Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

ISC Funding announced

Comments

  • #2
    OOnegative
    Registered Users Posts: 4,834 ✭✭✭OOnegative


    Read that yesterday, how come Mick Clohisey/Kevin Seaward/Stephen Scullion aren’t getting funding yet Pollock is? And saying Pollock has finished higher in Major Championships is just a cop out. If we want the other 3 to keep improving like they have surely they deserve funding to. Joke really.


  • #3
    Testosterscone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,414 ✭✭✭Testosterscone


    OOnegative wrote: »
    Read that yesterday, how come Mick Clohisey/Kevin Seaward/Stephen Scullion aren’t getting funding yet Pollock is? And saying Pollock has finished higher in Major Championships is just a cop out. If we want the other 3 to keep improving like they have surely they deserve funding to. Joke really.

    Pollock's 14th From Cardiff (WC) and 17th from Amsterdam (EC) look to have been the two results which separate them.

    Looking at that list a lot of the AAI athletes seem to have been allocated this based of 2016 performances. Similarly Kerry O Flaherty was omitted while the other two SC runners from Rio were included despite all three having sub par years last year (KOH was actually the only one who competed regularly trying to regain fitness while other two had injuries)

    Definitely flawed approach rewarding results as opposed to funding development and nurturing potential.


  • #4
    OOnegative
    Registered Users Posts: 4,834 ✭✭✭OOnegative


    Testosterscone wrote: »
    Pollock's 14th From Cardiff (WC) and 17th from Amsterdam (EC) look to have been the two results which separate them.

    Looking at that list a lot of the AAI athletes seem to have been allocated this based of 2016 performances.

    Definitely flawed approach rewarding results as opposed to funding development and nurturing potential.

    Seems like it, not saying Pollock isn’t deserving of the funding but Scullion PB’d at the Houston Half this year and The Claw PB’d in Seville(I think) both still showing signs of big improvement. Both deserve funding to help keep that progression going one would have thought.


  • #5
    Testosterscone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,414 ✭✭✭Testosterscone


    OOnegative wrote: »
    Seems like it, not saying Pollock isn’t deserving of the funding but Scullion PB’d at the Houston Half this year and The Claw PB’d in Seville(I think) both still showing signs of big improvement. Both deserve funding to help keep that progression going one would have thought.

    I would imagine that this years results wouldn't come into play as these are final announcements so reviews would have been much earlier.

    To be honest there are plenty of athletes you can make a case for but I think that will always be a point of contention, the bigger issue is how these grants are approached.

    - Mick was 22nd at World Championships last year
    - Paul Robinson ran 3.38 last year on his return to fitness
    - Phil Healy's recent 400m form
    - Amy Foster's Commonwealth running 3 CWG qualifiers last year


  • #6
    pconn062
    Registered Users Posts: 5,370 ✭✭✭pconn062


    Ciara Mageann doing well considering she has been a little off the boil since the 2016 Euros. I still think she has the potential to pull something out of the bag when training clicks for her.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Testosterscone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,414 ✭✭✭Testosterscone


    pconn062 wrote: »
    Ciara Mageann doing well considering she has been a little off the boil since the 2016 Euros. I still think she has the potential to pull something out of the bag when training clicks for her.

    Mageean, Treacy, Finn, English and McMahon wouldn't get it based off last years performances. Not that I think that is a bad thing often funded is needed most when athletes are struggling but then it becomes bemusing when it looks apparent that this list is results driven from 2016 for the most part.


  • #8
    Chivito550
    Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    Right so we have McCormack and Mageean on 20k listed as World Class, while Gregan and English are on 16k (first time I’ve seen anyone get this figure) despite also being World Class. If this was the other way round there’d be cries of sexism.

    What has McCormack done to deserve more than Gregan and English? She was completely anonymous last year and she’s only going one direction sadly. It seems like this system rewards past success rather than potential.

    Mageean and English both had a poor 2017. Why is Mageean getting more than him? They are both Euro bronze medalists. Mageean’s was softer as it came in Olympic year in a championship which Muir and Weightman skipped to prepare for Rio. In terms of Rio, both English and Mageean made the semi finals. Both went out in the heats in London.

    Gregan is the most in form of the 4 athletes in question it must be acknowledged.


  • #9
    Chivito550
    Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    Phil Healy is the biggest young talent at senior level right now. The fact she is on nothing highlights how flawed the system is.


  • #10
    Testosterscone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,414 ✭✭✭Testosterscone


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    Right so we have McCormack and Mageean on 20k listed as World Class, while Gregan and English are on 16k (first time I’ve seen anyone get this figure) despite also being World Class. If this was the other way round there’d be cries of sexism.

    Wonder if this was a supplement from the Women in sport investment?


  • #11
    KielyUnusual
    Registered Users Posts: 1,900 ✭✭✭KielyUnusual


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    Right so we have McCormack and Mageean on 20k listed as World Class, while Gregan and English are on 16k (first time I’ve seen anyone get this figure) despite also being World Class. If this was the other way round there’d be cries of sexism.

    What has McCormack done to deserve more than Gregan and English? She was completely anonymous last year and she’s only going one direction sadly. It seems like this system rewards past success rather than potential.

    Mageean and English both had a poor 2017. Why is Mageean getting more than him? They are both Euro bronze medalists. Mageean’s was softer as it came in Olympic year in a championship which Muir and Weightman skipped to prepare for Rio. In terms of Rio, both English and Mageean made the semi finals. Both went out in the heats in London.

    Gregan is the most in form of the 4 athletes in question it must be acknowledged.

    I think that's the biggest issue with this funding. Its all based on past success. OK, you've already done really well, here's a sum of money. You have potential to be world class, well come back to me in two or three years when you have proven it. I think there needs to be some element of funding there that promotes real potential and performance at under age championships.

    As an aside, who the hell are all those cyclists getting funded?


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Chivito550
    Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    The obsession with medals is pushing this. No disrespect but anybody thinking a Paralympic medal equates to anything remotely similar to an Olympic medal is deluded. Michael McKillop and Jason Smyth bagging a nice 40k, while Thomas Barr literally had to make an Olympic final and come 4th to get the same.


  • #13
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    The trouble is, for every athlete reaching a final or a semi final, there are five or six who have potential. And the ones that have been funded? I don't think they are rolling in money as a result of their athletic success. It's not like they have reached a point where they would be grand without the funding.


  • #14
    average_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 12,844 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    Right so we have McCormack and Mageean on 20k listed as World Class, while Gregan and English are on 16k (first time I’ve seen anyone get this figure) despite also being World Class. If this was the other way round there’d be cries of sexism.

    What has McCormack done to deserve more than Gregan and English? She was completely anonymous last year and she’s only going one direction sadly. It seems like this system rewards past success rather than potential.

    Mageean and English both had a poor 2017. Why is Mageean getting more than him? They are both Euro bronze medalists. Mageean’s was softer as it came in Olympic year in a championship which Muir and Weightman skipped to prepare for Rio. In terms of Rio, both English and Mageean made the semi finals. Both went out in the heats in London.

    Gregan is the most in form of the 4 athletes in question it must be acknowledged.


    I actually agree with you here. Was about to post it and saw yours. Both women were pretty poor last year, Mageean has been poor for awhile now.


Advertisement