UKC

UK Sport has announced budget plans to fund GB climbing athletes with genuine medal potential. Reigning and two-time IFSC Bouldering World Cup Champion Shauna Coxsey has been named by UK Sport as the athlete with the highest medal potential in the GB Climbing Team and will be the only climber benefit to from the investment stream initially.

Read more

In reply to UKC News:

I have the utmost respect for Shauna and her achievements.  I also appreciate that she has a great history with regards to rope climbing and could easily have a great chance to win a medal at this event.

However, I would have thought that any funding with regards to Olympics should be treated on the merits of qualifying.  Even American legends like Carl Lewis had to go through qualification at American tryouts to earn the honour of representing their country in the Olympics.

Is there not other climbers with similar aspirations to hers who may have had a chance over the 3 different disciplines?  I have never seen a UK competition on same basis as Olympics, so how are we presuming this is our best chance?

 

 

In reply to Andrew Kin:

I think they have said they will look to fund fund others based on their performance during 2018, ie, if they think they have potential to win a medal. They have already decided that Shauna does, and giving funding earlier will obviously allow it to have more impact, so no point waiting. Obviously anyone who is funded will also have to qualify - this is about improving their performance ahead of that time.

Ultimately of course this funding is about maximising UK medal prospects, not primarily about fairness between individuals - it never has been.

In reply to Andrew Kin:

In addition to Si's points qualification is exactly that - the final decision on who to send, it doesn't mean that athletes haven't been funded before that point.  Also the US uses a different system to the UK with the trials - for example Mo Farah was auto selected in the UK, he didn't have to run a trial race whereas he would have had to if American. The obvious reason why Shauna is viewed as the best chance is that she finished 3rd in the combined rankings in 2017 which is the closest current competition to the Olympic format (especially as I'd hypothesise that dedicated speed climbers won't really stand a chance in the Olympics).   

In reply to UKC News:

Hard to believe it costs £630,000 to support 1 athlete. I can't find a breakdown of the award but it certainly doesn't look like money well spent.

In reply to Scott K:

"The GB Climbing Team has a number of younger hopefuls with medal potential too, such as Molly Thompson-Smith, Will Bosi, Hannah Slaney and Jim Pope amongst others. They will now have to prove their prowess on the 2018 competition circuit to win a share of the UK Sport funding."

In reply to Scott K:the grant is 'up to' and for all of climbing, not just one athlete.  I don't know the current athlete grant, I think there's a max.

 

To Andrew - you don't necessarily need a trial, and generally UK sports don't as opposed to say the US, where, for example, qualifying for the Olympic marathon trial is a respectable target in itself

 

In reply to wbo:

Thanks for the comments.  Not needing a trial and it not being necessary is quite a statement for any national representation.  Isn't that pretty short sighted and dangerous precedent?

 

i have no idea how the Olympic 3 event competition will be scored but in its basic form let's say 1/3rd each.  Shauna a given for bouldering.  A good shout for lead and unknown for speed.

now at the time this is announced Shauna is recovering from injury.  Molly is too.  If I was Hannah Slaney I would be looking at my all round game and questioning if it isn't indeed a match for Shauna over the 3 events.

its not just the next olympics this effects.  It's a precedent for future events

In reply to Andrew Kin:no, it shouldn't be, and generally,, as an example, UK athletics hasn't strictly relied on a single trial.  You do want a clear and defined route to qualification, but if you go strictly with a single trial, as per the US fate can be cruel and unhelpful.

 

 

In reply to UKC News:

Funding in this arena is based purely on medal potential. Shauna is seen, rightly or wrongly, to be our greatest medal prospect, despite never having entered a speed comp. The direct payment to her will be VERY small, as climbing is a first time sport, and the max direct payment in the last olympic cycle was approx £29k pa and only given to those who had already medalled at a world champs or olympics. THe rest of the money will be for support etc, which hopefully can also be accessed by others. It will probably take the form of English Institute of Sport.

There will be no national qualification for olympic participation. The qualification is limited to the top 20 males and females as determined by IFSC rankings, either in a one off comp in early 2020 (likely) or the previous seasons overall ranking (less likely, but possible), with a probable limit on competitors from each nation of 2 or 3. It is entirely possible that GBNI will have no representation........

If , IF, we get the gold in Tokyo, it will be a very cheap medal at only £630k, if that is indeed the sum quoted (I doubt it is, as it was never mentioned as that when funding was applied for); other successful sports get funding many , many times that. The bobsleigh lot, for eg, get around £2.5 million per annum.......

