6.4. Veterans

Spiderman · Post by **Spiderman** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 1:32 am

Good question mwilk....seems there are few of us who wish to see the standard and general structure of the discipline improved and the silent majority bring about the decisions...ie no change! Hmph! If the actual slalom committee were even half bothered they would have woken up to the idea that change is needed and put together a sensible proposal from all the opinions voiced here. Come along to the ACM and make a noise about it. I plan to but as I have no idea about committees and such proposals I will probably get told that nothing can be done until NEXT years ACM......yet another year that a large number of paddlers will have to suffer a badly put together class...hmph again. But hey, you never know, maybe someone will have the brass to actually reword the wierdness that forms the present Vets motion and make something sensible out of it.

Yes NP, Im all for scrapping the Veteran class. The old tried and tested Open class that allows one and all to paddle at an event outside the divisional system would make coaches and parents journey worthwhile or alternatively impose judging duties upon them for a run and that will kill a couple of birds with one stone of course.

For general info purposes I list below the numbers/percentages of each class in each division in mens K1 as taken from the ranking lists published on this site:-

CLASS NUMBERS IN MENS K1

PREMIER DIV

2 J14 2.85%
13 J16 18.6%
9 J18 12.85%
21 U23 30%
18 S 25.7%
6 DV 8.57%
1 ? 1.43%

70 total 100%

Div 1

12 J14 9.6%
26 J16 20.8%
13 J18 10.4%
10 U23 8%
26 S 20.8%
38 DV 30.4%

125 total 100%

Div 2

16 J12 13.34%
21 J14 17.5%
20 J16 16.66%
6 J18 5%
3 U23 2.5%
19 S 15.83%
35 DV 29.17%

120 total 100%

Div 3

2 J10 1.07%
25 J12 13.36%
35 J14 18.72%
30 J16 16.04%
8 J18 4.28%
2 U23 1.07%
42 S 22.46%
43 DV 23%

187 total 100%

DV is the largest class in Divisions 1, 2 and 3 (Premier Division understandably not)
Approx 27%

ICF RULE 3.5 A master competitor can compete in a Masters event in a year that he or she reaches the lower limit of the age categories. I.e. in the 35-39 age group in the year of his or her 35th birthday. In events that have more than one competitor in the boat the age of the younger competitor will control the category in which a crew can compete. Age group categories will commence from age 35-39 an increase upward in 5 year age brackets.

Even if this was banded in 10 year age bands it would be a start. Forget the prizes, we just need the points in a fair and reasonable competition!

Nick Penfold · Post by **Nick Penfold** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 9:07 am

Spiderman
Quote "If the actual slalom committee were even half bothered they would have woken up to the idea that change is needed and put together a sensible proposal from all the opinions voiced here."
1. I for one couldn't have extracted a worthwhile proposal from the pages and pages of conflicting vagueries that have appeared here over the last year.
2. How about taking responsibility, putting together the motion and putting it thorough your club, rather than expecting the committee to do it? Yes, I know it's too late for this year.

Dee · Post by **Dee** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:54 am

Spiderman - please don't slag off the committee. I suspect you didn't mean it to sound quite as bad as it did. But the committee are volunteers who do their best for the sport and like all of us will have conflicting demands on their time. They may not be perfect, but who is? Also I do agree with Nick that there are conflicting view points on this subject and coming up with a solution that keeps everyone happy is likely to be an impossible task!

Anne · Post by **Anne** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 11:39 am

Thanks Dee & Nick for your support. We were expecting a motion to come from those heading up the discussion - but nothing arrived.

jim croft · Post by **jim croft** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 2:18 pm

Well said Anne thanks to Dee and Nick for the support
Jim

mwilk · Post by **mwilk** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 1:41 pm

I guess that what I was trying to say - but didn’t want to for fear of getting shouted at - and maybe what spiderman meant and perhaps what Ann is alluding to, is that the Working Party, set up by the Committee [?], didn’t come up with a proposal.
So, could we start again this year with another Working Party – comprised of different members ?

PaulBolton · Post by **PaulBolton** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 1:55 pm

The ICF are going to call veterans "Masters" and we're going to debate the changes for another year. Does that make us.......... no, I'd better not go there!!!

Spiderman · Post by **Spiderman** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 3:58 am

Yawn....exactly....another wasted year..... Nick, I already explained that I am not a committee type of person and typically have little good to say about any I have contact with....but then the majority of these are town planning committees and I don't actually think I ever hear anyone speak highly of those! In the agenda it states that the motions are those of the committee unless stated otherwise. I think that as the DV class constitutes between a quarter and a third of the competitors that it should have more regard for fair and reasonable competition and should properly have put a motion together. You say you cant derive one from the various comments here. So what chance to you expect me to have of doing it? The working paty mentioned throughout the season seems to be an imaginary group. No idea who they are or what they have investigated.

If the committee consider it needs to do nothing about the enormous DV class and the broad variety of ability within it making it a pointless class to compete and try to win, it must have its eyes closed and ears blocked. The ICF have Masters and it has 5 year age bands. The Agenda asks for approval of all ICF rule changes to be adopted by the committee so why cant it adopt that existing one too?

And please do not throw the "Awwww they are all volunteers" thing at me in the hope I will make less constructive criticism. Loads of us are volunteers, me included but I don't use that as an excuse for not listening to the reasonable views of others involved. And as a committee, surely that is what it is supposed to do isnt it? I can see from the last few comments here that I am making no friends on the committee but that matters not as I am not making a noise to win any. I am making a noise to highlight that NOBODY (thats nobody with any weight at least) is doing anything about the unfairness in the DV/Veteran classes and if people do not make a noise it will continue to be worthless to paddle in.

