2007 High Performance Committee Meeting
Toronto, ON – January 19-20, 2007
VP High Performance Alain Gravel VP 3D Tom Paukovic
Arthur Nault AWAD Co-ordinator Bruce Savage CCC
Allen Jenskey, HPC Chairperson Shawn Riggs Athlete rep
Marthe Cusson Team Uniform Co-ordinator Hayley Mott Athlete Services Co-ordinator
Jeff Gunter RCC Joan McDonald RCC Gaston Bibeau RCC
Via Telephone (Sunday only): Susan Lemke RCC
Guests: Kathy Millar Executive Director
Paul Jurbala, Long-term Athlete Development Model facilitator
1. Opening Remarks and greetings from the Vice-President
The meeting began at 9:30 at the Ontario Sports Alliance building. The Vice-President of High Performance welcomed and thanked everyone for attending. He hoped that problems with his electronic communications had been rectified.
Special Presentation Olympic/Paralympic Preparation
Joan McDonald presented a plan to prepare athletes for Beijing. (Appendix D.)
Conceptually, the plan involves bringing archers together virtually for competition and training, bringing 16-18 people together face-to-face 1-2 times per year, purchasing Dartfish software (approximately $1700) and building a virtual classroom for coaches and archers.
12) Reading and approval of the HPC minutes from November 5-6, 2005 meeting
13) Business Arising from the Minutes
ACTION: Allen will send Joan McDonald Jacqui Saito’s material. Joan will contact Ann Balmer.
ACTION: Joan will send updated version to Kathy for new section on the website
ACTION: RCC members Susan, Jeff & Gaston to look at the current HPC policy manual and make stand alone document. (Note: see discussion below)
Allen tried to pare down FITA’s manual to something reasonable and analyze it for realistic facility standards. HPC can not be too heavy-handed; if an organising committee does not have sufficient equipment, the manual must guide the committee to obtain it and from whom.
ACTION: Allen will have a draft ready for discussion for the end of March
A published version provides no real benefit, but an electronic version on the FCA website would.
ACTION: Kathy will ask Al Wills for a second level of Excellence that is password-secured for Excellence members only.
ACTION: Allen and Shawn will work with Al Wills to decide what information will be included in the InfoExcellence section.
14) Marketing & Equipment
Kathy Millar was pleased with the coverage the national junior/cadet team received in the 2007 Neet catalogue. The photo does not seem to be in the on-line catalogue.
ACTION: Kathy will contact Neet products.
Hayley Mott reported that Win & Win wants to see their bows shot on the international level. The sponsorship may be in jeopardy.
ACTION: Kathy will work with Hayley to produce a shopping list of products and then review sponsorship history and how archery manufacturers deal with sponsorship.
15) Child Abuse Registry
The current national version is not very accurate. There are two levels of criminal record checks and one is more in-depth. Should a search on a national team coach flag an entry on the abuse registry, HPC want to re-consider the applicant or pursue the investigation further. ABAM has a policy at the club level.
ACTION: Tom Paukovic will e-mail better system than this to FCA office.
ACTION: Jeff Gunter will research this information in order to form a policy by June.
16) Communication and Suppliers
The current national team shirt supplier has not been able to provide product effectively.
ACTION: Hayley has been given the job to find a solution for team shirts.
ACTION: Kathy will calculate the cost for FCA providing uniforms to all Red Squad compared with costs presently.
Policy – Team Uniforms
Other outstanding projects from the task list were updated for circulation to HPC.
· FCA Operational Plan 2004-2007 – progress report
The Executive Director led HPC through the progress report. It is important the committees review the Plan regularly since the FCA budget is based on its line items.
· FCA Task List
The Executive Director asked HPC to review the Task List regularly for omissions and errors. Marthe Cusson noted that the team uniform co-ordinator position was not listed.
· HPC Plan to 2012 – progress report
The Executive Director led HPC through the progress report. She encouraged the committee to switch to macro-management in order to look at the broader concerns of HP and planning. See full report in Appendix A.
