My latest whinge...

Tamyka Bell said:

Now, this is something that has really bugged me for a while... so now I
have to say something about it...

Funding for elite athletes.

I just received an email talking about the Qld Govt providing funding
for elite juniors to travel overseas. Honestly, I think this is great,
because they should get the opportunity to represent their country. The
unfortunate truth, however, is that if the parents/guardians/coaches of
these juniors got off their butts, there would no doubt be plenty of
corporate sponsors out there available to help. That's the way it is
with elites - you're up to national rep level, you can get the funding.
The Govt also seems to spend a lot of money on talent search programs
(that don't seem to be coming up with much).

The other side of the coin is that how many of elite sportspeople, once
they start earning big bucks, go and hide in tax havens and never put
much back into the system that paid for their development? A
significant number .. I'm all for mutual obligation in this context 🙂
If we (the Australian Tax Payer) take a punt on some athlete, and they
come good, then they should have to contribute back to the society that
paid for a great chunk of their development.

Quoted message said:

Given that obesity levels in Australia are pretty appalling, and getting
worse, does anyone else think that, instead of the govt spending money
so much money on elite athletes, we should probably focus on encouraging
EVERYONE to play sport?

Yes.

Is there any relationship between participation rates in non-elite
levels compared to elite level success? Any good studies you know of?
Correlation is not causation, of course 🙂
ie: Is there some connection between the amazing success of US elite
sportspeople and the overall participation rate in sports in the US (or
here, or anywhere?), or does Lance armstrong just get more people
watching him on TV rather than going out and racing their bikes?

Bleve said:

Is there any relationship between participation rates in non-elite
levels compared to elite level success? Any good studies you know of?
Correlation is not causation, of course 🙂
ie: Is there some connection between the amazing success of US elite
sportspeople and the overall participation rate in sports in the US (or
here, or anywhere?), or does Lance armstrong just get more people
watching him on TV rather than going out and racing their bikes?

I don't know about cycling but in hockey there are countries like China
with very few players but high level elite success. They look for
athletic children who have the ability to be coached and put them into
training to become world champions.

I think Australian sports organisations do much the same. They don't
care so much about whether you are a champion school level player at a
particular sport but whether you have right the physical and mental
attributes. Wasn't their an Australian in the winter olympics who came
from Bundaberg or somewhere distinctly non-snowy who was selected for
the toboggan (or whatever) because she could run quickly over ten
metres?

That said, I'm all for focussing on both elite and average sport. I've
always had the attitude that I want to be active until I'm well into my
old age. It heartens me to see people in my town playing hockey into
their seventies and people actively cycling until they are well over
eighty.

P

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

Tamyka Bell said:

So I would do everything in my power to avoid the ball or whatever we
were playing with. For example if we were playing soccer I would be a
defender, and I would tackle the attackers but would always pass the
ball straight away and never try to move it upfield myself. I'd happily
run around on the field all day, but get me to actually do something,
I'd freak out.

You would have fitted right into the English long ball game of the
80s/early 90s ...

All you had to do was whack the ball up from defence to your strikers,
bypassing the midfield along the way.

FWIW, in the days when I was a rightback, I don't think I ventured
beyond the half way line too many times. In fact, I don't know if I
even left the 18 yard box ...

Peter McCallum said:

Bleve said:

Is there any relationship between participation rates in non-elite
levels compared to elite level success? Any good studies you know of?
Correlation is not causation, of course 🙂
ie: Is there some connection between the amazing success of US elite
sportspeople and the overall participation rate in sports in the US (or
here, or anywhere?), or does Lance armstrong just get more people
watching him on TV rather than going out and racing their bikes?

I don't know about cycling but in hockey there are countries like China
with very few players but high level elite success. They look for
athletic children who have the ability to be coached and put them into
training to become world champions.

I think maybe the more government-controlled societies may be a bit of
a special case?
(or maybe we're the special case, being a lot more free to do what we
want? 🙂 )

Quoted message said:

I think Australian sports organisations do much the same. They don't
care so much about whether you are a champion school level player at a
particular sport but whether you have right the physical and mental
attributes. Wasn't their an Australian in the winter olympics who came
from Bundaberg or somewhere distinctly non-snowy who was selected for
the toboggan (or whatever) because she could run quickly over ten
metres?

