ISC 2013 Sports Grants

ChickenTikka

Announced today:-

http://www.irishsportscouncil.ie/Media/Latest_News/2013/Minister_Ring_Announces_Irish_Sports_Council_Funding_Plans_For_2013.html

Seems harsh that Derval only gets €12k for a 4th place finish in the Euros. I guess its partly based on age. But then that's sort of contradicted by Brian Gregan only getting 12k also.

Anyone know is there a published written set of criteria for the grants so one has a chance of understanding the rationale?

ecoli

ChickenTikka wrote: »

Announced today:-

http://www.irishsportscouncil.ie/Media/Latest_News/2013/Minister_Ring_Announces_Irish_Sports_Council_Funding_Plans_For_2013.html

Seems harsh that Derval only gets €12k for a 4th place finish in the Euros. I guess its partly based on age. But then that's sort of contradicted by Brian Gregan only getting 12k also.

Anyone know is there a published written set of criteria for the grants so one has a chance of understanding the rationale?

http://hp.athleticsireland.ie/images/carding/2013/13_ISCAAI_PerformanceCriteria.pdf

walshb

I would think that Derval's age and the fact that she is sliding, barely, will impact those dishing out 40k per year.

ChickenTikka

ecoli wrote: »

http://hp.athleticsireland.ie/images/carding/2013/13_ISCAAI_PerformanceCriteria.pdf

Thanks, looks like we got more into the higher grant categories than a strict implementation of the criteria would allow. So that's good. But maybe not so good that subjective opinion is allowed for some and not for others.

The indo http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sevens-heaven-for-girls-in-green-but-derval-hit-by-grant-cuts-29146922.html says "Athletes are now strictly funded on the basis of their performances in the previous year only."

But there seems to still be a degree of subjectivity for some and not for others. Not knocking the scope for that but it would be good for the athletes to know the full criteria.

rom

Britton and O’Rourke grant should have been swapped. I hope she goes out and makes a statement in the world XC this weekend that she should be getting full grant like mad len.

ecoli

rom wrote: »

Britton and O’Rourke grant should have been swapped. I hope she goes out and makes a statement in the world XC this weekend that she should be getting full grant like mad len.

Britton and O Lionaird on the same? which is also more than Derval??

tunguska

ecoli wrote: »

Britton and O Lionaird on the same? which is also more than Derval??

Very harsh on deval for sure. Unbelievable that Britton isnt on the same amount that Robbie heffernan is on. And Catriona Jennings on the same grant that Mark Keneally and Linda byrne are on even though she came last in London?????

rom

ecoli wrote: »

Britton and O Lionaird on the same? which is also more than Derval??

Ah I got me numbers messed up.

Last year http://corkrunning.blogspot.ie/2012/02/irish-sports-council-announce-athlete.html

I think it's a travesty. Where are the poor GAA players money ?

RayCun

tunguska wrote: »

Very harsh on deval for sure. Unbelievable that Britton isnt on the same amount that Robbie heffernan is on. And Catriona Jennings on the same grant that Mark Keneally and Linda byrne are on even though she came last in London?????

but at least the process is transparent. Jennings, Keneally, and Byrne all got the world championship A standard ( I presume that's what the 'international standard' is from?), and none of them qualified in the 'world class' standard.

rom wrote: »

I think it's a travesty. Where are the poor GAA players money ?

They get the separate "good lad" grant, which is about half the total given in the carding scheme, to all other athletes combined.

ecoli

rom wrote: »

I think it's a travesty. Where are the poor GAA players money ?

Aside from the 2.5 million allocated you also have the grants for the;

GAA Handball association
and
Ladies Gaelic Football association

adding an extra 480,000.

I think they will manage:D

ecoli

tunguska wrote: »

Very harsh on deval for sure. Unbelievable that Britton isnt on the same amount that Robbie heffernan is on. And Catriona Jennings on the same grant that Mark Keneally and Linda byrne are on even though she came last in London?????