UK sport are only interested in medals, and will only fund what they see as definite medal prospects. ITs a brutal system, but works in that it gets team GB many medals at recent games.

Note that should anyone qualify, they become part of Team GB. Everthing then comes under the management of the British Olympic Association. Nothing to do with the BMC thereafter. 

In reply to Andrew Kin:

It doesn’t set a precedent. It is following the established UK Sport model.

In reply to Andrew Kin:

It's not a "precedent" as there are other sports that don't use trials, including sailing in which Team GBR has been one of the major medal-winning nations. The objective is to pick possible medallists early and support them intensively so they can reach their potential. The process in the USA is constrained by legislation (the "Ted Stevens Act) which AFAIK requires domestic trials to be held. As far as sailing goes, the trials process in the USA has been objectively fair but woefully ineffective in supporting sailors to win medals.

 

In reply to Scott K:

By the time the money goes through the well known climbing specialists at the English Institute of Sport there'll be far less for the actual athletes.   If its anything like research grants to Uni's the level of overheads compared to actual project related spending is shocking.  

You'd get more value taking £100K and giving it to the athlete to spend on whatever coaches/travel/physio they like.  

 

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

This is exactly how the EIS works - 

The EIS provides a multi disciplinary team - that is built around the coach and athletes. This includes, physiotherapy, strength and conditioning, physiologist, performance lifestyle, performance analysis, medical support, nutritionist, bio mechanist, psychologist etc.

The idea of this team is that they provide expertise to the coach and athlete on a specific area - not necessarily climbing itself. So say for example they need to look at heat acclimatisation for Tokyo - then the physiologist will work with the coach and athlete to develop a plan. If the athlete is struggling with pressure then they can work with a psychologist etc etc. This model is the same across all sports. His doesn't replace coaches it provides outside expertise that both the coach and the athlete can draw upon to maximise performance. I hope that helps clear things up,

Thanks, James

In reply to Andrew Kin:

Do you not think if there was some UK speed/difficulty wad out there you might have heard of them, or read an article about them on UKC, or do you think there's a raft of world class competition climbers in the UK that just haven't thought about giving it a go until now?

In reply to Spragg247:

What government are actually doing is funding an institution. Government like spending money on shiny buildings they can visit and get their picture taken and managers in suits that write press releases and fill in forms.  They don't like giving money to individuals just in case they do something stupid or embarrassing with it that the media picks up on.  The downside is institutions are really expensive compared with individuals and they provide the service they want to provide rather than the service the individual wants to buy.   

 

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Nailed the olympic dream in a paragraph

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Its very easy to be sceptical but having seen practitioners in action at the EIS I believe you wouldn't find a group of individuals with the level of knowledge in their specific areas and that are more invested and committed to helping athletes perform. It is also very hard to argue with their record in terms of delivering medals. You could also make the argument that only funding athletes means that athlete has to devote time to complaining their own team - time and energy which should be invested in training and not admin. As I said, its easy to be sceptical but I believe hard to find a system that works even as well on a consistent basis across so many sports and athletes. I welcome the investment in UK climbers and honestly feel involving the EIS alongside the BMC, the athlete and their coach(s) is the best way to deliver climbers to olympic success. 

In reply to Spragg247:

You missed off personal hygienist, that could be a challenge for climbers.

http:// www.eis2win.co.uk/2016/02/01/1094/

 

In reply to Spragg247:

My scepticism comes from years reviewing grant applications for research councils and seeing the ratio of institutional 'overheads' to salary for the research assistant staff actually doing the work.

Lets' say as an athlete I couldn't find a group of individuals with the same level of knowledge as the EIS in their specific fields.  That doesn't make the EIS the best place to spend my budget.   

Maybe I feel I could do without some of the services the EIS have decided to provide and I'd like to take the money that would be used for them and spend it on things I need more.  Maybe I don't live anywhere near the EIS or I spend half my life touring round the world on a comp circuit and I'd like to spend my money on services in locations that fit with my travel plans.  Maybe I'd rather stick with the sports psychologist I've been using for years than someone new.  Maybe I've got a specific injury and I'd like to spend a lot of my budget on the world expert even though they are in Munich or Australia.  Maybe I want a physio that knows about fingers rather than a guy who mostly works with cyclists and runners.   Maybe I can get more services for the money elsewhere.