· LTADM meeting impact on HPC, its planning and possible changes
This portion of the agenda was led by Paul Jurbala; Susan Lemke participated via Skype. Until the end of March, the main goal is produce the matrix draft (model). FCA and HPC have to anticipate what the challenges will be moving athletes through the model. When that is figured out, archery will use the plan to make the changes. For detailed discussion on the LTADM and HPC’s role in developing the matrix, see full report in Appendix B.
5. Implementing the HP Plan, Phase 4 –Regional Coach Projects & Activities
· Leadership, Communication and meeting deadlines
Susan led the discussion. RCC need to reply that an e-mail has been received.
· Identify & Establish a working relationship with archers and coaches in their region
Susan had submitted a survey to the group for feedback and had none from other RCC members. Coach certification definitions were supposed to be reviewed also.
ACTION: Kathy will request NCCP send a certification report by coach name for each province.
ACTION: RCC to review Susan’s survey and respond within a week.
ACTION: RCC to approve survey and circulate to coaches.
ACTION: RCC invite coaches to work with RCC and find out what coaches need.
ACTION: Tom Paukovic will provide input to Susan.
· Regional Coach work plan January 01 to December 31, 2007
Allen stated that RCC must function as a group. This year in the HPC plan marked the transition to an independent sub-committee, but it does not look like RCC can work on its own. RCC has not had a co-ordinated vision and at this stage should not work on detailed items without vision.
Kathy stated that all RCC members were personal coaches and this meant that each member was very busy with athletes as well as coaches. RCC only met twice face-to-face at national championships and it was not productive. Jeff felt that HPC’s agenda are so full with important topics and RCC deals with micro-management issues that do not require all HPC members present. Communication was supposed to be regular but it has been 15-months since regular Skype meetings were held. Gaston Bibeau will leave the chair position because chair needs to push other members to get work done, and it is not want he wants to do. It does not matter who is on the committee or who chairs RCC, the work still has to be done. Since leadership is an administrative role, the chair does not need to be one of the RCCs. Then members can do their practical work.
ACTION: RCC will host a conference call to make communication plan within the next two weeks. RCC look after this matter and Kathy will assist
ACTION: Jeff will ask Chloe Greenhalgh if CFL funds are available for an Enunciate call.
ACTION: Jeff will create teleconference agenda regarding RCC Workplan 2007.
ACTION: Kathy will work with Jeff to set up the teleconference.
Internal RCC Performance Feedback – Assessment for Learning
The Executive Director led the discussion regarding the RCC and national team coach performance assessment. She stressed the importance of open and objective performance review among the members of RCC, particularly in light of the fact that they were acting as mentors for the next generation of national team coaches. There was considerable discussion about the type of assessment, how it should be conducted, who should be evaluated, who should be asked to evaluate, what body would receive the feedback, confidentiality and strategies to grow from the feedback.
What should the performance appraisal do? It should provide an opportunity for feedback from among coaches and the archers on an international team. The purpose is to provide opportunities to improve skills sets and performance.
The majority of the group felt that an outside agency should be involved in collecting questionnaires from coaches and athletes.
The Coach Certification Committee will strike a sub-committee of recognised experts plus at least one athlete representative to form a performance review and feedback group.
The Team Leader handbook should state that:
1. Head coaches should have support staff meetings daily.
2. Head coaches should designate who on the support staff is in charge of logistics. This should be communicated to the athletes as soon as possible.
ACTION: RCC will review the HPC Policy Manual and create a user-friendly Team Leader handbook.
ACTION: Kathy, Bruce, Alain and Tom will create a performance feedback questionnaire and present the draft to Jeff Gunter for input.
6. Regional Coach Activities 2007 and Review of budget draft to Executive
Impact of Canadian Sport Review Panel Mid-quadrennial review decisions
The Executive Director explained that the AWAD programme had received an increase of $10,000 toward the training and competition of a specific archer. However, the A/B budget was reduced by $5,000 to $15,000.
2007 events in order of priority:
First Tier with estimated expenses:
Pan Am Games 2 archers
No other team coaches $ 5,000
FITA World Target Championships 6 recurve archers
6 compound archers
3 staff $18,000
IPC World Target Championships 3 archers
1 coach & 1 classifier $11,000
Continental Qualification Tournament 6 recurve archers
1 coach $ 8,400
FITA 3Di World Championship 4 archers
1 coach $ 1,500
Second Tier priorities:
Olympic/Paralympic Preparation Plan
2007 Canadian Team Trials
Olympic Test Event
There will be no B Team event for 2007. The World Cup in August is in Great Britain and conflicts with the NAA championships.