While I agree we can debate these things I think a basic set of criteria after which there is a level of subjectivity at least means that does who are deserving of grants get something as opposed to someone hitting the targets and then being given feck all. Like it or not Jennings performance in the eyes of the criteria was the same as any of the other marathon runners (also rans) that is not taking away from the performances. Personally I feel Linda should be on more given her Euro XC exploits she didnt meet the criteria to warrant this I suppose

All in all I think Athletics did better than you would hope out of it though there is always gonna be a debate over who got what

thirstywork2

Kenny Egan deserves his considering her has retired lol

Also Colin Griffin ain't too happy about it either.`

Thanks for all the messages of support. This matter has been going on since Dec 3rd when I got an email from AAI Performance Director which said that AAI would not endorse my application to the ISC. He then ignored all emails requesting an appeal or independent review until the Jan 4th deadline had passed. Even a request to AAI CEO to facilitate a fair hearing was ignored. I gave them every chance to resolve this in a dignified and peaceful manner through internal channels. I cannot allow the underhanded and corrupt manner in which things are done be kept quiet any more. This is not what sport is about and some people should be ashamed of themselves.

http://www.colingriffin.ie/statement-on-2013-carding-announcement/

TFBubendorfer

tunguska wrote: »

And Catriona Jennings on the same grant that Mark Keneally and Linda byrne are on even though she came last in London?????

Catriona Jennings should get punished for toughing it out in London despite an injury?

tunguska

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Catriona Jennings should get punished for toughing it out in London despite an injury?

She should never have been running with an injury. She should've held her hand up and said, Im injured, give the place to someone else. Even before the olympics though, considering consistancy of results in races, shes not in the same league as those who are recieving the same level of grant. Like Linda byrne or even Ava hutchinson. I'd rather see Mary cullen get 12k, even though shes only back in action recently. She's on the team for World XC this weekend and you can bet your life she'll run a stormer. Put mary cullen up against catriona jennings and its a no contest.
Actually Maria McCambridge should have been selected ahead of Catriona jennings in the first place.

rom

tunguska wrote: »

She should never have been running with an injury. She should've held her hand up and said, Im injured, give the place to someone else. Even before the olympics though, considering consistancy of results in races, shes not in the same league as those who are recieving the same level of grant. Like Linda byrne or even Ava hutchinson. I'd rather see Mary cullen get 12k, even though shes only back in action recently. She's on the team for World XC this weekend and you can bet your life she'll run a stormer. Put mary cullen up against catriona jennings and its a no contest.
Actually Maria McCambridge should have been selected ahead of Catriona jennings in the first place.

I believe that I made a similar point a while back and someone said she was passed fit but it was a repeat injury PF that came up rather than her starting the race injured. I would go with that seeing that she was 2 mins behind the other irish runners at 15k but it went downhill from there. 1st half in 1:23 so it was just going sub par run to the 2nd half in 2 hrs. I don't think she could run 1:23 if she was injured for the first half even.

RayCun

But she's not getting the grant for her performance at the Olympics, she's getting the grant for her performance when she qualified for the Olympics, right?

TFBubendorfer

RayCun wrote: »

But she's not getting the grant for her performance at the Olympics, she's getting the grant for her performance when she qualified for the Olympics, right?

Of course, and my point is that she should not have the grant revoked just because she got injured at the wrong time.

I don't want to re-open the debate on who should have been sent (incidentally, Maria McCambridge would have been my choice as well), and I do believe that she thought she would be okay as she stood on the London start line.

The same argument could have been made for the American ladies where Desiree Davila had to pull out injured early into the race and the American men with Abdirahman doing likewise, and I'm sure they were not the only ones either; if you're selected for the Olympics you'll want to run, and maybe they were all kidding themselves when they started despite not being fully fit, but I won't blame anyone for that choice.

I sure would not argue that it should lead to them not receiving any more funding.

RayCun

I agree, I was replying to tunguska.
Should have quoted

dna_leri

tunguska wrote: »

She should never have been running with an injury. She should've held her hand up and said, Im injured, give the place to someone else. Even before the olympics though, considering consistancy of results in races, shes not in the same league as those who are recieving the same level of grant. Like Linda byrne or even Ava hutchinson. I'd rather see Mary cullen get 12k, even though shes only back in action recently. She's on the team for World XC this weekend and you can bet your life she'll run a stormer. Put mary cullen up against catriona jennings and its a no contest.
Actually Maria McCambridge should have been selected ahead of Catriona jennings in the first place.

