Coaches-cum-selectors?

[Hennie VR]

Welcome to TheHub Laundromat. Feel free to wash your dirty laundry here.

 

Ps. If your youngster is so good and is worthy of selection he/she will be selected. There are more than one selector. If you are implying that your youngster wont get selected because there is a coach on one of the selection panels then you are implying that the rest are also corrupt.

[V12man]

i hear you but I just think he shouldn't have to defend himself.

 

 

He certainly needs to respond to the allegations - there is clearly potential for a massive conflict of interest - so he should explain how he deals with it - then we can decide if we think that is appropriate.

[Servetus]

That's irrelevant... it scared people

 

The new title is worse

[Jakkals.]

Our society became cruel. This man has done lots for the sport and now we are questioning him?

 

Well if he tells me, that we need to select someone for the national team, I would say: great, you know far more than me. and leave it there, not question him.

 

I'm sure the people with him on the panel would also agree with him more than disagree with him.

[JGR]

Nepotism is favoritism granted in politics or business to relatives regardless of merit

 

Not sure that it's what you mean here

Nepotism is favoritism granted to relatives or friends, with no regard to merit. Nepotism can happen at home, school, college, politics and even in workplace - try look further than wiki next time. It is not exclusive to politics or family as you suggest

[davem]

Talk about blowing smoke to make someone think there is a fire.

 

How would you feel if a poster said:

 

If <insert your name> was a paedophile, then we should make sure we don't have him around our kids.

 

Next thing everyone is discussing whether you are a paedophile or not.

 

Not fair. Not based on any facts. Just complete supposition designed to be defamatory.

Edited September 19, 2013 by davem

[RocknRolla]

Our society became cruel. This man has done lots for the sport and now we are questioning him?

 

Well if he tells me, that we need to select someone for the national team, I would say: great, you know far more than me. and leave it there, not question him.

 

I'm sure the people with him on the panel would also agree with him more than disagree with him.

 

our guv'ment has also done wonders for tenderpreneurship...

[Kranswurm]

Nepotism is favoritism granted to relatives or friends, with no regard to merit. Nepotism can happen at home, school, college, politics and even in workplace - try look further than wiki next time. It is not exclusive to politics or family as you suggest

 

It is generally associated with family.

[Hennie VR]

Wait a sec. Maybe I'm missing it. How is there conflict of interest?

 

So the man is a coach as well as a selector: He coaches a rider but the rider gets selected on his performance (not the coaches' performance) by a selection panel that consist of more than one selector. Thus if the riders out performs his competition you are saying that the rider stands a good chance of not being selected because he is with the wrong coach. If that is correct that means that the selector had to convince the rest of the selectors that the rider is not good enough even though he/she out performed everyone.............. If that is the case I hope you have some serious facts to back it up.

 

So the man is on a drug free board and owns a nutritional company: How is that conflict of interests? Drug free is an INTERNATIONAL body and everyone has to comply to their standard, thus there is no way he can pass something as legal if its banned by the international body? And if you say that he/she will not get selected because he/she did not use his product then that still means the selector had to influence the rest of the selectors.

[JGR]

Wait a sec. Maybe I'm missing it. How is there conflict of interest?

 

So the man is a coach as well as a selector: He coaches a rider but the rider gets selected on his performance (not the coaches' performance) by a selection panel that consist of more than one selector. Thus if the riders out performs his competition you are saying that the rider stands a good chance of not being selected because he is with the wrong coach. If that is correct that means that the selector had to convince the rest of the selectors that the rider is not good enough even though he/she out performed everyone.............. If that is the case I hope you have some serious facts to back it up.

 

So the man is on a drug free board and owns a nutritional company: How is that conflict of interests? Drug free is an INTERNATIONAL body and everyone has to comply to their standard, thus there is no way he can pass something as legal if its banned by the international body? And if you say that he/she will not get selected because he/she did not use his product then that still means the selector had to influence the rest of the selectors.

I think the coach and being a selector is the issue - not the drugs free or supliment issue. Imagine if Frans Ludeke/Naka Drotske/Alistair Coetzee chose the Bok team .. there might be question marks. It also effects those seleceted in cases

[LOOK695]

Wait a sec. Maybe I'm missing it. How is there conflict of interest?