ACTION: Kathy Millar will re-vamp the draft budget according to these priorities.
· Canada Games
Susan Lemke will be attending the Whitehorse Games as RCC representative to work with local coaches. Funding had been determined previously at $1500 from the FCA Operational Plan. Canada Games Council is accepting sport applications on a per-Games basis instead of a 4-year block. FCA will apply to include archery in the next Summer Games available, as well as the 2011 Winter Games in Halifax.
8. Carding Criteria for 2007
Kathy Millar asked for suggestions regarding able-bodied AAP development cards in time for mid-February.
The following suggestions will be included:
Replace WRE with World Cup
Make an Olympic team
Junior – winning the trials – the event is tied to international standard
9. 2006 Trials format
· Discussion of process and changes to date
Allen Jenskey outlined the development and review process: The initial format was revised by the Excellence Review Committee (ERC)* after feedback and potential weight for day 1 and less for day 4. Round Robin day 3 archers were selected from the top 8 from day 1 and 2; the number points earned on day 4 is potentially less than the number of points on day 1 or 3. There were house-keeping duties afterwards.
He followed up with those members who wanted changes. It was a learning experience, and there are as many opinions as archers. He is not sure that there will ever be consensus. Some people wanted a Double Elimination for day 4 and others wanted a single OR.
In order to make it a 3-day format, some accommodation could be made year-to-year, but when people are qualifying for a junior and a senior team at the same event, it is impossible. The Committee is not prepared to cut either the round robin or match play (Day 3 or 4); and the double elimination day (Day 2) is not weighted enough to affect outcome.
The Committee hoped that archers could participate in a major event and trials in one weekend. For an organising committee, it means that they can make money or break even. Without the numbers from a major event, the host would lose money hosting the trials.
What does it really cost in relation to the old system and number of days involved? It is the same amount of time or less on average than the old system; and it costs less. People usually needed more than 4 tournaments in order to get a qualifying average with a major event.
Reporting on behalf of the sub-committee regarding format, Allen stated that they had looked at a wide variety of issues, days, format, but will stand pat. Considering the positive results from the Pan American Championship, and the revisions made the format, what was done, worked.
12) ERC members are Allen Jenskey, Shawn Riggs, Hugh MacDonald, Greg Durward, Joan McDonald, Tom Paukovic.
There will be a limit of 3 recurve only (6 archers and 1 team leader). It was suggested that the trials be used for pre-selection to CQT plus summer development. Archers would be asked to state that their interest to attend.
ACTION: Excellence Review Committee will submit a proposal by February 15th
ACTION: Joan will send the most updated version of trials format to Al Wills.
ACTION: Kathy will send all Olympic team information to both Joan and Bruce.
There is no paid coach position, but the plan can be managed professionally.
ACTION: HPC will monitor the plan. Joan will report to the HPC Vice-President.
It was noted that the following coaches should be approached regarding the position of Team Co-ordinator: Jean-Pierre LaFleur, Dave Middlebrough, and Greg Armstrong
· Setting date for 2007 trials: Pan Am Games & FITA outdoor target
Scores for will be accepted for the trials until midnight May 28 ET.
· Call for host clubs
Host clubs can apply for the right to host a major event as long as the applicant can meet HPC guidelines.
From MOTION HPC #03-09: The HPC will consider bids for a major event if the organising committee can demonstrate:
· the ability to run a tournament to the highest international standards*
· the ability to attract high performance archers
· that there will be No entry restrictions for the entire event
· that there will be a Ranking round
· that there will match play (to a Maximum of 64 archers per category)
Bids must be submitted to the national office by October 1st (effective 2004)
HPC will accept bids for major event tournaments from each region. The candidates would be evaluated on their ability to host a quality event, not provincially based, but based on the organisation or group.