Sure, but does that benefit "us" by getting more ordinary people out
playing sport?
Does it even affect grass-roots sport? My suggestion would be (no
facts to back this up, it's a belief 🙂 ) that focussing on elite sport
may reduce grass-roots participation levels, but as above, that's just
a belief, I don't know if it's the case.

Tamyka Bell said:

I just received an email talking about the Qld Govt providing funding
for elite juniors to travel overseas. Honestly, I think this is great,
because they should get the opportunity to represent their country. The
unfortunate truth, however, is that if the parents/guardians/coaches of
these juniors got off their butts, there would no doubt be plenty of
corporate sponsors out there available to help.

There's one young boy I've played hockey with and against who looks like
he has the potential to play for Australia. I see his father doing
things like collecting money at the gate of the car park at the hockey
grounds, working in the bar, umpiring, etc all to raise money to send
his son away to regional/state/national titles. It's much the same for
every parent out there with kids who are recognised to have talent.

When you consider that the Hockeyroos have had massive success,
including three straight Olympic gold medals, yet they were struggling
to find a sponsor after the Sydney games when Telstra dumped them. The
Matildas had to pose nude for a calendar to fund their Olympic campaign
one year.

While a lot of young players do get some sponsorship in the form of
equipment, there isn't a lot of actual cash money available from private
enterprise. When the money is available, the corporates want a clear
understanding of exactly what they are getting in return for their
contribution. It's not easy even if you are a skilled marketing guru to
get that money, let alone a parent/coach whose real interest is sport.

Peter

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

Bleve said:

Tamyka Bell said:

Now, this is something that has really bugged me for a while... so now I
have to say something about it...

Funding for elite athletes.

I just received an email talking about the Qld Govt providing funding
for elite juniors to travel overseas. Honestly, I think this is great,
because they should get the opportunity to represent their country. The
unfortunate truth, however, is that if the parents/guardians/coaches of
these juniors got off their butts, there would no doubt be plenty of
corporate sponsors out there available to help. That's the way it is
with elites - you're up to national rep level, you can get the funding.
The Govt also seems to spend a lot of money on talent search programs
(that don't seem to be coming up with much).

The other side of the coin is that how many of elite sportspeople, once
they start earning big bucks, go and hide in tax havens and never put
much back into the system that paid for their development? A
significant number .. I'm all for mutual obligation in this context 🙂
If we (the Australian Tax Payer) take a punt on some athlete, and they
come good, then they should have to contribute back to the society that
paid for a great chunk of their development.

Exactly - students are expected to pay back HECS debts, and even
students on PhD scholarships will as postdocs contribute tax (in a
higher bracket than from their undergrad degree) - oh except that with
no incentive to keep scientists in Australia, most head overseas...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Given that obesity levels in Australia are pretty appalling, and getting
worse, does anyone else think that, instead of the govt spending money
so much money on elite athletes, we should probably focus on encouraging
EVERYONE to play sport?

Yes.

Is there any relationship between participation rates in non-elite
levels compared to elite level success? Any good studies you know of?
Correlation is not causation, of course 🙂

<snip>
No studies I know of.

Peter McCallum wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

While a lot of young players do get some sponsorship in the form of
equipment, there isn't a lot of actual cash money available from private
enterprise. When the money is available, the corporates want a clear
understanding of exactly what they are getting in return for their
contribution. It's not easy even if you are a skilled marketing guru to
get that money, let alone a parent/coach whose real interest is sport.

True.

However if they were provided with a sponsorship proposal package on
which they could base their sponsorship requests, it'd be a lot easier
for them to get the sponsorship. Easier than doing it on their own,
anyway, and probably cheaper than implementing a massive strategy to
provide funding for this and that...

The cost of sending one young person to one international event is
significantly less than the cost of sponsoring a team. It's the kind of
thing that a local community business can do, to get people in there.
It's the kind of thing that, ESPECIALLY in small towns, everyone will
chip in an extra buck here or there to get the kid going.

And my gripe isn't really with young talented kids getting money - so
they should. I just think that promoting sport only for elites is a
really fscked up idea. More healthy people participating in sport =
lower health costs = more money for elite sport anyway, eventually,
right?

Tam

Tamyka Bell said:

Given that obesity levels in Australia are pretty appalling, and getting
worse, does anyone else think that, instead of the govt spending money
so much money on elite athletes, we should probably focus on encouraging
EVERYONE to play sport?