 

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Too many maybe's there, Tom. Not all athletes live near the EIS, but they tend to gravitate to the centre of expertise. Track and Field to Loughborough, cyclists to manchester, Canoeists to nottingham. Actually, its nore than tend to gravitate, if you are a GB cyclist, you go to manchester). If you can make a case for the best help being available in munich, then the support will allow for that. THe top european knee specialists are in Germany; thats where people go for sorting their knees out. The EIS coordinate such things.

The downside of this possibly for the athlete (such as Shauna, Will Bosi etc) is that everything else is secondary to the olympics. ALL a funded athletes efforts are geared towards the olympics. EVERYTHING else is subservient to chasing olympic success.

In reply to Ian W:

Fundamentally the money is going to the EIS because government wants to fund the EIS.  If they wanted to fund athletes they'd give the money to the athletes and the athletes could decide whether they wanted to pay EIS to decide how to spend it.   

I would bet money that with a budget of £600k and no constraints on where you spent it someone with years of experience in climbing could get a lot more value by spending it themselves than by handing it to EIS.  

 

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It isn't meant to be "money...for the actual athletes". It's meant to be money for medals. If you look at countries that win medals and how sports in those countries go about it, there's every reason to believe that strong centralised coaching systems are the right way to go about it. In any case, UKSport is not about to start handing out six figure sums to athletes to spend at their discretion. The potential for that to go horribly wrong is all too obvious.

 

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The government doesnt "want" to fund the EIS. Funding it via UKSport / the lottery has however, proven hugely successful in gaining olympic success for GBNI athletes; its a proven model across many sports. So while you are maybe right that a climber could achieve better success independently, you  probably aren't.

What the EIS can do is provide analysis of an athletes needs, and arrange for the provision of the best available anywhere.

In reply to Ian W:

A climber could do definitely do better independently. It's not even close because the EIS has zero reputation or background in climbing.  Look what the Austrians have put in place in Innsbruck and tell me the EIS has that level of climbing specific capability.   

Why would anyone believe some guy who works for EIS and spends most of his time with other sports would do a better job of choosing 'the best available anywhere' than an actual world champion climber who has been on the comp circuit for years and has met everyone with a reputation in the field?

If getting EIS to arrange everything is such a winning idea why do professional athletes who get their money from sponsors or prizes rather than government not hand their budget to EIS?

 

 

In reply to Ian W:

That last sentence makes me feel a lot better about this.  IF everything becomes secondary then that is what I want to see as the ethos of Olympic participation.  I had visions of this turning into a friends reunited meet up for the big name climbers all funded by Olympic money. 

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Far too simplified view and it doesn't matter, money is going to EIS for them to do with it how they feel best. We punch above our weight in medals so they must be doing something right.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The EIS has a superb reputation for maximising athletes performance across ALL sports. At this level, we are not dealing with climbers per se, but athletes who compete in climbing disciplines. Of course the EIS doesnt have the same level of climbing specific capability or knowledge as the Austrians, but then who does? The BMC certainly doesnt; probably only the Japanese do. But everyone is catching on fast!

The EIS wont be choosing on Shauns'a behalf, it is done through consultation/ discussion with the athlete, her current team, training methods etc. You cant really think that Shauna is going to rock up at the EIS and be marched up to someone who just says," right, this is what we are going to do......" without any background discussion? 

There may not - yet - be climbing specific skills at the EIS, (and we do have some really good performance climbing coaching available in the UK - one of our coaches is now part of the Austrian coaching set-up) but they will have forgotten more than we know about general conditioning / psychology / injury prevention etc at a level far above what ANY climbing coach is operating at.

Eh? I'm sure if a pro footballer / rugby player wanted to use EIS services, there wouldn't be a problem. There may also be a charge levied. But the EIS was set up to provide the services to athletes who couldnt otherwise afford / source them, in the drive for national olympic glory....

 

In reply to Arms Cliff:

Good point.  No I don't believe there is.  However I do believe in other countries there could be and someone like Will Bosi may have an overall complete better package than shauna when it comes to this competition format (Depends on the scoring format).  As mentioned previously, he will, like a few others have to prove himself over the next 12mths comp circuit.  In my eyes, if his complete package is better at this present time then why is he not top of the list for funding?

Its the presumption I feel a little uncomfortable with rather than the funding.

In reply to Andrew Kin:

He may do and surely this process will find out whether he does and if so, he'll be awarded funding?