ACTION: Kathy will publish an extraordinary Info.E-mail to call for bids for major events other than Canada Cup and call for bids for trials
13) Ranking Review Project – results and discussion
Allen Jenskey presented an overview of the proposed ranking system changes. This proposal was published three times in Info.E-mail. Only one coach and one archer responded. The proposal was meant to encompass all skills needed by modern competitive target archers, yet stay simple, easy to understand without employing a complex formula.
Proposal: An athlete’s ranking would be the sum of the following points
1440 Best FITA score of the season
720 Best 70m score of the season
240 Best 2 match play scores of the season
2400 Perfect and rank established in order by equipment, sex and age
Squad Levels would maintain ties with international performance using an average over the past 3 world championships. (See proposal in appendices.)
Allen cautioned that this topic is still for discussion. Bruce noted that clubs will need to know so that they can change their schedule of events in future years.
14) Committee Work – Reports
Business arising from the reports
Arthur Nault reported that AWAD results were good. IPC administrative changes have slowed down information flow regarding 2007 events. No Paralympic test event has been slated in Beijing. Upon approval by both IPC Archery and FITA at Congress, IPC Archery will come under FITA’s umbrella.
Kathy Millar reported that the two Canadians who competed at the 2006 World Field Championships were Rick Scammell and Wayne Fleet.
15) COC/CPC requirements for internal nominations/selection 2008
· Internal nomination procedure for Pan Am Games, Olympic Games and Paralympic Games
FCA nomination procedures submissions are past due because of the LTAD meeting in December.
ACTION: Susan will report to COC that Pan Am Games’ selection is by trials.
Joan, Bruce and Kathy will develop Olympic nomination for Rising Star.
Susan, Arthur and Kathy will develop Paralympic nomination for Rising Star.
16) Other Business
HPC recommends to the Executive Committee that FCA Annual Awards be presented at one of the major banquets during the national target championships and not during the Annual General Meeting.
ACTION: Tom Paukovic will provide a nomination for the Tom Longboat athlete award by the deadline. Doris Jones will be nominated.
ACTION: HPC members will provide nominations with biographies by the end of March for: Junior Female Athlete, Junior Male Athlete, Senior Female Athlete, Senior Male Athlete and Coach of the Year Awards and any others that the HPC wishes to submit.
17) Setting next meeting date and adjournment.
The meeting was adjourned at 15:20. No date was set for a face-to-face meeting. No date was set for the first quarterly conference call.
Calendar Decisions from Last Meeting
1. 2007 World Indoor Championships March 13-17 Izmir, TUR
Team criteria will include results from Aalborg World Championship
2. 2007 World 3Di Championships June 6-10 Sopron, HUN
Team criteria as posted from 2005
3. 2007 World Target Championships, July 7-15 Leipzig, GER
4. 2007 Pan Am Games July 23-28 Rio, BRA
Trials format COC criteria as well as COPARCO qualification.
5. 2007 Olympic Test Event August 20-26 Beijing, CHN
Does Canada send archers? Does FCA fund archers?
6. 2007 IPC World Championships September 28 – October 8 Cheong-ju, KOR
Team criteria will include results from 2005 World Championship
7. 2008 Olympic Games August 08-16 Beijing, CHN
8. 2008 Paralympic Games September 06-13 Beijing, CHN
9. 2008 FITA World Field Championships September 07-13 Llwynnpia, GBR
10. 2008 FITA Junior/Cadet World Championships October 11-19 New Delhi, IND
11. 2008 7th World University Championships TBA TBA, TPE
12. 2009 FITA World Indoor Championships March Rzeszow, POL
Team criteria will include results from Izmir World Championship?
HPC Plan to 2012 – progress report
Funding incentives for performance in 2006 were offered, but this is not a strategy.
ACTION: Kathy will break down the budget further into recurve and compound income and disbursements to produce pie-charts for easier visual understanding.
Joan McDonald has started to work with physiotherapists to determine what measures are needed in an inventory in order to create a profile. What do archers need?
ACTION: Joan will talk to Racheal Savage regarding profiles.
Currently, there is no operational COPARCO ranking list. Does one exist now or will it be used in the future? If there is no list, is there continued need for ranking events? Who decided to create the list? Was it a directive from FITA? Other continental associations do not have ranking events.
