Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
Again though, the problem is that some of the people you don't send will be athletes who would have been contenders with funding. Case is point: David Ford. Got his funding cut under the current system, finished 6th, would've been fourth if not for an invisible deduction. We don't know what he would've done with better funding, but he might have hit the podium. Target your funding, and you get a lot more David Fords.
|
I think we are saying the same thing. Target the funding - don't take a shotgun approach where you have a big pile and hope someone steps up.
If Ford is good enough to be 6th I'm certainly not saying he should be funded.
I'm saying its the guys/gals finishing 40th/30th/20th - and have no hopes of ever getting better.
Not easy - and sometimes you might be wrong. But no one has really convinced me yet that a huge team is the way to go.