I took the time to Read the Senior Selection Policy this week, and was horrified to find that Great Britain have returned to the DARK AGES.
The policy gives every single World Ranking Series Race to the top 6 GB paddlers, and then some to the Juniors and U23!
Is this not completely unacceptable? (Basically Exclusive to World Class - EXCLUSION to TOP PADDLERS OUTSIDE OF WORLD CLASS)
This year I was fortunate enough to be able to attend the Pre-World Championships, at Tacen. This was a fantastic race and fantastic opportunity for me.
However, there were 2 SPACES in the GB MENS K1, unfilled (FOR NO REASON! I actually had to go out of my way to get to Tacen, whilst the rest of my travelling and racing group, remained in Prague, any of these paddlers could of and should have raced, but there was no communication to allow them to) Not only were these spaces unfilled at Tacen by GB JUNIOR paddlers, the same names were not able to attend the Slovak OPEN, or the Danubia Cup, all of which they had entrys for, and hence took up the spaces of legitamate paddlers who have earned the right to race at these races. (In Slovakia, and Danubia, it was only due to the number of Brits around that these opportunities were not lost, but the places certainly did not go to the correct (Selection policy 2009) people!!!
This happened due to a lack of communication by WORLD CLASS and the BCU, not due to the paddlers, and was also the case for Campbell as he was entered for races he didn't want to go to, and wasn't entered for races HE DID want to do.
In all these cases poor communication by the BCU and WC, led to the problems, RESULTING IN AN APPARENT MONOPOLY BY WORLD CLASS PADDLERS.
The Senior Selection policy 2010, WILL DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTE to these problems, and will lead back to an even greater place of injustice! As 'World Class Funded Paddlers' will have to be used to fill in the Gaps when 'Poor' communication stops regular unfunded 'High Level Paddlers' from being able to organise themselves in such a short time period for these Races.
There is NO REASON to have this policy, it DOES NOT DIRECTLY BENEFIT OUR SPORT, PADDLERS or VOLUNTEERS, it only benfits World Class, so why has it been included and then brushed over with out any explanation as to the Slalom Committee's Decision to include it.
From this year we (GBR) have a multitude of Paddlers in the World Rankings, they are spread throughout the Ranking system as one would imagine, and this is mostly down to them having done less than the required number of races, but there is clearly intent for ALL these paddlers to want to race for GBR. So why shouldn't they have a system that allows them to. (IF ALLOWED TO DO SO AGAIN THIS YEAR ALMOST ALL WOULD HAVE 3 COuNTING RESULTS AND HENCE WOULD MOVE UP THE RANKING SYSTEM)
This is not the first time, that an apparent short sightedness has affected those outside of funding, from being able to race at International Races.
I know this may affect only a minority of paddlers, but why were these decisions made? and why do GBR have an apparent policy which excludes paddlers from paddling internationally, rather than encouraging them? ???
SENIOR SELECTION 'EXCLUSION' POLICY - ERRRR.... Do we really want this?
If you go the GB Canoeing website you can see that this policy has been published in draft form (this is not clear from the version posted on the Canoe Slalom website) . I suggest you raise your concerns with Richard Lee who is coordinating the consultation process on behalf of the International Panel.
Whenever there is an event where entries are limited there is always going to be a selection policy. It makes perfect sense to offer these spaces to paddlers in order of GB Team selection results. As far as I can see the selection policy makes no reference to an "exclusion policy to those paddlers outside of world class". If a non funded person was higher in the pecking order to a funded athlete, they will get to go. It might seem unfair that the top paddlers get to pick and choose when they race, but they have earned this right. It does make sense for the spaces that aren't being used to be offered out to the next person in line, but like Harvey said, this is nothing to do with the selection policy. This is therefore not really an issue of the selection policy on paper, but an issue of how the policy is executed after selection.