I happen to be a very reasonable person. Especially when trying to resolve problems. Nothing gives me more pleasure than winning an award of costs against a Local Authority at a planning appeal for acting unreasonably. Unfortunately, I do not have that avenue open to me to make this committee wake up and take some action. I wish I did. All i can do is voice my humble opinions.

Glad you posted here Jim because you obviously have some sort of axe to grind with me of late. Probably over the Veterans Trophy I suppose. Please drop that ok. Im not happy with it and thats the end of it. You are the one I mentioned the Veteran problems to well over a year ago and that got me nowhere either. I have asked you for support and got none. It is no good letting personal emotions affect important decisions so I do hope you are able to be reasonable in future and discuss and reach reasoned decisions without any personal issues affecting them.

Earlier this year when I was not at all happy about being told my result was not worth a sheet of A4 to print it on alone, it seems I ruffled a few feathers. I can't think why. What is wrong with you people that means you cannot take criticism where it is well deserved. (And I dont expect perfection, I just expect assistance and good manners) When I realise i have made a mistake I stick my hand up and shout SORRY without any hesitation. I find people appreciate that. But in the clicky environment of the slalom organisation fraternity it seems I'm not allowed to have a different view? Just about everyone involved in organising slaloms does a BRILLIANT job. A really brillant job. But that does not mean that when obvious improvements can be made (and they can as each year there are changes of course) that you cannot put your thinking caps on and help.

This is really no way to go about drumming up numbers in the sport. We are talking about almost a THIRD of the competitors here! I just emailed three local schools yesterday (dare I say unpaid in my own time or will that be boasting I am a volunteer too??) that VKC made links with this summer with training days (during weekly working hours that I also gave up FOC) to get the kids onto my weekly slalom training sessions through winter so I can feed more people into the sport. I am doing MY bit ok, so once they are in it, its over to you organisational types to run the sport fairly and reasonably. And, IMHO, in terms of the DV and Vets classes, you are not. I think if there was a way to get all the DV's and vets to vote on the subject that most would be able to see an area for improvement.

I dont see any objections or downsides to age banding as stated in the ICF rules...even if amended to 10 year bands! Nobody has to dish out prizes. Just points. And nobody has to panic about the problems that forcing people to admit their real age on an entry card will bring either - because it wont bring any! Hmph! Who on earth heard of that when you need to be of age to BE a Vet! Or should I say Master, another wholly sensible change that would bring us inline with the ICF. And why are my "ideas" so seemingly radically outrageous when they are already featured in the current ICF rules?? Cmon people, get off your high horses and have the courage to make some decisions to improve the sport for so many.

Why do I think that I will be posting after the ACM to say what a waste of time it was me attending? Please, please, please give me a single reason not to! Like I said, I am a very reasonable man indeed

Spiderman · Post by **Spiderman** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:30 pm

I am currently in the ACM and have just had the opportunity to air my views. I am grateful to the committee for allowing me to stray off agenda to flag up the Veteran matter. I do not wish to remove or reword my previous post but I will retract it having now had this opportunity. Ken was looking to me to do something constructive so I now propose to. in conjunction with NP I will endeavour to coordinate and publish a league table for age banded Masters

For this I simply need peoples dates of birth. Not sure how to get all those but there must be a way. It seems the committee was waiting for a motion from someone (probably me) and we (I) were waiting for one from them! i hope that if I can get this league sorted out, by the end of 2009 the committee will have a working system to formally adopt

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 12:40 pm

Pretty sure that dob is on bib registration, so a nce word to the bib officers might get you the info.

BUT might be better to get an opt in, so that people do not get upset over having their ages published. If you know what age bands you will use, perhaps the bib form could be amended to allow such opt in.

(I am 50-55 by the way)

John · Post by **John** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:13 pm

If people may be upset about their ages being known, it could be better to have age-bands 40+, 50+, etc. So a 52 year old could either choose to enter in the 40+ category or the 50+ category.
That's the same as with the juniors, where the age bands are under 14, under 16, etc.

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 3:41 pm

I'd suggest we just go with the ICF ages bands. If people don't want to be included in the age groups they won't be listed on the league system. If they want to be listed then they have to disclose there age. Simple choice.

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:24 pm

Every entry card requires your DOB and is on public display at the event.... or is it just me that fills it in?

Mark Shaw · Post by **Mark Shaw** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:21 pm

Let's go with the ICF age categories for now and adjust them if we need to at the end of the season.

I've only ever been involved with the May Bala Mill slalom event, but seem to remember that the majority of Masters (DVs) had completed their DoB on their entry cards. If they want to put their age band rather then their DoB then I can't see that being a problem.

As already stated, if Masters do complete their card then it's not hard for the organiser to assign them to the correct age categories - either manually or using slalom software adjusted to cope (I don't use Slasoft as the writer has no intention to keep it up to date).

So, instead of putting DV on the results sheet we will now be putting M35, M40, M45, etc. (I assume we put the lower end of the band rather than the top to indicate the age group Masters fall in to?).

katonas · Post by **katonas** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:46 pm

djberriman wrote:Every entry card requires your DOB and is on public display at the event.... or is it just me that fills it in?

Problem solved ! Go ahead Spiderman.

It does raise the Q about whether other info should be available to passers by (I shall be omitting some of the other info from now on)