ACTION: Kathy will contact Al Wills.
ACTION: Kathy will move this item into a new section of the Plan called Other Considerations
21) Talent ID Strategy
Instead of the level 3 certificates being used to trigger RCC interest, CanBow re-orders should be used. Currently, CanBow certificate requests depend upon the club co-ordinator to ask for certificates; any that come in are sent to Susan Lemke. A promotional video may be helpful to introduce archers to high performance
ACTION: Kathy to send club’s information about Excellence with CanBow re-orders.
ACTION: Kathy to send contact information to Regional Coach for talent ID.
ACTION: Kathy will send current CanBow promotional video and VHS of archers that FCA owns already to Allen Jenskey.
ACTION: Allen will design a talent ID-driven DVD to include in the CanBow starter kit.
As an ID source, this event could be useful if RCC looked at younger age divisions. But what is missing is a profile inventory to help identify talent without the person shooting an arrow. Joan has a contact from India who offered to send a sample of what they used. However, she has received no response. Who has mental aptitude; what physical characteristics? Further down the road, FCA may enter into Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with other NSOs to share talent ID after retirement.
ACTION: Joan will follow up with Indian contact.
ACTION: RCC will scout provincial championships, 900 rounds, provincial indoors and outdoors, national indoor youth divisions.
ACTION: Kathy will ask other sports for profiles to see if anything is transferable.
ACTION: Kathy will write to Pascal to see what other countries have and who to contact.
22) 2006 Facilities inventory
ACTION: Bruce will ask OAA if it is willing to share membership demographics.
ACTION: Gaston will use Susan’s file as a base for a Québec listing by June.
Money is spent on top-level carded athletes; each centre operates slightly differently. More often they are targeting selected number of sports to service.
ACTION: List of services provided by NSC in new Excellence website section.
ACTION: Joan to contact Ian Caiger to offer a tax receipt for time to ensure update is done by June 2007.
h) WRE factored into ranking list
This item is postponed for discussion of ranking system review and importance of WRE versus World Cup events.
i) Funding structure differences between compound and recurve archers
The Executive Director explained present structure. Shawn did not feel that HPC explained the 2006 performance reward system well enough.
This plan item was added as promotional item to introduce RCC to coaches at the target national. Is it still needed? National championships are not a good place to meet. RCCs need to drive their own work plan.
ACTION: Funds will be transferred out of this item and into RCC planning session.
The RCC and HPC do not communicate well enough. Too much information is sent “reply all”. Discussion forum with password protection will keep e-mail threads together better.
ACTION: Post HPC Task list on HPC portion of website
ACTION: Schedule conference call every 3 months for whoever is available.
26) What is in the Plan for 2007?
Pan Am Medal Performances
HPC stated that FCA will send its best archers to both the world championship and Pan Am Games.
HPC’S ROLE IN THE LONG-TERM ATHLETE DEVLEOPMENT MODEL
Definition: - A powerful coaching tool for development from as many aspects as possible
- Use it to determine key elements in athlete development
- Use it to define benchmark especially when age is not a key factor.
The rate of passing through development can be compared to a series of bands. Progression through the bands is individual with individual rates. Benchmarks establish where the athlete is each of these bands e.g. physical or competitive.
HPC can use this tool to determine what tournaments archers should really be going to at each point in their career?
What system changes do you need? What are developmental milestones?
Factors to consider could include:
Form Development Strength Measure Endurance Measure
Mental development for consistency Years of training
(Refer to Paul Jurbala’s PowerPoint presentation slides)
Big questions for HPC:
How do we know when an archer is on the verge of High Performance? Do you know it in a systematised way? Is it determined in hours/number of arrows/combination? How do we know? Does FCA have statistics available to get that kind of information?
Alpine Skiing’s example “Age of Success”
When a sport has statistics on age/years of training, if something is consistent, then you can build a regression curve to know when they should start, but also if they will be outside the parameters for the next major Games (on average).
Track performance over years internationally
Archery needs to build the benchmarks for late and early developers and track performance of the individual making allowances for injury, growth, illness. The Matrix should also provide suggestions for what needs to be done in order to keep the archer going toward high performance.