Well, not sport, but certainly more recreational[1] activities.
but that isn't a popular attitude. I do not support kids engaging in
competitive sport outside their local area as i think until they are
adults, it should be about fun, then they can decide if they want to
compete heavily.

Not in favour of the AIS either, but I'm not interested in any sport
that I don't play. {:-).

[1] loaded definition folks {:-)

"Tamyka Bell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Now, this is something that has really bugged me for a while... so now I
have to say something about it...

Funding for elite athletes.

I just received an email talking about the Qld Govt providing funding
for elite juniors to travel overseas. Honestly, I think this is great,
because they should get the opportunity to represent their country. The
unfortunate truth, however, is that if the parents/guardians/coaches of

<snip funky rantage>

Quoted message said:

even worse that there is a continual push for elite funding, spreading
the message that sport is only for people who are really good at it.

Tam

This is something that really needs more attention. I'm not good at sports
of any kind really, and never have been. I'm not fast on the bike and I
don't race. But I enjoy riding and while I'm still a fat [censored], I'm
becoming a fit fat [censored]. Apparently this is miles better healthwise than
being skinny and unfit. I'd rather be lean and fit but that hasn't happened
yet. Some encouragement to get out and just DO could be pretty readily
worked into sports telecasting and other promotion. Get the athletes in
front of the camera: "You've just seen me *insert sports activity* for
*insert time period*. Now it's your turn. Get out there and enjoy yourself."
Or something. I'm sure there are plenty of them who'd be happy to promote
actual participation.

Bleve said:

Sure, but does that benefit "us" by getting more ordinary people out
playing sport?
Does it even affect grass-roots sport? My suggestion would be (no
facts to back this up, it's a belief 🙂 ) that focussing on elite sport
may reduce grass-roots participation levels, but as above, that's just
a belief, I don't know if it's the case.

I've been participating in a program for the past couple of months
called "Hook in 2 Hockey". There are about 250 to 300 kids here in
Mackay participating, mostly ones who haven't played before. They learn
the basics of the game and hopefully will go on to play for many years.
It's funded by Hockey Australia, presumably from a government grant.

There's also an "active after school program" where kids can go and
learn about various sports. It's funded through an Australian Sports
Commission program. Coaches are paid $25 per hour to run hour long
sessions once per week with groups of kids.

I'm sure that Cycling Australia could develop something along the lines
of Hook in 2 Hockey and get more kids into cycling as a sport. That's if
they think that having a lot of people who will only ever ride at a D
grade or C grade level are of any benefit to the sport. I think they
are, but a lot of sports administrators and senior coaches aren't really
interested in people at that level.

Last year Mackay Hockey Assn organised an "adult beginners" course. We
ended up with far more participants than we expected, some have started
playing, others have taken up coaching. It's great for the sport but
mostly I'm happy that a few more people are comfortable with their
ability to be active on the weekend.

Peter

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 11 May 2006 15:52:17 +1000

Peter McCallum said:

While a lot of young players do get some sponsorship in the form of
equipment, there isn't a lot of actual cash money available from private
enterprise. When the money is available, the corporates want a clear
understanding of exactly what they are getting in return for their
contribution. It's not easy even if you are a skilled marketing guru to
get that money, let alone a parent/coach whose real interest is sport.

especially as only some sport sells.

If it's big on TV, it sells. Rules or Rugby football (although the
money's given to teams not individuals till they are seriously big),
tennis. Or if the success will feed back into sales of gear, such as
surfing or motocross. In the latter though, it's kit they get, not
assistance with travelling or other expenses.

I don't think most national level sportspeople get much sponsorship
unless they are in a TV friendly sport and are already at the top.

BUt I also don't think their success encourages more activity. What
gets people playing is the local scene, their mates, word of mouth,
schools, and so on. Plenty of friends of mine kept up hockey after
school because they liked it at school. (I didn't....) Plenty of
kids play soccer with kids clubs because their parents got them into
it or the school did. They might have fantasies of being Discovered,
but most of them know that's all it is. I know bods who play cricket
on weekends, but it's not because of the Australian team, it's because
they like cricket 🙂

I suppose a big name athlete might get people curious enough to try
that sport, but I don't think the effect is huge. I know that after
having watched a top class freestyle cyclist I'd have trouble even
thinking about bunny hopping a curb, never mind jumping on and off
walls....

