PLEASE READ FROM HIGH PERFORMANCE CHAIR, ALLAN FROSTAD
Note to Athletes, Parents and Coaches Regarding AWG Selection Process
The High Performance Committee (HPC) of Cross Country Yukon (CCY) is tasked with the selection of all athletes attending CCY trips in a predictable and fair manner, following the Selection Criteria set out prior to the race season commencing. The process we follow can never be ideal, despite our best efforts, and occasionally there are issues that arise.
Most recently, there was a problem with the second selection race for the Arctic Winter Games, the Don Sumanik free technique race, that affected the Midget Boys category.
· A simple start-list fault led to a change made to start scheduling. This resulted in altered time gaps between racers.
· The gaps in start times between the athletes were changed significantly - up to three times the specified gap. Athletes use time gaps to judge their position relative to others, especially in a race with short, 15-second starts like were used in this case. This created a situation that significantly disadvantaged at least one athlete, but not all equally.
· This error was brought to the attention of a member of the HPC, who felt we needed to discuss this situation. The Committee met on Dec. 21st, along with the CCY President, and decided that rather than act reactively and wait for an official protest to be filed, we would be proactive and use the alternate date set in the selection criteria (Jan 3) to re-run the race for the affected athletes. The reasoning for this is as follows:
1. Normally, an action like this is taken only after an official appeal has been launched. Due to the timeline, and based on information that an appeal would be filed, we all felt we needed to resolve this issue immediately. There was an athlete Christmas party the evening of Dec. 21st, and to avoid the spread of rumour or the causing of unnecessary stress over the holiday period, we made this decision to hopefully provide some resolution and clarity.
2. Race strategy in general, and the strategy employed by the affected athlete specifically, is a legitimate competition tactic. Strategies can be an effective way to cope with the stresses of competition, and can help an athlete focus on the task at hand. Any level of racer, from Jackrabbit to Olympian, employs race tactics as part of their competition approach.
3. Although unfortunate circumstances often have detrimental impacts on an athlete’s race performance (poor wax, changing weather/snow, poor course conditions, competitor interference, crashes, failed equipment, etc.), many of these are under the control of the athlete, affect all competitors equally, or are situations that race officials have no control over at all. In this case, a technical problem occurred. It was completely outside of athlete control, did not affect all athletes equally, and was under the control of officials. It was also a problem we felt we could remedy.
4. While a re-race is unusual, and is an inconvenience to multiple athletes, it was thought to be the best situation available to us to ensure an equal opportunity. As an official, I’ve always believed that our primary concern is to make a competition equal for all competitors. This environment was unfortunately (and very accidentally) not provided.
5. Athletes who were clearly not impacted by the error were excluded from the re-race, as there was little doubt as to their positioning relative to the field. Specifically, the same athlete won both races. Another athlete was second in both with a combined deficit of less than 45 seconds. Places 3-6 were between just over 3 and just under 4 minutes behind the leader (combined races). Racers who finished in 3rd in both races (different skiers) were never closer than a full minute behind the leader in the individual races.
· A complicating factor was that the Don Sumaniks were a test event for the upcoming 2016 Ski Nationals. This dictated how the starts would be set up, in terms of style: mass start Saturday, 15-second interval start Sunday. Very close, or instantaneous, starts encourage racers to employ tactics that compare themselves to another athlete, rather than just racing as hard as they’re able. While some seem to find this objectionable, it is inevitable. Learning, and testing, race strategy is part of the growth of an athlete, as big a part of their competitive toolkit as knowing how to warm up correctly or how to efficiently transition between ski techniques.
There have been concerns raised about our defense of an athlete who chose to utilize a race strategy that, in the conditions that ended up existing in the event, failed. Aren’t we trying to encourage athletes to go as hard as they can, not only as fast as they have to? Shouldn’t this be a lesson for that athlete? To further address the issue of the appropriateness of athletes using race tactics within a process-driven model, here is further information from Tracey Bilsky, sport psychologist working with the Yukon Ski Team skiers:
I have been asked to give feedback on why both process and race strategy are considered when analyzing race results.
As the mental trainer for the Yukon Cross Country Ski Team, I do teach the athletes to concentrate on themselves and their technique (process based focus) and have plans in place for each segment of their training runs, and their races. If athletes can begin to master this concept, they will best be able to focus on themselves, overcome fatigue and ski as they do in training. This will give them the best chance for success.
However, with that being said, athletes are also competing against other skiers and strategy inevitably comes into play. Do you sit behind another skier and draft, or call track to overcome them? Do you stay back and out of trouble in a mass start or push through to try to lead the pack? Do you take your foot off the gas because you believe you have skied fast enough to earn your qualifying spot, or do you push through regardless? These are examples of decisions that are made on the fly, individually, in races, and are difficult to plan for.
This is a painful sport. I train the athletes to distract themselves from fatigue. Whether athletes push through to the end, or allow their bodies to reduce their push due to fatigue, is an individual decision. However, if a skier’s perception of where they are going to place is inaccurate due to an issue at the start, or another phenomenon outside their control, this may cause them to change strategy or ease up on the gas. The High Performance Committee would have taken into consideration whether the phenomenon that created this perception made the race inequitable or not. Inequities among skiers is not what any athlete, parent, race official or coach would want. If an inequity was created, a re-race is a good decision by the High Performance Committee.
Tracey Bilsky
The High Performance Committee consists of two coach representatives, as well as a committee Chair. The role of the committee Chair is to act as impartial oversight - a person familiar with racing and the selection process, but uninvolved with the athletes, coaches or parents on a day-to-day basis. The Chair is also intended as the primary contact for individuals requesting further information on the process. A meeting with the HPC was held prior to the race season with all Blue Squad athletes and parents – not Green Squad. It is possible this oversight created an information gap for the athletes and parents about the selection process, as well as the means of communication with the committee making the decisions. If they have not already done so, it is very important that all athletes, coaches and parents familiarize themselves with the selection criteria. I, along with the entire HPC, am very sympathetic to the concerns that many have about this decision. We do feel, however, that the decision to re-race was the appropriate one, given the circumstances.
I would also like to point out that while an unfortunate oversight by officials contributed to this situation, we do not mean to be unnecessarily critical of the efforts of our volunteers. Honest mistakes can be made, even by our well-trained and very experienced officiating crew. I have personally been involved in creating a situation that caused a local athlete’s season-ending injury and cost them a medal at Nationals. As an official tasked with providing a safe and equitable competition environment, it is a very painful thing to see any error, even a very small one, impact an athlete in a negative way. In this case, the decision to re-race not only provided the athletes with an opportunity to compete on a level playing field, it allowed us to remove the responsibility some officials may have felt about their impact on a competition. We are a small ski community. Everyone – whether athlete, coach, parent, or volunteer – is doing their best. We always want athletes, coaches and parents to feel comfortable with the program and how decisions are made. We realize there have been individuals who have understandably struggled with our decision. We would hope that this ski community can positively move forward and support each other.
If there are further questions, concerns or appeals to be made, please direct them to me.
Thank you for your understanding.