Task for data collection and building the graph:
- Determine what the curve looks like in archery
- Determine how archery identifies “on the verge of HP”
- What is the upper and lower limit of development of benchmarks?
- If the archer is not within the average, what do action needs to be taken to correct it?
- What is the best model of competition in role of developing archers?
- What competitions should athletes attend?
- What is the role of that competition in athlete development?
Role of the competition:
27) It the tournament recommended for the archer because it for retention, developmental, polishing, etc?
Statistically in most sports, participation in Canada Games is two years before entry on the national team. In an overview from the Athens Olympics, the average age was much older. So perhaps archery’s age range for CWG is too big and perhaps participation is too soon to develop archers.
Questions: What impact does competition at US Nationals have on development?
Should FCA send cadets to world championships?
Dartfish could be used to analyse motion differences caused by fatigue after 10 arrows, 50 arrows, 100 arrows, and 200 arrows.
What do you think we need to know and how do we find it?
Claude Rousseau’s diary
Interviewing Canadian Athletes – on-line diaries
Interviewing American Athletes – contacting people, e.g. GBR, NAA, Vic Wunderle
Ranking system’s historical data
Raw world data from senior worlds, junior worlds and Olympics, and extrapolate backwards
Raw world regional data
ACTION: Paul will send his PowerPoint presentation to Joan. Kathy will use it for Info.E-mail.
ACTION: Marthe will send Claude Rousseau’s training statistics to Paul and HPC.
ACTION: Kathy will get in touch with GBR’s AWAD manager and sport psychologist to see if they have developed LTAD benchmarks for archers.
Based on the data we could find, this is the set of parameters defined.
What are key parameters to track over time and develop the system right now in order to capture it in the future?
Bow weight Draw length Arrow volumes Chronological age
How many years in the sport Competitive age
(FCA needs a referral from biomechanist in order for archers to get services at NSC)
Who is Paul going to work with and provide insight for parameter, from whom and when?
ACTION: Bruce Savage will work with Paul regarding the next CCC meeting agenda.
ACTION: Kathy will contact Algonquin College to hire a student.
ACTION: Joan will contact Ian Caiger to get data out of the ranking system.
ACTION: RCC needs to deal with this topic during teleconferences & on COP
ACTION: Kathy will ask Hugh MacDonald if he would work with Paul for honoraria.
Paul Jurballa's LTAD powerpoint presentation
FCA’s Excellence Programme Ranking System under Review
Members of HPC and others in the archery community are reviewing what should be done (if anything) to the FCA ranking system. HPC would like the input of all Excellence members (in particular) regarding what changes you think would be appropriate for the ranking system. The reasons for changing the system are related to wanting more emphasis on match-play, and FITA 70m rounds that are widely used in the USA in even numbered years. The FCA recognizes that many of our athletes attend these events as they typically provide a high level of competition.
The FCA’s primary goal is to incorporate 70m rounds and match-play scores into the ranking system, without using overly complicated formula to determine an archer’s ranking score. This issue has been discussed several times in recent years, but the systems that were presented were quite math intense and required some form of multiplication of scores. The individuals reviewing this issue have some ideas for a very straightforward system. They suggest adding the archer’s best FITA score, their best 70m round score, and 2 best 12-arrow matches together to get a total out of 2400. No solution is ideal, but this seems to be quite simple and easy for people to follow, although there are still several issues to resolve.
For your reference, I have prepared a list outlining what FCA’s ranking is/has been used for by FCA, provincial archery organizations, governments, archers and coaches. It is the FCA’s intent to maintain the link between squad levels and some international standard.
1/ Awarding of equipment under the FCA Equipment Programme
2/ Achieving AAP carding criteria (forms a portion of the criteria in some cases)
3/ Determine the level of support an archer may receive for a specific event, as determined by the HPC
4/ Part of a talent identification system.
