EddieH wrote:I question the whole concept that failing to win medals means abject failure - it seems to me like a parallel track to our dreadful blame culture. However "Sport for all" was the slogan many years ago, and that should be what it's all about. After all if everyone that doesn't win gives up what will be the kudos in winning.
At an elite level it is about winning and consistently challenging to win. There have been some high class athletes who have not got a medal at the Olympics, but the rest of the time they've been in there, hence the value of world cup formats and rankings.
You have to have a winning culture, with it you can keep the blame culture where it belongs. With it people believe they can achieve targets dangling on the carrot stick just ahead of them. Personal bests are fantastic motivators but much of the media give them short shift (though I'll give the BBC team their due, PB's get a lot of respect)
I think it is correct to challenge a system that gives funding solely on the basis of medal success. I believe that it is fundamentally flawed. If it were not for the fact that elite althetes need a lot of support functions around them I'd take all the money for medals and put it into a schools programme - ten-fold.
There was a comment elsewhere that being part of an elite team created fantastic friendships and built you up for life.... need it just be so at the elite level.
The problem with 'sport for all' is that it got hijacked by the pc crowd and degraded, and we need to get back the balance it originally intended: open and readily available access, equal opportunity to participate, recognition that elite performance is important, but no more valid that personal performance.