Zebee

quote='Bleve'Peter McCallum said:

Bleve said:

Is there any relationship between participation rates in non-elite
levels compared to elite level success? Any good studies you know of?
Correlation is not causation, of course 🙂
ie: Is there some connection between the amazing success of US elite
sportspeople and the overall participation rate in sports in the US (or
here, or anywhere?), or does Lance armstrong just get more people
watching him on TV rather than going out and racing their bikes?

I don't know about cycling but in hockey there are countries like China
with very few players but high level elite success. They look for
athletic children who have the ability to be coached and put them into
training to become world champions.

I think maybe the more government-controlled societies may be a bit of
a special case?
(or maybe we're the special case, being a lot more free to do what we
want? 🙂 )

Quoted message said:

I think Australian sports organisations do much the same. They don't
care so much about whether you are a champion school level player at a
particular sport but whether you have right the physical and mental
attributes. Wasn't their an Australian in the winter olympics who came
from Bundaberg or somewhere distinctly non-snowy who was selected for
the toboggan (or whatever) because she could run quickly over ten
metres?

Sure, but does that benefit "us" by getting more ordinary people out
playing sport?
Does it even affect grass-roots sport? My suggestion would be (no
facts to back this up, it's a belief 🙂 ) that focussing on elite sport
may reduce grass-roots participation levels, but as above, that's just
a belief, I don't know if it's the case.[/QUOTE]

This is similar to a question I keep asking myself (and hence getting dumb answers to):

How does investment in elite sport actually benefit Australia? Apart from the ego factor of "ooh, we won so many medals, etc."... Now, I know that all funding doesn't have to go to things that will 'pay back' financially, and am happy to see money go to the arts 'n such. But does the exorbitant amount of money poured into relatively few athletes actually benefit the country in any significant way? Are we healthier? Are we wiser? Are we smarter? Do we get more tourists just because we're good swimmers?

Or does my cynical side spy a touch of the Colosseum in govt's choices of funding - "ooh... look... glorious sports to watch... let's not worry about all the crippling social/environmental/economic issues and watch people run around instead..."

Peter McCallum said:

Bleve said:

Sure, but does that benefit "us" by getting more ordinary people out
playing sport?
Does it even affect grass-roots sport? My suggestion would be (no
facts to back this up, it's a belief 🙂 ) that focussing on elite sport
may reduce grass-roots participation levels, but as above, that's just
a belief, I don't know if it's the case.

I've been participating in a program for the past couple of months
called "Hook in 2 Hockey". There are about 250 to 300 kids here in
Mackay participating, mostly ones who haven't played before. They learn
the basics of the game and hopefully will go on to play for many years.
It's funded by Hockey Australia, presumably from a government grant.

There's also an "active after school program" where kids can go and
learn about various sports. It's funded through an Australian Sports
Commission program. Coaches are paid $25 per hour to run hour long
sessions once per week with groups of kids.

I'm sure that Cycling Australia could develop something along the lines
of Hook in 2 Hockey and get more kids into cycling as a sport. That's if
they think that having a lot of people who will only ever ride at a D
grade or C grade level are of any benefit to the sport. I think they
are, but a lot of sports administrators and senior coaches aren't really
interested in people at that level.

We have a J-cycle program designed to do this with kids, but much less
so with adults.
I decided to do it on my own with my coaching stuff (I'm not touting
for business!) to provide support and coaching for grass-roots riders,
as you point out, senior coaches and the clubs etc pay little attention
to non junior, non elite riders. It's their loss, working with D grade
riders and seeing them improve is immensely satisfying, and a healthy D
grade bunch is great for the sport across the board. Maybe the next
Phil Anderson or Robbie McEwen will come out of it, probably not, but
they're racing, training, being involved and getting fit, which beats
posing at cafe [censored] any day!

Quoted message said:

Last year Mackay Hockey Assn organised an "adult beginners" course. We
ended up with far more participants than we expected, some have started
playing, others have taken up coaching. It's great for the sport but
mostly I'm happy that a few more people are comfortable with their
ability to be active on the weekend.

This is the sort of thing that all sporting associations should be
doing, IMO.

Bleve said:

or does Lance armstrong just get more people
watching him on TV rather than going out and racing their bikes?

Yes, it is all about entertainment.

