Controversial Pre selection

[doubletrouble]

Whilst the rules might be interpreted in such a way to support this decision, it seems to me to be a big stretch and beyond the spirit of what would have been intended when the rule was written. What a very disappointing legacy to a fantastic year of C2 achievement !!

[Essex Boy]

Anyone know what the current state of play is? Has there been any progress in resolving this ridiculous decision? A lot of credibility has already been lost.

[jjayes]

Anyone know what the current state of play is? Has there been any progress in resolving this ridiculous decision? A lot of credibility has already been lost.

Was there any credibility before this?

Did I miss something?

[jjayes]

I have communication from quite a few paddlers and coaches who are directly effected by this issue and who are either training/coaching paddlers for selection and their view is that the decision to select on the basis of a medal gained in a different class is wrong.

The problem is that they are either directly employed by World Class or receive their training grants from them, so they feel they can not say what they really feel openly, as many feel it could impair their future career within the sport.

There is only one high profile MK1 who is now retired who is prepared to openly express his opinion in public.

It is also interesting to note that the other two people on the committee making this decision, after the slalom committee chairperson not taking part due to personal interest, are also in the employment of World Class and answerable to the performance director, who is the other member of the committee and the head of World Class Canoeing.

[PeterC]

The International Panel has apparently considered the comments it received after this decision and has upheld its position in a further statement which can be found at the bottom left of the web site.

I have already had astonished comments in response to this and am personally also astonished that this has been upheld.

I did personally express my concerns to the international panel after the publication, along with others and cannot personally support this. Perhaps this needs to be further challenged.

[Sven]

This probably will not come as any surprise to anyone.

A couple of points:

The BCU need to remember the role its volunteer members play in the functioning of the BCU - ergo without them they could not run races and they would do well to listen to the widespread concerns of a large proportion of the community.

I actually feel very sorry for the 2 athletes involved - the pressure is now very firmly on them to produce medals over the next season in their respective individual classes as well as in C2. The backlash if they don't it doesn't really bear thinking about - I wonder if the International panel took that into consideration?

To those K1 and C1 men who will be denied an opportunity to be on the GB team take heart now is your time to demonstrate once and for all that the International Panel does not know best.

And to the powers that be in the BCU echelons caution is needed. This decision can also be read to smack of gender preference (ie 2 male athletes of the Olympic team have been given an automatic place on the GB team while the female athlete on the Olympic team has not). One member of the BCU slalom committee is on record in this forum as saying he did not want to loose places to C1W racing (read that any way you want). There is an excellent article by Jessica Fox in today's The Australian newspaper about sexism in the sport. This battle has been fought in many higher profile sports than paddling and those governing bodies have been found wanting when they came under scrutiny.

Finally the BCU IS a member lead organization - that should not be a throw away sound bite. BUT in order for that to happen people have to be prepared to put themselves forward to challenge some of those occupying positions that can influence policy. Members have to LEAD - really hard in today's busy lifestyle and especially when so many already give freely of their time to the sport in other capacities - unless we do something we get what we allow to happen.

[jjayes]

We now have a major dispute within the sport that needs sorting out for the future of the slalom canoeing within the UK. I suggest that sensible way forward with this matter is it goes to a sport dispute resolution process, Sport Resolutions is the independent not-for-profit dispute resolution service for sport in the United Kingdom. They offer hearing and meeting rooms for hire, access to a prestigious panel of sport specialist arbitrators and mediators and a full range of dispute resolution services.

http://www.sportresolutions.co.uk/

020 7036 1966

resolve@sportresolutions.co.uk

Can I please have feedback on if there is the will from anybody to take this on or willing to support such a process.

This mediation process was successful back in 2000 when a similar attempt to push through a very controversial pre selection for the Sydney Olympics was made and the selection committee and World Class was forced to withdraw it.

It is a shame that this matter is fast becoming the major legacy's from the Olympics, but if the matter can be brought to a right and just conclusion I feel the sport will be a lot better for it. If the matter is left to stand I would be glad that I am not one of the paddlers whose future is in the hands of the current selection panel, as athletes will be living with a very uncertain future that their performance will do little if anything to influence their selection for GB teams. If this farce of pre selection is no put right then anything can be pushed through in the future.

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely

I firmly believe that selection for any teams should be on the basis of performance (in the appropriate class in this case) and not decided by committees.

jjayes@hotmail.com 07977 536589.

[John Sturgess]

Jim

I entirely agree

However, to be pedantic - Acton wrote 'power tends to corrupt: absolute power corrupts absolutely'

[Glasnost]

Whilst I'm impressed at the laudable attempt to resolve the issue via a democratic vote, it can hardly be considered a fair vote when a) 50% of the people who made the original decision are free to support that same decision, and b) 75% of the people eligible to vote are employed by GB Canoeing - the head of which also sits on the panel.

In terms of impartiality and fairness you would struggle to design a more corrupt 'appeal' process!

