- Sun Aug 17, 2008 7:52 am
#355792
Hmmm. I'm not so sure about that. It cost British Athletics - which is mostly funded by taxpayers money - a phenomenal amount of money to send Paula Radcliffe to the Olympics, and not only was she very obviously unfit to compete, she stood in very real danger of making her injury much much worse (which apparently it seems she may well have done). Trying (and possibly failing) to put that right is another massive cost to be borne by - who? Well, not her. I do hope she makes it back, but competing on a barely healed stress fracture is one way to make this doubtful.
I don't have a problem with public funding of British sports at all, but this does seem to have been a wrong decision, based on sentiment rather than reality.
My main problem with British Athletics is that it seems that for every serious, committed and talented athlete living off public and Lottery funding, there are ten happy-to-be-also-rans who know they will never win anything, and will never really try to, but are happy to take the money knowing that its a hell of a lot better than having to get a proper job. The Lottery are going to review their funding arrangements of individual athletes, and I hope this (typically British?) attitude is the thing they are trying to tackle.
Contrast and compare to the way British cycling, or rowing, or even swimming is run - there's a big difference, and it's reflected in the medal tables.
Charlalottie on Twitter wrote:Just remembered that I played pool with a satanist last night. Really should go out on a Friday more often.
Charlalottie wrote:Had a good night last night. We lost the pub quiz but had my hair plaited by a viking.