What they really should do is raise the marathon standard for qualifying for major championships so they don't have to give relatively high grants to all who qualify. Oh wait ... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056863886
Well that's one way of cutting the costs next year.

donegal11

Just saw the grant announcements, of the 18 that got full grants 10 are Paralympians and 5 are boxers. To get a medal in the paralympics which is a bases for the funding is far easier due to the nature of the games (smaller pool of competitors and many different categories). I don't mean to belittle their achievement but would Jason Smyth based on this able bodied performances be on 40K?. The same could be said for boxing to a lesser extent with all the different weight divisions. Then only one of our athletics team (Robert Heffernan) gets maximum funding. Is this situation fair?

rom

donegal11 wrote: »

Just saw the grant announcements, of the 18 that got full grants 10 are Paralympians and 5 are boxers. To get a medal in the paralympics which is a bases for the funding is far easier due to the nature of the games (smaller pool of competitors and many different categories). I don't mean to belittle their achievement but would Jason Smyth based on this able bodied performances be on 40K?. The same could be said for boxing to a lesser extent with all the different weight divisions. Then only one of our athletics team (Robert Heffernan) gets maximum funding. Is this situation fair?

The same could be said comparing Robert Heffernan or the boxers to the runners. But what are they to do. The simple fact remains that if they get a medal in sport x then it's the same medal that they get if they do sport y but just in a less mainstream sport.

walshb

donegal11 wrote: »

The same could be said for boxing to a lesser extent with all the different weight divisions. Then only one of our athletics team (Robert Heffernan) gets maximum funding. Is this situation fair?

The same cannot be said for boxing. Look at all the different disciplines in track and field. Not all the boxers are getting the max. Only the ones with the real potential to medal.

RayCun

and the guy who retired?

walshb

RayCun wrote: »

and the guy who retired?

What about him? Seems a separate issue.

If someone retires officially and is not going to compete and the ISC still award a grant then questions about the ISC need asking.

Ar Strae

So Podium is: "Medallist in the World Championships or Olympic Games"

Rob Heffernan is down as Podium but his best finish last year (and a SAVAGE race in fairness to him!) as far as I can see on Wiki was 4th in the Olympics.

How come he's ranked as Podium? Surely Wiki doesn't lie!? :rolleyes:

Ro

Oregano_State

Ar Strae wrote: »

So Podium is: "Medallist in the World Championships or Olympic Games"

Rob Heffernan is down as Podium but his best finish last year (and a SAVAGE race in fairness to him!) as far as I can see on Wiki was 4th in the Olympics.

How come he's ranked as Podium? Surely Wiki doesn't lie!? :rolleyes:

Ro

I think it's ability to get on the podium. He's been a consistent top ten performer , and deserves it imo.

Gregan seems to be getting a raw deal considering his age and ability. Maybe I'm a little biased though.

Ar Strae

Oregano_State wrote: »

I think it's ability to get on the podium. He's been a consistent top ten performer , and deserves it imo.

Gregan seems to be getting a raw deal considering his age and ability. Maybe I'm a little biased though.

Yeah I think Rob deserves it all right..but did they not think Fionnuala deserved it too? Individual and Team Gold in the European Cross Country last year, Bronze in the European Indoors 3000m earlier this year? Before last year Rob's best result was 4th in the Europeans.

Ro

dna_leri

The problem is they laid out clear criteria in the document and then allowed some subjectivity into the final decision. Everyone can see that makes sense in the case of Rob (he may well end up with the bronze medal at some time in the future anyway) but then you get people saying why was Fionnuala not bumped up to Podium also.

There is nothing in the document about consistency, or potential. It's supposed to be based on performance in 2012, plain and simple. Going by that Rob would only have got "World Class" and Colin Griffin would have got "international" - instead Griffin got nothing despite meeting the standard. By introducing subjectivity I suspect they have opened themselves up to potential legal action, especially by an athlete who feels hard done by.

It looks like some form of horse-trading went on, where one athlete got a bit more than the criteria laid out, while another in the same event got less, we can only guess why.