Perhaps the biggest deception though, albeit one which is widely known amongst the paddlers at the top, is the fact that D&R have little, if any intention of racing and training seriously in the C2 next year. Their focus, as they themselves declared prior to this decision being announced, was to concentrate upon their performance in their respective individual classes. In reality, therefore, this decision is nothing more than a thinly veiled thank you from GB Canoeing's Performance Director to two athletes who, having helped GB Canoeing achieve their medal target, now wish to revert back to their original classes with a helping hand and a pat on the back.

It's a sad fact that ultimately GB Canoeing and the International Panel are effectively one and the same. They're not answerable to anybody (unless the medals stop rolling in), and in addition, so long as the paddlers who are most affected by these decisions remain members of GB Canoeing any voice of dissention is also effectively stifled. Furthermore, the BCU Slalom Committee has no teeth, and moreover no longer has any remit with regards to team selection / policy.

Whilst I was unable to attend the ACM, it would be interesting to discover whether the pre-selection matter was discussed bearing in mind GB Canoeing had already held their meeting, and additionally, chose to delay the announcement until after the ACM - a case of not wanting to be in a postion where they would be held to account I wonder?

Given some 1800 people have viewed these posts it would be interesting to hear a few more views. This is our sport at the end of the day and I would urge all people who have a view on the matter to speak out or contact JJ. It could, afterall, one day be your son's or daughter's sporting career that is effectively being compromised by a panel that is supposed to be fair and objective yet in reality is anything but!

[PeterC]

The Pre selection issue was not discussed formally at the ACM. The international panel decision was not known to the BCU slalom committee at the time although some members may have had some knowledge. It was not shared with us at the slalom committee meeting on the Sunday. For most of us at least it came as a surprise yesterday.

In defence of Canadian Paddler he is not anti C1W at all and was simply expressing a view that he did not wish to see C2 abandoned in favour of C1W. His post gives the background to the limitation of athlete numbers we suffer under in canoe slalom.

[Canadian Paddler]

Been out of the country so no responses posted.

1) Preselection was not discussed at the ACM, it was not on the Agenda, and few were aware of the reviewed decisions. I certainly was not. Minutes of the ACM have been circulated so will be available as soon as Nick is available to publish them. PM/email me if you want an individual pdf sent.

2) C1W is coming on leaps and bounds. I would LOVE to see it in Rio. I just do not want to lose C2 form the program. Mainly because I paddle C2 and find it exciting to watch. Despite the signature, International C1W is above the standard I ever got to in C1 (no laughing in the cheap seats I know that I was only ever almost a national athlete, never international in slalom)

3) Nirvana is to get enough athlete places (Augsburg type levels) to have all classes represented and at realistic levels.

4) I support the ICF stated aim to have equal gender medals. I have no influence or knowledge of how they are going about it, but found their posting on C1W in Rio not being ruled out or in until the athlete number are confirmed.

5) The Slalom Committee does indeed have no remit in selection other than for the chair to chair the international panel, and no teeth to exceed its remit.

6) Another option is the Court for Arbitration in Sport, but that is if you want to go to court but that is in Switzerland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_A ... _for_Sport, this may be expensive but does seem to make ICF pay attention

FOR the sake of clarification and openness Canadian Paddler represents the PERSONAL views of Colin Woodgate, and does not represent the views of any committee o body he is associated with, sits on or holds office in.

[John Sturgess]

Howevr Colin does represent the accumulated wisdom of the ages - for us youngsters he is a standing argument for gerontocracy

[Sven]

which demonstrates a total non understanding of or connection with generation Y .

[HaRVey]

Ok so alot of people have raised their concern about

1 - the interpretation of the 2012 selection policy regards GBR Team pre selection 2013.
The crux being Dave and Rich have been selected for a class in which they did not medal.
- this seems against the intended spirit of the policy, but to stress this a little further
this would infer Tim and Ettine could succesfully receive preselection for K1M or C1M, depending on their whim when they filled in the form.
- in future with gender equality obviously being something that GB as a LEAD nation take seriously, would the C1W and K1W get the same luxury. If mallory or Kimberley win a C1W medal do they automatically make the team in both the following year?

2 - the international panel is not comprised of an appropriate group of individuals.
It is not the integrity of the individual's that should be in question, but because general opinion/common sense decides these decisions are made which appear to have a bias, questions are obviously raised about the individual panel members motives.
(For Information: Every school in the UK has a board of governors, this consists of 1head teacher, 1staff representative, and ~6-10 non-teaching board members. Thus decisions on pay, conditions, workload, facilities, services, can all be made; based on the advice of the government, and information from the school faculty/Admin leaders)
These governors are voted into position by members of the institutions they represent, thus they are held accountable by the individual's within that organisation.