Is his "complete package" better at the current time? He's obviously very talented but has he competed at the adult level yet (genuine question)?

She's the current bouldering world champ and had one crack at a lead climbing world cup, where she came 6th (no idea of field strength). So, she has result to show she is very good at two of the three events. Who else has any results/track record that is comparable? (Again, genuine question)

In reply to galpinos:

Will is on the radar, as are a couple of others, but his success has been at junior level (5th in the "olympic discipline" at the last world champs). He competes in lead at senior level occasionally, but in terms of UK Sport, needs to show he is a solid medal contender. Shauna has won the world cup series twice at bouldering (not the world championship) and made final at the final round of the world cup in 2017, her first lead comp in years, and first ever at that level, so clearly knows how to clip; has the winning mentality, and there is no reason to suppose she wont get good at speed.

At senior level, nobody else in the uk has that track record. Assuming she stays injury free, she is at least a medal prospect. But just to pour cold water on things, I give you Janja Garnbret, Jain Kim and Anouck Joubert........and Anak Verhoeven....etc

In reply to Ian W:

I am sure people with great experience know all of the above and laugh at me questioning merits and justifications.  I am glad you showed some realism by mentioning the other names who will be competing.  Cant see Jain Kim being much of a speed climber though

 

In reply to Ian W:

No.  I think it will happen like University funding from research councils or what happens when government 'supports industry' by giving money to a University.  The headline number is £600K.  The EIS will grab about half of it as 'overheads' without much explanation.   Then they'll assign one or two incredibly famous Professors (or in this case superstar coach) on a massive salary to work about 15 minutes a week on the project and stick in a huge line item for their time.   When you add up all the time commitments the Institute has made for this 'star' you probably get close to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week - his actual contribution is to get copied on e-mails, occasionally ask everyone for updates and bring in the billable hours. 

Then there will be line items for the useful stuff and right down at the bottom of the list there'll be a stipend for the researcher/athlete, travel budget and equipment.  So most likely she'll start out with a headline number of £600k funding and end up having to jump through hoops to spend £10K.  And if she does persuade them to spend £10k outside their circle of preferred suppliers someone at EIS will most likely insert themselves in the middle of the conversation and generally get in the way.

Not that any of this matters from the athlete's point of view because this is the only option on the table.  It does matter if you are interested in taxes being spent efficiently.

 

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Tom, I'm sorry your experiences of academic grants etc are so poor; but it shouldn't colour your view of the EIS so much. Whilst I'm sure there are inefficiencies in its operation, it has been mega successful for British sport (at least at the highest level of medal winning), and I think you have an altogether too jaundiced view of their operation.

I think you are very wide of the mark in your suggestions, and as they are made without any evidence whatsoever to support them, I'm not going to put any effort into answering them. I am just very happy that after 5 years of pushing as BMC comp comm chair, and a load of work by Rob Adie and Nick Colton amongst others, we at least have a foot in the door at a sporting centre of excellence that can accelerate the development of GB Climbing athletes and give us a chance of competing at Tokyo and beyond.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

All the above is possible under the EIS system! Its an athlete centric system - arguable the best such system in the world. It is the EIS's role to make all the above possible and as seamless as possible with the goal of maximising performance.  

In reply to Spragg247:

A Government agency gives money to a sport governing body to support an athlete on condition the governing body give the money back to the EIS, a company owned by the government agency.  The EIS then decides how to best spend the money on behalf of the athlete while also providing its own services to the athlete.   

Much more efficient than giving a smaller amount of money directly to the athlete to spend as they choose.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

No. The Governing body are not involved. The funding is targeted at the athlete.

In reply to Ian W:

Not what it says in the article:

"Costs are based on implementing a 'Medal Support Plan' around key athletes. Any investment would be subject to the BMC agreeing to the programme being implemented through a partnership with the English Institute of Sport (EIS). The EIS would be the recipient of the award, and be responsible for forming and implementing the plan in partnership with the BMC."

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Hmmm. Thats different to what we were led to believe thriugh the application process; it was always a concern that it was very "exclusive" to the athlete named. but if it is in conjunction with the BMC then at least there is more chance it could benefit others......

In reply to Ian W:

Sports specialists backing up climbing specialists.  Sounds amazing.  At the top level I cant believe anyone wouldn't want to embrace it when it comes down to tiny percentages.  It would be pretty arrogant to presume climbing cant learn from other sports.