Krusty_Clown

It's also tough on Maria McCambridge and any other athlete who made the grade (often bettering other's achievements), but just didn't get selected. You run better qualifying times, yet they get a grant and you don't. Very harsh.

Pisco Sour

dna_leri wrote: »

The problem is they laid out clear criteria in the document and then allowed some subjectivity into the final decision. Everyone can see that makes sense in the case of Rob (he may well end up with the bronze medal at some time in the future anyway) but then you get people saying why was Fionnuala not bumped up to Podium also.

There is nothing in the document about consistency, or potential. It's supposed to be based on performance in 2012, plain and simple. Going by that Rob would only have got "World Class" and Colin Griffin would have got "international" - instead Griffin got nothing despite meeting the standard. By introducing subjectivity I suspect they have opened themselves up to potential legal action, especially by an athlete who feels hard done by.

It looks like some form of horse-trading went on, where one athlete got a bit more than the criteria laid out, while another in the same event got less, we can only guess why.

It surely should be done based on potential though. Sort of defeats the purpose of "Podium class" funding if the athlete has to go and win the medal first before getting the funding.

Rightly or wrongly Britton's funding is based on her potential to win a medal at World Outdoors or Olympics at 5000m and 10000m, which is a 500-1 shot being realistic.

You could also argue the unfairness of this given the differing depth of various events in track and field. Hard to keep everyone happy I guess.

dna_leri

Pisco Sour wrote: »

It surely should be done based on potential though. Sort of defeats the purpose of "Podium class" funding if the athlete has to go and win the medal first before getting the funding.

Rightly or wrongly Britton's funding is based on her potential to win a medal at World Outdoors or Olympics at 5000m and 10000m, which is a 500-1 shot being realistic.

You could also argue the unfairness of this given the differing depth of various events in track and field. Hard to keep everyone happy I guess.

I agree the criteria should take consistency (performance over the last 4 years) and particularly potential (how do you measure that?) into account. That means upcoming athletes get more and athletes who are past their peak get less.

The problem is that using criteria such as consistency and potential is subjective and the lack of transparency gives rise to claims of favouritism and unfairness.

However I think there should still be a "podium class" for those athletes who have achieved at the highest level and can go on to do so again in the next Olympic cycle. It's right to differentiate between the very best and the very good. For example if RH had got an Olympic medal, he would have got a lot more publicity and media attention, which is good for the sport and should be rewarded.

ChickenTikka

Hard-hitting article in the papers at the weekend on this:-

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/eamonn-sweeney-grants-scheme-lacking-copon-and-consistency-29150394.html

I have to agree with much of his sentiment. Re achievement vs potential, I guess the point is that the criteria are based on past achievements and hence the disquiet as the criteria are not being transparently followed.

I think the whole process has to be looked at to strike a balance between past achievements and future potential. There has to be some way of clearly documenting a set of criteria to cover both. It's unfair to think that an elite athlete should invest 7 or 8 years of their 20s in the sport and can be dropped without a thought once they are past their sell-by date while at the same time, there is a value-for-money argument to be made not to fund athletes who are not going to perform at the same level in the years ahead.

Maybe we need the same concept of ministerial pensions for a hard-working athlete who has been consistently in the high performance rankings for many years - they almost certainly have sacrificed salary gains that they could have made in a regular job throughout their twenties - in many cases for a paltry figure that is less than what they'd get if sitting on their backsides and claiming the dole. Incidentally, could someone on the scheme claim the dole or are they expected to be unavailable for work if on the scheme.

So maybe the 'package' should include for every year you meet the elite targets, you will get x% of that on a declining scale for the following 3 years. I'm sure some highly paid consultant would have the smarts to advise the sports council on such a scheme.

RayCun

I don't think you should use ministerial pensions as your example if you want to persuade people it would be a good idea:D
But I don't think it is a good idea - money should go to athletes at their peak, to maybe pay for that extra little bit of support that would push them over the line, or when they're starting out, but not on retirement.
And maybe the best way to pay for potential is not by having someone guess which athletes are going to succeed in a few years and giving them grants, but by putting the money into facilities/coaching/support that will be used by all up and coming athletes.