to Aileen, Brian or Galvin? Does he deserve his funding more than any of those athletes?

I believe the way the system works (open to correction):
International body establishes criteria for entry into event on world stage (Athletics = IAAF)
National body has the opportunity to tighten the criteria (Athletics = AAI)

Athlete meets criteria, competes and is funded or
Athlete does not meet criteria and is not funded or
Athlete meets the criteria and is not funded (e.g. Maria McCambridge)

Which category does Connor fit into?

As has been mentioned a number of times on this thread, the system is not designed to reward potential (as potential does not always translate to results). It would be fantastic if the kitty was large enough to support funding those with potential, but alas that does not seem to be the case. So those with potential need to look to sponsorship, their local clubs, or their national body. It's particularly tough in a sport like triathlon, where technology plays a part, but if you're not happy, you should look to your national governing body and your international governing body.

peter kern wrote: »

Maybe some other cuts could be made to have more money available for the actual athletes rather than bureucracy in the system.

Absolutely, but don't hold your breath.

amphkingwest wrote:

She's doing three sports.

For a 1/3rd of the time.;) Better make way for the pentathletes!

Krusty_Clown

Ok, I see the qualification process is different for Olympic triathlon (places awarded to NOCs rather than individual athletes), but the principle is still much the same. Why didn't Connor get funding (while Aileen, Brian and Galvin did)?

peter kern

RayCun wrote: »

If we're comparing across sport and gender, how competitive is female triathlon compared to male athletics? Why does Aileen Morrison get a higher grant than Mark Keneally or Ciaran O'Lionard?

what a triathlete runs off the bike for 10 k is comparable to marathon speed ( Marthon runers could not swim and cycle as fast as triathletes ) A Brownlee run at 2.03 marathon pace at the olympics.
only few would argue that browlee has not the same athletic ability than mo farah or galen rupp who beat all the africans ) and is a 30 sec ahead of any other triathlete over 10 k in the world
http://www.triathlon.org/results/result/2012_itu_world_triathlon_madrid/7809
Based on this resut which is a very though and hot 10 k ailleen 4 and few seconds mins behind x 4. is about 16.30 min.
Aillen would be about 2.20ish female marathon which is worldclass and sub 2.10 male marathon running. ( lets not argue about every second, but it gives an good idea where she is and why she is classifyed as a world class athlete)


As for the guys that argue that pros that aim to be world class should work.
I think we can clearly see how much the level in Irish rugby has improved since the sport moved to full time pro at the highest level.
I hope the people that want the top irish athletes to work, are not those who every 4 years complain, that at the olympics Ireland hardly wins a medal.......

RayCun

peter kern wrote: »

what a triathlete runs off the bike for 10 k is comparable to marathon speed ... A Brownlee run at 2.03 marathon pace at the olympics...Aillen would be about 2.20ish female marathon which is worldclass and sub 2.10 male marathon running.

oh this is just silly.
if a Brownlee can run 2.03, let him do it.

peter kern

RayCun wrote: »

oh this is just silly.
if a Brownlee can run 2.03, let him do it.

I did not say that Alister would run 2.03. what i said is that they run the 10 k at world record marathon pace of the bike as they also have train to swim and bike.

what I said is a brownlee is most liklely the best triathlete every seen , a roger feder in tennis a heile gebreselassie in running an micheal phelps in swimming a usin bolt in running ( well that guy might even be a bit more talented than alister)
so the cream de la cream in sport and all the best in their game and that means in a way all those performace value very closely the same (within plus minus 0.5%) , so what i did for you is to find out how how we can compare Aileen M s performance to male marathon running which was your question.

thanks

RayCun

peter kern wrote: »

I did not say that Alister would run 2.03. what i said is that they run the 10 k at world record marathon pace of the bike as they also have train to swim and bike.

You didn't just say he ran the 10k at world record marathon pace, you said "what a triathlete runs off the bike for 10 k is comparable to marathon speed"
ie, his marathon speed is world record pace. But not even that extremely sketchy calculation suggests that Aileen Morrison could run 2.20 (which would put her in the all-time top 25, a couple of minutes inside the Irish record), so you have to say that er, if he can run 2.03, and she was this much slower than him in the run leg of a triathlon, she must be that much slower in a marathon therefore 2.20!
here pick another

peter kern

yes what they run off the bike is marathon pace ( of the very best kenayan runners).
but of course i did not even come close to suggest that they could run a marathon in in 2.03 with swim bike run training.
At the same time paul amy in his best times as triathlete has run a 1.03 half marathon. so one would assume really focusing on it would lead to faster race.
Craig motram used to be a triathlete and I believe has been an podium athlete over 5 k after maybe 5 years specializing soly on running ( i dodnt know the exact timing)

In the same way its no suprise that if a world class rower that wins gold medals and has a bit of a swim background needs less 4 than years to become a top Ironman.
You can use lance dopestrong it wasnt a suprise at all that he did well in 70.3 races after training for it for 2 years given his tri background)
A top speediceskater can win world title in ice skating and then 2 years later win a world champ title in track cycling.

paul o connell the rugby player was an 800 m swim junior nat champ.
I think you get the picture and this is exactly the reason why tri UK a few years ago opened a program for very succesfull 1 dicipline people-mostly runner- to get them into tri ( with good funding on no tri results) it s is a great oppurtunity if you have a top runner that has a bit of a swim background.

Thats really all I can do to try explain how we can compare top performace accross the board.

RayCun

There's a big gap between saying "very good at one endurance sport -> could be very good at another" and "very good triathlete -> could be a world record marathoner" (or a few minutes off the world record, for Aileen Morrison)

I've no idea what time AM could run a marathon in, but she's not getting her grant for her times, it's for her finishing positions. In a sport that does not have near as many competitors as male marathon or track running.

Anyway, Krusty's point is better. Do you think Connor is more deserving of funding than the triathletes who got funds? Or do you think there should be lots more funding available for triathletes at the expense of other sports?

catweazle

I was watching The Abu Dhabi triathlon on Eurosport last week and the Butterfields were interviewed and said it was very much a lifestyle choice for them. They acknowledged that only guys like the Brownlees and Gomez were ever going to make serious money from triathlon.

There is a massive difference in earnings between being top 100 in golf or tennis then there is in Triathlon. Surely there is more incentive for the sports council to fund a promising golfer or tennis player who has a chance of becoming self financing rather than Conor who in fairness is top class in Irish circles but is not near world class levels. I would rather see the money go into the Junior program - someone like Con Doherty could be world class if they can keep him in triathlon.

There are some major glitches in the system, not only did Kenny Egan get full funding last year when he wasn't even Oympics bound, he gets 12k this year even though he is retired, the same as Derval O Rourke :eek:

On another note - great result for Keane in Mooloolaba

peter kern

RayCun wrote: »

There's a big gap between saying "very good at one endurance sport -> could be very good at another" and "very good triathlete -> could be a world record marathoner" (or a few minutes off the world record, for Aileen Morrison)

I've no idea what time AM could run a marathon in, but she's not getting her grant for her times, it's for her finishing positions.
Anyway, Krusty's point is better. Do you think Connor is more deserving of funding than the triathletes who got funds? Or do you think there should be lots more funding available for triathletes at the expense of other sports?

Its ok.

your questions.
A As I already said less bureucracy more money to ahletes ( not crazy money to athletes either ) NOT taking away from other sports.

B I am sure an improving Connor ( swimming and running about 6%slower than A.B )and my run example are both at least equally deserving. I am sure both will improve nicely over the next few years.