Policy on Juniors attending senior events

[Gross]

Interesting to see the latest SOA Policy on juniors attending senior events.... if it was followed by all nations then at least 1 member of the GB JWOC would not have been able to compete and also several medallists at JWOC would have been unable to compete...

Going back in time... Yvette Hague would have been ineligible for a few World Champs.... etc etc etc

[Seamus]

link to article is here SOA Document

Interesting article and I just think its aims it to make people think twice to make sure they are selecting the athletes for the right reasons. In addition, to make sure the athletes are treated as they would do on junior tours and with all the requirements that go with it.

nothing I am sure that the SOA senior lot don't do already.

[Bill]

You should read it again, Gross. It wouldn't stop these people being selected but ensures the activities are appropriate for the individuals.

[Adventure Racer]

Actually Gross's point seems to be that athletes were running up more than one age class at JWOC - however as it is guidance on juniors running at senior events, it doesn't apply at all in that case!

[andy]

i don't think this policy will change anything - it's simply in place to help the SOA enforce the child protection legislation. Any athlete who has the potential is almost guaranteed to recieve parental consent, thus allowing them to compete. But if they don't, and something goes horribly wrong while a child is away from home then there could be all sorts of legal action taken. This policy + parental consent = reduced problems with all the child protection 'nonsense' going on at the moment.

[Gross]

I'm sure it will not really impact on the running of things at present... those involved are sensible and will do the 'right' thing...

my thought were that it was an interesting paper and very much follows the way of things in today's world!

I don't have an opinion one way or the other as I'm no expert in junior orienteering (or anything actually:)). Wasn't trying to be negitive!


Selection of a junior athlete for a senior competition should be by exception only, with preference given to those of the right age class. If selected, juniors should not run up more than one age class.
The distances and technical

[Gross]

Actually Gross's point seems to be that athletes were running up more than one age class at JWOC - however as it is guidance on juniors running at senior events, it doesn't apply at all in that case!

Actually is does apply as in this case 'senior' refers to 18+ (as the policy makes clear if you read it)

[Gross]

one other situation... clubs need to agree to follow SOA policy... ok let's say ESOC discover another Jamie Stevenson or similar who is an M18.

ESOC want him to run in the British or Scottish Relays with 2 other of the clubs 6 M21's.

This would mean going against the Governing bodies policy !!!

Like I say... I'm not for or against the idea...................

[Bill]

It was agreed by SOA that there was a need for this very short policy so it was drafted by me, not to focus on child protection but on selections and arrangements affecting Juniors. I hope it does change some things in that squad and team managers will ensure that juniors get considered when planning exercises and organising travel and entertainment.

It applies to SOA activities so clubs are not governed by it, though I think they should be applying the same thinking. Following BOF rules tradition, there are shoulds and musts in the policy, so it doesn't really stop anything happening. But, if Scotland want to select an M/W16 for the SHI team, the team manager should make sure the course length will not be excessive, travel is well organised and a 16 year old is not dragged out to a nightclub because the rest of the team want to go - all sensible stuff. We should leave the extremes of child protection to the CPSU - have they released Cherie Blair yet??

[Oldman]

SOA are to be congratulated on having this policy.

It shows a mature and sensible approach to their legal and other responsibilities as far as children (ie under-18s) are concerned.

I especially congratulate them on the wording where the policy draws attention that "Accommodation and social arrangements must not expose young people to inappropriate situations."

I now see that Bill Stevenson authored this: well done, Bill!

[Gross]

Can't disagree with any of the comments I've read above....

[Tatty]

I know in the past some juniors who have been involved in "Senior" ie 18+, activities have certainly not been catered for from the social aspect and been exposed to situations that parents have been concerned about. However, in each case, the parents had given permission. I wonder whether the parents realised what the social activities might involve?
Good dsocument Bill.

[Gross]

I know in the past some juniors who have been involved in "Senior" ie 18+, activities have certainly not been catered for from the social aspect and been exposed to situations that parents have been concerned about. However, in each case, the parents had given permission. I wonder whether the parents realised what the social activities might involve?
Good dsocument Bill.

My point of interest in raising this thread has nothing to do with the general content of the policy... you can agree or disagree. My point of interest was / is that of selection and said that if all nations etc were to follow the SOA policy then 'X' number of athletes (including medallists) would be debarred from running in JWOC for example..... Point of interest (good or bad... no comment) is that general government / society social policy is now impacting on things like selecting the best athletes for the competition... so am M/W 18 wins all selection races for JWOC etc and is clearly the 'best'... but following the 'should' policy they would be debarred as they'd be running up two classes and I'd also assume there were other (not as good) older runners available & they would have preference.

As I said.... interesting

[Roger]

... so an M/W 18 wins all selection races for JWOC etc and is clearly the 'best'... but following the 'should' policy they would be debarred as they'd be running up two classes...

Er, no: the (only) JWOC classes are M/W20, so the 18 would be running up just one class. And as it happens, the current UK selection races (Future Champions Cup Final) for JWOC aren't open to 16s so the argument can't be extended downwards.

However, I recognise that this is nit-picking: in principle an M/W18 (or indeed 16) could qualify via the (open) selection races for WOC. And then Gross's point would still apply.

I reckon that if they're good enough, they should be in. Sure, take care with social aspects and training volume, but don't prefer a poorer competitor just because they're older and available. This is also the view held by e.g. Pakistan's test cricket selectors, who IIRC have picked at least one 16-year-old.

[AndyO]

The policy does not set out to prevent juniors being selected for senior competitions, but sets out some simple good practice to assist coaches and protect the juniors themselves.

Quote: "The distances and technical demands of training must not be excessive for the individuals". Some juniors will be more physically mature than others, and better able to cope with the additional(on top of their routine training)physical demands for a senior competition.

I think it is a very responsible policy, and Bill and the others who helped in preparing it are to be congratulated.