There’s no hiding from it. I am an athletics supporter through and through. Journalists are not supposed to be biased, or fans. We are not supposed to cheer when our favourite team scores or when one of our favourite athletes finally makes a big break.
We are not robots either, and separating emotion from our profession is not as easy as it sounds even though most of us manage to be impartial because that is what journalism requires from us.
Reporting on athletics over the last few years has been a thankless job for the odd hack who has made the sport a labour of love. But this year has been nothing short of exhilarating for the handful of dedicated athletics journos as we finally had something better than the odd 10.20-second 100 metre to report on.
Athletics is alive and kicking - and let’s be clear - not at the volition of the battling federation but probably thanks to athletes from previously disadvantaged communities finally getting an equal opportunity to shine.
The sport in the country is well and truly at a crossroads. If the right road is taken, we can grow into a powerhouse of not only the continent but also on the global stage. Athletics SA (ASA) has been making all the right noises over the last few months, and it is starting to behave like the flagship sport of the Olympic movement.
At a recent “Excellence Symposium’, ASA revealed plans to support athletes on a greater scale to what they grown accustomed to over the past four years or so.
And unlike years before, ASA will release the quality standards for major athletics championships over the next four years in the build-up to the Tokyo 2020 Olympics.
This in itself is a major step in the right direction, and should be applauded but a ‘nanny-like’ trend once again emerges from these developments.
ASA released a provisional long-term selection strategy that will apply to the IAAF World Championships, Commonwealth Games, and Olympics. While the criteria is supposed to still be under discussion, ASA sent out a press release that it had already been adopted by stakeholders.
This caused a fair share of panic and confusion - as is the case with ASA matters - with the federation introducing a more stringent qualifying standard compared to that of the IAAF.
According to the release the selection policy has been introduced to “bring back honour to South Africa” and “to secure medals at major international championships over the next four seasons”.
The more stringent standards seem to be based on the top 20 times or distances in the world in 2016. The problem with these standards is that we could possibly discourage future track and field stars being lured to other more lucrative sports.
Athletics already battles to keep the top talent committed to the sport, and it does not need administrators to cannibalise the code.
“The qualifying criteria are subject to change in accordance with international policies, but our intentions are to give the athletes and coaches sufficient time to prepare to reach international goals, and this four-year plan maps the way in which we can achieve this,” ASA president Aleck Skhosana said.
“Our mandate of competition is to bring back medals and these stringent standards, therefore, are meant to up our game so that we can target the top spots in the world rankings. We can’t be behind the likes of Jamaica who largely specialise in sprints when we are in all major disciplines.
“So, we believe South Africa can establish its place as one of the leading countries in the sport, and our long-term vision will assist us to climb the ranks.”
Mr Skhosana is right, but let’s hope we do not go in the other direction as we look to grow the sport. Either way, I remain a fan ...