It appears somewhat strange then that we have an International Panel which makes equally vital decisions for the individual's within the sport, that is comprised almost entirely of people that have not been voted for by a majority. Infact with no disrespect intended, I was unaware I had ever voted for Anne Hounslow to be Chair Person, and probably inreality I still have not. And Interestingly regardless of how good or badly she does her job, i have no power to appose her decision to stand again as chairperson should I decide I need too, (i actually feel in the Main Anne does a very good job for our sport) but the point being the first I know of this decision or sny opportunity to counter it is after it is decided and is in her own chair persons report.
Not to single out one person on the Panel, John Anderson is the head of GB Canoeing, they are yet to recieve their funding allotment but the cost of athletes is a very real reason to try to limit or control the number of people that they must support for the following year. Thus there is a possible bias to the selection process at every level.
Andy Maddock has a similarly high role with in GB Canoeing, he is equally trying to hang medals around necks. Inorder to maintain UK Sport funding, they must have identified individuals and supported them before they win, to justify GB Canoeings role. Thus there is a bias as he tries to maintain the number of GB Canoeing athletes in GBR Team places.
Jurg Gotz has not been well, and not voted in this second round of decision making, but as Head Coach at GB Canoeing and someone who's pay is assumably also performance linked, and who will have strongly encouraged doubling up before the Olympics and afterwards, his Athletes are GB Canoeing Athletes, thus there is a bias to reward athletes who are successful for him in his role and position within GB Canoeing.

In my opinion this does not bring into question their integrity as people or individuals, but simply their roles within the sport cannot put them in an appropriate position to make decisions without bias. Regardless of the outcome, it can be interpreted that they made one decision because they were biased, or they made the opposite decision because they didn't want to appear biased. Thus we have an inappropriate group of people that comprise the International Panel.

I would like to point out there is a paddler rep, who is nominated to represent the paddlers, but he/she has NO vote under normal circumstances.

Solution: GB Canoeing currently write the selection policy, amazingly this year it was put out for serious review, excellent step forward. But the writer of policy should have NO voting rights else it leads to the possibility of leaving in loop holes, caveats, or rewording the policy after consultation, which is happening I'm sure as we speak to the 2013 policy. What should happen is the person who rights the policy, be an advisor in the process.

GB Canoeing should also provide an advisor for the process. Someone who represents the athletes they would like the international panel to consider. They can put forward however strong or weak case they want, but their comments are taken into consideration by the international panel when the IP make decisions.

Now on to the IP, whom should this consist of...
The paddler rep, who represents all paddlers both in GB and outside of it.
The chair of the slalom committee (in most cases this seems an appropriate person, though I still refer to my comments above) next the chair/head coach of the SCA, the chair/head coach of the WCA and lastly the chair/head coach of ECSC. These 5 people/organisations all represent the individuals from across the UK, they therefore hold GB canoeing to account for the Policy, and athletes selection. it may be appropriate to also include two further non-sport related proffesionals (perhaps a suitable UK sport representative or EIS or BOA or SIS, to the IP, to ensure the sport is held to account for its actions.
These 7people, on the advise of GB canoeing, interpret the policy as is written, based on the facts in front of them conclude, and convey their decisions to the slalom community.



Are the ECSC/WCA/SCA/BCU Slalom Committee going to step up and acknowledge they are yet to hold GB Canoeing to account, and suggest that this can not be a battle left to the 10 individuals in the sport that this effects in 2012. But that these organisations will unite and initiate their own enquiry to determine an appropriate solution, for the short term 2013 pre-selection (this maybe supporting legal action/or it maybe detailing discussions had with IP and their support of the IP decision) and the long term issue, resolving the possibility for discrimination and bias by the IP based on positions of responsibility with in the sport, in personal, proffesional and policy writing capacities.
Let's use this as a platform to move our sport forward, out of the dark ages, and into a new light, with a new legacy of openness and opportunities of success for all.

Robin Vasey
PS on a final note; I do not think the decision to have Dave or Rich in the team, is that shocking. Had they been asked to they are both likely to have qualified a place in their own right. In which case this decision seems unnecessary, if however they are unable to make the team in 2013 (6months from now) are they really worthy of representing GBR, when there is someone better or faster having to watch from the bank.

[Canadian Paddler]

As always HaRVey has posted a fulsome view. A couple of notes:

The IP is appointed by BCU Board, they said the Chair of the IP should be the chair of the slalom committee. So when Anne has been voted chair (or elected unopposed) at an ACM you have also voted for her to be chair of the IP.

The Athlete rep does not have a place on the IP. The slalom committee petitioned for a second Slalom Committee place, even if just as an observer. At the moment the slalom comittee (unanimously) asked Martin to take the role

During the reconsideration, (I understand) Anne stood back to ensure that there could be no perceived bias, and teh slalom committee vote went to Martyn. NOT any suggestion she has ever been biased.

If you want to change the make up of the IP, the BCU Board have to be petitioned. The slalom committtee can only make representtations. BCU Board 'values volunteers' and 'puts paddlers first' so the more the volunteers and paddlers express their opinions directly the ore they should listen.


John: That is a complex way of calling me old and I recognize that. Coming up to your busy time of year so hurried postings I suppose.

Sven: See above, I am not generation y (or even x) but have always tried to get views from everyone, and encouraged people to be involved, not just the older generation, do you want to help?
The views posted by me here are those of a paddler who started in the 1970s and STILL enjoys slalom racing. Sometimes jaded, sometimes tetchy, but ALWAYS willing to listen to ideas on how we keep this sport going, growing and getting better.