 

So the man is a coach as well as a selector: He coaches a rider but the rider gets selected on his performance (not the coaches' performance) by a selection panel that consist of more than one selector. Thus if the riders out performs his competition you are saying that the rider stands a good chance of not being selected because he is with the wrong coach. If that is correct that means that the selector had to convince the rest of the selectors that the rider is not good enough even though he/she out performed everyone.............. If that is the case I hope you have some serious facts to back it up.

 

So the man is on a drug free board and owns a nutritional company: How is that conflict of interests? Drug free is an INTERNATIONAL body and everyone has to comply to their standard, thus there is no way he can pass something as legal if its banned by the international body? And if you say that he/she will not get selected because he/she did not use his product then that still means the selector had to influence the rest of the selectors.

I tend to agree with you here Hennie as I believe that our doc is a truthful and upright guy, but the question also deserves an answer

[Grebel]

I doubt that the good doctor is exclusively responsible for selection and of course I am assuming that the candidates need to tick a few boxes prior to even being considered for selection. I would think that him being as successful a coach as his track record states would give him an edge in selecting the correct candidate.

 

If the OP's child was not selected in favour of another child who was coached by the doctor, then perhaps the other child was just better. Simplistic reasoning I know, but still plausible.

[V12man]

Wait a sec. Maybe I'm missing it. How is there conflict of interest?

 

So the man is a coach as well as a selector: He coaches a rider but the rider gets selected on his performance (not the coaches' performance) by a selection panel that consist of more than one selector. Thus if the riders out performs his competition you are saying that the rider stands a good chance of not being selected because he is with the wrong coach. If that is correct that means that the selector had to convince the rest of the selectors that the rider is not good enough even though he/she out performed everyone.............. If that is the case I hope you have some serious facts to back it up.

 

So the man is on a drug free board and owns a nutritional company: How is that conflict of interests? Drug free is an INTERNATIONAL body and everyone has to comply to their standard, thus there is no way he can pass something as legal if its banned by the international body? And if you say that he/she will not get selected because he/she did not use his product then that still means the selector had to influence the rest of the selectors.

 

There is POTENTIAL for the exercising of unfair influence.

 

I see a couple of places where it is a possibility.

 

The selection process - the definition of best performer has always some level of judgement, and it's not always clear who should be in a team/selected, because there are often other considerations than just who won the most races - so things like building a squad for a future date/event etc, developing up and coming talent.

 

Selectors really need to be independent of the athletes being considered, or have a process to manage the lack of independence in specific instances - such as where there is an athlete-coach relationship.

 

The influence over supplement selection for a team by a partisan person could be significant.

 

As to being on a drug free board - the question is if there is the possibility of influence over when athletes are tested - bearing in mind some of the tests have very limited windows to show positive results - a coach should not be in a position to influence independent test schedules.

 

Thus - Dr J should explain how these issues are managed - or not - as the case may be.

[Hennie VR]

I think the coach and being a selector is the issue - not the drugs free or supliment issue. Imagine if Frans Ludeke/Naka Drotske/Alistair Coetzee chose the Bok team .. there might be question marks. It also effects those seleceted in cases

 

If all three of them had to select the Bok team there won't be such an issue. There might be a moerse fight but they will still select a team that is of every franchise. The point I am making is that there is not just one selector selecting a team, there is a panel, and a panel of selectors are used for this reason exactly namely to ensure that the best team gets selected and that every athlete is treated equally and get selected on his/her performance. This applies to all sports.

 

And back to your comment. I think if all provincial coaches are used to select the Bok team it will still be better than having some of the SARU selectors that only want to choose players for development purposes instead of selecting on performance.

[Tumbleweed]

Not sure about the timing, but was The Doctor a selector during the non-selection of Cherise, which caused so much gnashing of teeth?

[JGR]

If all three of them had to select the Bok team there won't be such an issue. There might be a moerse fight but they will still select a team that is of every franchise. The point I am making is that there is not just one selector selecting a team, there is a panel, and a panel of selectors are used for this reason exactly namely to ensure that the best team gets selected and that every athlete is treated equally and get selected on his/her performance. This applies to all sports.

 

And back to your comment. I think if all provincial coaches are used to select the Bok team it will still be better than having some of the SARU selectors that only want to choose players for development purposes instead of selecting on performance.

Yes but we dont know the influence he might carry over the other two selectors. But my example was to relate it to something we 'bok' supporters complain about all the time. Meyer has Blue tinted glasses ect.