5/ Allow government and funding partners to see how Canadian athletes compare to known international standards
6/ Allow Canadian athletes some comparison of their abilities to known international standards
7/ Criteria for “National Team” status under the Bell “Athlete’s Can Connect” programme
8/ Selecting teams not selected using trials (for example, “B Team”, AWAD and potentially for World Cup Teams)
9/ PSO’s use for allocating PSO funding to athletes, for the funding the PSO’s receive from the provincial government, and for access to regional training centres
10/ Enable athletes to compare their performance with that of other competitive archers in Canada
11/ Identify athletes for the CCES anti-doping testing pool
12/ Support athlete efforts to garner private sector sponsorship
If you have any thoughts on the ranking system, please forward them to one of the following individuals:
Yours in archery,
Al Jenskey, Chair – High Performance Committee
Le Système de Classement du Programme d’Excellence de la FCA est en cours de révision
Les membres du comité de haute performance (CHP) et d’autres bénévoles de la communauté du tir à l’arc examinent actuellement le système de classement de la FCA pour décider des modifications qu’il faudra éventuellement lui apporter (si c’est le cas). Le CHP souhaite recevoir les commentaires de tous les membres d’excellence (en priorité) au sujet des modifications qui, selon eux, seraient appropriées à apporter au système de classement. Nous souhaitons modifier ce système de classement pour accorder plus d’importance aux confrontations et aux épreuves FITA 70 m, qui sont largement répandues aux € les années paires. En effet, la FCA reconnaît que beaucoup de nos athlètes participent à ces compétitions américaines, car elles sont en général d’un excellent niveau.
L’objectif principal de la FCA consiste à intégrer les épreuves FITA 70 m et les confrontations au système de classement, sans avoir à recourir à des formules trop compliquées pour calculer le score de classement des athlètes. On a débattu de ce problème plusieurs fois au cours des récentes années, mais les systèmes proposés étaient trop basés sur des calculs mathématiques compliqués impliquant certains types de multiplications des scores. Ceux qui examinent actuellement ce problème ont en tête un système beaucoup plus simple. Ils proposent d’ajouter le meilleur pointage FITA de l’athlète, son meilleur pointage à une épreuve FITA 70 m, et des deux (2) meilleurs pointages en une ronde de 12 flèches, pour obtenir un total sur 2400 points de classement. Aucune solution n’est idéale, mais cette proposition semble assez simple et facile à comprendre pour tous, bien qu’il y ait encore plusieurs problèmes à régler.
J’ai préparé, à titre de référence, une liste des diverses utilisations du classement de la FCA, actuellement ou par le passé, par la FCA, les associations provinciales de tir à l’arc, les gouvernements, les archers et les entraîneurs. La FCA souhaite préserver le lien entre les niveaux des diverses équipes et les normes internationales établies.
1) Attribuer de l’équipement dans le cadre du programme d’équipement de la FCA.
2) Obtenir un critère de brevetage du PAA (dans certains cas, cela forme une partie du critère).
3) Déterminer le niveau de soutien dont peut bénéficier un€ archer donné€ à une compétition spécifique, tel que déterminé par le CHP.
4) Partie d’un système d’identification des talents (système de dépistage).
5) Permettre au gouvernement et aux partenaires financiers de mesurer le niveau des athlètes canadiens par rapport à des normes internationales reconnues.
6) Permettre aux athlètes canadiens de comparer leur niveau avec des normes internationales reconnues.
7) Critère de détermination du statut de membre de l’«équipe nationale» dans le cadre du programme «Athlètes branchés» de Bell.
8) Sélectionner des équipes non choisies à l’aide d’épreuves de sélection, par exemple : l’équipe «B», celle des athlètes ayant un handicap (AH) et éventuellement les équipes pour les épreuves de la Coupe du monde.
9) Les OPS l’utilisent pour allouer leurs subventions provinciales aux athlètes, en ce qui concerne le financement que les OPS reçoivent de leur gouvernement provincial, ainsi que pour déterminer l’accès aux centres provinciaux d’entraînement.
10) Permettre aux athlètes de comparer leurs performances à celles d’autres archers compétitifs canadiens.
11) Identifier les athlètes en vue du groupe cible enregistré du CCES, pour le contrôle antidopage.
12) Soutenir les efforts de l’athlète pour obtenir des commandites du secteur privé.
Si vous avez des commentaires à formuler au sujet du système de classement, veuillez les faire parvenir à une des personnes suivantes :
Sportivement vôtre, Al Jenskey, président du comité de haute performance