In reply to UKC News:

I am inclined to agree with Tom 

Behind all the 'marginal gains' and technology, in my opinion, by far the biggest reason for GB success in track cycling was that the track riders turned 'professional'. Previously, they either rode on the track in-between the road racing season or were essentially amateur (not too different from the UK climbing scene)

...For £630,000 you could fund 8 professional climbers each paid £25k a year plus £10k a year to attend comps for the remainder of the Olympic cycle.

That is 8 climbers who are currently climbing in-between coaching, route-setting, sponsorship commitments, jobs, studying etc. Who would be able to train full-time and enter all the major World and European competitions. 

... or you could provide supplementary coaching to arguably the UK's only current full-time climber (and perhaps funding in a years time for a few others who have to prove their ability without funding).

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Isn't it in partnership with the EIS because the BMC don't meet the criteria to receive the money directly (at the moment) due to the issues with governance? This is what I'd read elsewhere.

 

In reply to Removed UserMGRT:

Or the thing that allowed them to turn professional was the funding and support. And what allowed them to dominate was a team of well funded, motivated experts in their fields giving them a platform to succeed.

Who would have no backup, specialist coaching, sports psychology, dieticians, dedicated medical support etc etc...........

Supplementary coaching is a very simplistic view of the situation. Climbing is a new olympic support, and various nations are taking it very seriously. Shauna is world bouldering No 1. at the moment; however the level she is climbing at wont get her anywhere in tokyo. Without the specialist support available at the EIS, I would contend tat she would struggle to qualify. Any current climber - including Ondra and Garnbret - will have to advance greatly to stand a chance. They wont do it without highly specialised support.  

 

In reply to Ian W:

The EIS is probably really good at velodrome cycling and tweaking velodrome racing bikes and not bad at yachting, rowing and writing doctors letters to justify the best medicines.  They set out to find niche Olympic  sports with large barriers to entry (like fancy bikes/boats/horses/velodromes) and millions of minor variations each of which has a medal.  It's a money to medals calculation.  They aren't about to put in that level of effort for climbing because there's just a male and female medal.  More likely they'll charge out some of the people they already hired for other sports to climbing.

If you've got money you can buy all those things.  Someone who is winning world championships most likely already has established relationships and they'd be better off sticking with them.

The things that might give Shauna problems in Tokyo are the format of the event and that its two years from now and time isn't on her side when her main challengers are so much younger and she's starting to pick up injuries.   

 

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

As someone who used to compete in another sport at a reasonable level,

 

You don't half talk a load of bollocks sometimes!

 

In reply to UKC News:

I used to work for the EIS and now work for Cycling (in a non-practitioner role).  Much as UKS can be quite heavy-handed sometimes, there is no doubt that lottery funding has changed elite sport for the better.  The funding will go on all kinds of things - living expenses for athletes, kit, to the NGB for talent ID programmes, as well as support from the EIS in all kinds of ways; nutrition, physio, medical, biomechanics,performance analysis, strength and conditioning, research and innovation and even educating athletes on what they can and can't take on the banned substance list and performance lifestyle advising on tweaks to make to your life to make it better and what to aim for when you are coming to the end of your career.

The practitioners at the EIS and the Scottish and Welsh institutes don't get paid a fortune - nothing like the levels in football and rugby clubs, but they are some of the best in the business.  Many work across a couple of sports, to gain a wider, more rounded knowledge of the human body and what it can achieve.  They have a massive network of colleagues in every sport to lean on for information if they need it.  Their CPD is bang up to date.  If a climber has a back or shoulder problem, staff can work with colleagues in other sports to work together and have a case conference to find a solution.  

Althlete awards made a big difference to cycling, but not as much as the EIS has done, in terms of medal success.  This then inspires people to try it - our membership has gone up from 25,000 to 140,000 in ten years; people join BC which also puts money back into the sport, as does membership of Cycling UK and the LCC.  More people are cycling at all levels - racing, recreational, or just riding to work.  Cyclocross has exploded, and we got two U23 world champs medals at the weekend.  

Tellingly, the Aussies, whose system the EIS was based on, are now falling behind, and whereas once the EIS had to employ practitioners from Australia, Canada etc because the UK didn't have the skills, those countries, and others, are now trying to coach the Brits, from the EIS, SIS and WIS. So we must be doing something right.

 

 

 

 

 

In reply to Oceanrower:

And this appears to be one of those times......