Tamyka Bell said:

Peter McCallum wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

While a lot of young players do get some sponsorship in the form of
equipment, there isn't a lot of actual cash money available from private
enterprise. When the money is available, the corporates want a clear
understanding of exactly what they are getting in return for their
contribution. It's not easy even if you are a skilled marketing guru to
get that money, let alone a parent/coach whose real interest is sport.

True.

However if they were provided with a sponsorship proposal package on
which they could base their sponsorship requests, it'd be a lot easier
for them to get the sponsorship. Easier than doing it on their own,
anyway, and probably cheaper than implementing a massive strategy to
provide funding for this and that...

All that does is raise the bar for everyone. It's like the first home
owners grant, it just makes everything $grant more expensive. I've
seen the sponsor's side of the fence, and sponsors treat sponsorship as
advertsing (as you'd expect) except for a few (rare!) enthusiasts.

It's no suprise the hockey team gets little. It's not on TV (hockey
sucks as a spectator sport). Most small sports "suffer" from this,
mainly because they don't understand what sport is. The cure is not
begging for handouts, it's to remember that elite sport is
entertainment, and that elite sportspeople are entertainers, and if you
want someone to pay your way, you have (or should have!) to give them
something back in some form.

The rest of us play sports because we love it, need it, whatever, and
while it's nice to get a helping hand every now and then, and the
benefits for society in general are good (better overall health, people
live longer, then they burn more oil, consume more resources, and take
longer to die .. hrmmm ... 🙂 ), we shouldn't rely on it.

Tam writes -

Quoted message said:

Given that obesity levels in Australia are pretty appalling, and getting
worse, does anyone else think that, instead of the govt spending money
so much money on elite athletes, we should probably focus on encouraging
EVERYONE to play sport?

I suspect the next big policy push will be to get individuals to take some
preventitive measures for the good of their own health and the collective
public benefit - and there may even be some tax or financial incentives
given to encourage that. I devined that from a paper presented to the Sydney
Institute a few weeks ago by Julia Gillard - and it matters not which
political party proffers it - if it has sufficient public/taxpayer appeal it
has a good chance of being adopted by whichever o.

The simple economics are that recognising those that do significantly change
their health risk profile by exercise are doing the public health system (as
well as themselves) a big favour, and recognising that is smart politics.

If you don't believe me, think about how many tv clips you have seen
recently of Howard walking, Abbott cycling, Beasley publicly losing weight
and so on. Hardly elite athletes any of them, but they see their perceived
images improving by being filmed thus.

The whole bloody country is sports mad - properly orchestrated, how many
votes would there be in pitching to that receptive audience in a country
with a climate that (mostly) is well suited to outdoor activities?

Quoted message said:

I pretty much sucked at all other sports. >

Respectfully disagree Tam - you just had not found the ones you love or had
bad introductions to - its amazing if you go back to some sports later in
life, in good company and now with competant instruction, just how much the
dynamic changes for the better.

Quoted message said:

These were sports that I was never going to be brilliant at, but I
enjoyed them. Improving myself was enough. I felt no need to judge
myself against others.

This is absolutely the key point - getting dissapointed at a competitive
result is a real downer - but having a great time and doing something for
your self esteem (not to mention getting a big dose of the good old
endorphins) is what gets us out there on a regular basis - and to be of
value the activity has to be consistently undertaken at least at an aerobic
level. This is what will do really good things for the community.

Quoted message said:

So I guess I feel like there is a serious lack of funding into promoting
sport participation for everyone, and that's bad enough. But it seems
even worse that there is a continual push for elite funding, spreading
the message that sport is only for people who are really good at it.

Again respectfully disagree Tam - the AIS trained cyclists who didn't quite
make it into pro teams make great cycling coaches for us hubbards at club
level, who in turn encourage recreational cyclists, our kids and others we
come into contact with to get off the couch for a bit. IMHO its not a direct
funding thing, its an enthusiasm and encouragement thing - get competant
people showing the general population how to something safely and well will
have a big impact.

Countries that get mean about encouraging elite athletes suffer
significantly in their public sports participation - England in recent years
comes to mind - and from which country are the poms currently recruiting
their high perfomance coaches from in cricket athletics swimming et al?