In reply to Ian W:

Are you saying that UK Sport/EIS isn't primarily interested in Olympic medal count and that they haven't achieved this by investing in sports with lots of medal categories and relatively little competition? 

I'm not saying that all the lottery money hasn't had an effect.  That kind of money is bound to have an effect, the question isn't whether it has had an effect but whether you could have got a larger effect by spending it differently.  Possibly putting money into developing institutional capabilities in targeted sports may even be a better long term strategy for a nation even if it is not the best strategy for the individual athlete.

Fundamentally climbing is never going to be a big winner on the medal table: it doesn't have enough categories so it's not going to get focus from an organisation which is measured on medals.  There's limited transferability from straightforward 'racing' sports to lead and bouldering, they are more subtle because there is no standard course and fingers limit how much power you can put down no matter how strong you get your large arm/leg muscles.   EIS currently has staff which have been hired for other sports where they have big programs and when they get a new contract any manager is going to try and use staff they already have before hiring new staff. 

If you were a professional climber and had complete freedom to spend a budget wherever you chose I don't see why you'd spend it with EIS and, in fact, they don't.

 

I think Tom should get a job with the Olympic team, he's clearly much better than all of them.

In reply to thepodge:

Yeah, I'm an idiot for saying a big program in indoor cycling doesn't make you a world leader in climbing. 

Those Austrians are really stupid for building a mega climbing wall in Innsbruck to support their climbers.  They should obviously have built a velodrome or one of those rowing lakes.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Well if they wanted Cycling and Rowing medals then yeah they should have.

 

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

2 part answer to this.

1. EIS are absolutely interested in medal count; its their whole raison d'etre.

2. Rubbish. Investment is also made in Athletics, Swimming, Gymnastics, Ski-ing, Skating, etc etc Anywhere we have a competitor capable of winning. And careful which sports you decide have little medal competition. A couple of examples; ice track sports and track cycling. We invest heavily in these, and there is MASSIVE competititon. They aren't "traditional" sports in the UK, but are serious business in many parts of the world.

I refer you to my previous answer on this. Oceanrower and bigbarofchocolate may like to comment also. As BBOC said, we modelled the EIS on the Aussie version, but just got more successful. So possibly you are right, but you'd be flying in the face of all accepted wisdom and the evidence of every other nation who has tried it. 

More transferability than you think; GB Cycling took a step forward in injury prevention by employing a swimming coach. And the gymnastics resource should absolutely be transferable to climbing (shoulders, arms, fingers, core, posture etc.).

 

 

In reply to Ian W:

I noticed this..... 

https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/injury_management_and_preventi...

One of the practitioners was at the time with EIS.... 

In reply to :

One simple question;

It's the ENGLISH Institute of Sport.

Presumably either;

A) Nobody from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland will be entitled to any help. Or

B) The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish sporting equivalents will be expected to put in some resources. Or

C) England takes over Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and they have no say on anything.

Discuss or explain.

In reply to fred99:

England is the UK / Britain in Westminster's eyes

In reply to fred99:

One simple question:

Is Sir Chris Hoy English?

Answer:

No

So how on earth did he access UK Sport funding via the EIS in Manchester.

In reply to fred99:

Oddly named, imho. Its physically in England, so fair enough, but so what. Should be maybe the British Institute of Sport, as its receives funding from the National Lottery, which gets its sales from all over the UK. It supports all Team GB athletes and NGB's (British Cycling, British Canoeing, British Mountaineering Council etc etc). As far as the IOC / BOC etc are concerned, the nationality is British.

 

Absolutely. You'd probably just think "sod having to mess about speed climbing", and push off to Ceuse, or Arapiles or Baffin Island or wherever.

In reply to Ian W:

I agree, but do the Scots ?

Remember, in mountaineering, the BMC has no remit north of the border - it's the MCofS there. We do NOT have a single organisation that covers all of "Great Britain & Northern Ireland". One of the problems that both need to sort out with the BOC.

In reply to fred99:

As far as the BOC are concerned, its the BMC. The BMC and Mountaineering Scotland / Ireland have an arrangement that has worked so far for international representation that may (or may not) need tweaking for the future; its something there is regular dialogue over, and given its unlikely to cause an issue before 2021 (when funding for 2024 is first announced), its not top of the list at the moment.

As far as the BMC are concerned, the selection process is geographically blind. If you hold a GB&NI passport, you are eligible to represent GB Climbing Team, and if you meet the selection criteria, you stand a chance of being selected (should you wish to be).