And by way of further example, that recent 24hr mtb race effort of yours
will have inspired a fair bit of uplifted activity among the readers here -
so keep going well you!

best, Andrew

Peter McCallum said:

There's also an "active after school program" where kids can go and
learn about various sports. It's funded through an Australian Sports
Commission program.

And that is what is wrong with that program; it is sports orientated.
They will get far more kids if it is general, active fun orientated.

Andrew Price said:

I suspect the next big policy push will be to get individuals to take some
preventitive measures for the good of their own health and the collective
public benefit

You mispelt punative!

Quoted message said:

- and there may even be some tax or financial incentives given to encourage that.

lol. Maybe your grandkids might.

Here is a practical problem; deskjobs; are you supposed to spend two
hours each evening working out at the gym to keep fit?

Quoted message said:

I devined that from a paper presented to the Sydney
Institute a few weeks ago by Julia Gillard - and it matters not which
political party proffers it - if it has sufficient public/taxpayer appeal it
has a good chance of being adopted by whichever o.

If this sort of stuff was ever likely, then we'd have a serious bicyel
commuting network everywhere and not the share bike/pedestrian deathtraps.

Yep, I'm cynical, but when there are more bicycles sold each year than
motor vehicles and we have zip facilities, it makes it clear what is
really going to happen.

Quoted message said:

And by way of further example, that recent 24hr mtb race effort of yours
will have inspired a fair bit of uplifted activity among the readers here -
so keep going well you!

Actually, 24hr races are not encouraging people to get off their butt.
they all seem headed for elite idiots who make great TV. If these sort
of events want to encourage "active involvement" they need to cater more
for the fun rider, e.g no single track, multiple bridges, different
grades, etc.

Andrew Price said:

Tam writes -

Quoted message said:

Given that obesity levels in Australia are pretty appalling, and getting
worse, does anyone else think that, instead of the govt spending money
so much money on elite athletes, we should probably focus on encouraging
EVERYONE to play sport?

I suspect the next big policy push will be to get individuals to take some
preventitive measures for the good of their own health and the collective
public benefit - and there may even be some tax or financial incentives
given to encourage that. I devined that from a paper presented to the Sydney
Institute a few weeks ago by Julia Gillard - and it matters not which
political party proffers it - if it has sufficient public/taxpayer appeal it
has a good chance of being adopted by whichever o.

It'd be nice, and it's been done before, and done again and again in
different forms for decades. Life, be in it!

But, the sheep watch big botha and eat maccas.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So I guess I feel like there is a serious lack of funding into promoting
sport participation for everyone, and that's bad enough. But it seems
even worse that there is a continual push for elite funding, spreading
the message that sport is only for people who are really good at it.

Again respectfully disagree Tam - the AIS trained cyclists who didn't quite
make it into pro teams make great cycling coaches for us hubbards at club
level, who in turn encourage recreational cyclists, our kids and others we
come into contact with to get off the couch for a bit. IMHO its not a direct
funding thing, its an enthusiasm and encouragement thing - get competant
people showing the general population how to something safely and well will
have a big impact.

Ahha, trickle down economics. It's not very efficient 🙂 Yuo're
basically saying that the ATP paying $heaps to the AIS (and it's a
-lot- of money!) trickles down to a dozen or so dropouts, who *may*
coach (or may walk away, got any figures?). It's all a bit hit & miss.

What would be of benefit (perhaps) would be making the AIS funding
conditional on athletes and coaches etc who go through it *having* to
contribute back to the grass roots, rather than just hoping that they
might if they feel like it. There's not much money in coaching, btw 🙂

Quoted message said:

Countries that get mean about encouraging elite athletes suffer
significantly in their public sports participation - England in recent years
comes to mind - and from which country are the poms currently recruiting
their high perfomance coaches from in cricket athletics swimming et al?

Do you have any stats to back up the grassroots participation claim
you're making?
They may be getting elite level stuff from elsewhere, but the question
is "does that make any real difference"? I don't know, you may be
right.

Quoted message said:

And by way of further example, that recent 24hr mtb race effort of yours
will have inspired a fair bit of uplifted activity among the readers here -
so keep going well you!

Tam's (respectfully!) not elite. She's "just one of us" so us regular
humans can identify with what she did and be inspired. The kids that
get talent-spotted and scholarships (essentially living a charmed life)
are not like the rest of us, and the physical feats they can carry out
are unrealistic for normal people with jobs and families.