CWG Selection Trials

I think, as sportsmen, we all go through the adversities created by our sports officials some time or the other.

Basically - our previous selection policy was-

selection trials are held for competitions in the forthcoming 2 months calender (and if someone has won a medal in the immediate past or had an exceptional performance then he is excused form trials, if he so desires with permission of Federation)

Hence after taking 2009 off I planned to start training by Jan 2010 and be in form by Jun 2010 for World Shooting Championships (WSC) 2010.

However in Mar 2010, we got stumped by the Federation when they announced a new selection policy. The new policy was to follow a system of adding up all scores shot by shooters and averaging them out. The highest aggregate gets selected.

The problems-

1. The policy was implemented in Mar 2010 but scores were retrospectively taken from previous months like Feb 2010...giving rise to prejudice and bias

2. Scores shot by Indian shooters abroad in different (mostly better) conditions were to be compared to scores shot in humid, hot and windy conditions prevailing in the summer months in India.

3. Taken by surprise, since i was not in form in early 2010, i was left with a huge score deficit to catchup in the later selection trials (in Indian conditions)

4. Interestingly the same policy was for Rifle and Pistol shooters too but was amended for them but not for Shot Gunners. So we had a situation; one federation but different selection policies. Again, revealing bias.

5. The whole atmosphere of Vindictiveness, created by the sports administrators did not leave me or some of the other shooters with a positive frame of mind to overcome the odds stacked up.

6.The policy laid down some grace marks for Olympic/WSC medalist but decided that 2004 Olympics being in distant past did not warrant grace marks (as if the experience is limited by 4 year life cycle of each Olympics)

Its now interesting to hear the officials say that the matter was never brought up to their notice, was it not, really!!!

Interestingly, I was in Italy in Jun 2010 where the World Cup Shooting (WCS) was scheduled. In a WCS if there are inadequate number of shooters then the vacancies in the shooting squad have to be filled up by a zero shooter (his scores are not officially counted towards the medal prospects for that competition). So, I got the opportunity to shoot as a zero shooter there. However, upon learning of this the Indian federation, immediately issued a verbal diktat to all shooters that no one is to take part as zero shooter, without the permission of the federation. A permission that they would not give. Normally, I would believe that a federation promoting sports and its sportsmen would want its shooters to get as much opportunity as is possible to shoot and demonstrate their caliber. Or was it that, the federation did not want any anyone other then those selected to throw up a brilliant performance. Why should actions of a sporting federation raise questions.

I have tried to maintain as positive an attitude as is possible, even today as the news is breaking out on the TV and other Media. I do believe there is a higher good for me despite these troubles. I know the strength of the Indian Shooting Team and hence am looking confidently at all those selected to win at the CWG Delhi. By all accounts, the shooters are only growing stronger.

WANTED a fair policy for selection

Every professionally run sports federation must have a simple and transparent system of team selection that serves the aim of selecting a winning team. A good selection policy comforts the athlete by providing clear and justifiable benchmarks.

You would think such an important policy would be discussed among current top athletes’ coaches and experts on the sport, well not so in some cases, such as the NRAI.

Undue haste to pass flawed policy:

The National Rifle Association of India (NRAI) formulated a ‘New Selection Policy’ and put in into effect from 13^th Mar 2010 after only 2 days of public scrutiny. Was this the intent of the policy makers or was it a mistake?

Most shooters were just too shocked and dumbstruck by the contents of this 16 page legally-worded policy that showed no understanding of the sport of shooting, to even react in the given time frame.

India has incredible depth in shooting – this policy was formulated without taking into confidence the wide array world-class shooters from rifle, pistol and shotgun. Two Olympic medalists, two World Champions, multi Asian Games Gold medalist, 3 world record holders and yet for the promulgation of a far reaching ‘new selection policy’ the NRAI consults none of the above.

But it was not just the shooters who were taken aback. This new policy was a surprise to many members of the governing body of the NRAI too, as reported in the TOI.

What are the flaws in ‘New Selection Policy?’

1] Disrupts training in a critical year:

For India, 2010 is a very important year because of Commonwealth Games Delhi. Every Indian shooter wants to deliver an outstanding performance in front of a ‘home crowd’. Tragically for shooters, the year has been a chain of fiascos that has now led up to the biggest one of all. It remains to be seen is whether the NRAI is willing to make amends and correct the policy by deliberations on it or will it stand by its flawed policy like a totalitarian regime.

2] Aggregate scoring system worse than school exams

The basic premise of the ‘new selection policy’ is to have a starting line (base line) score from whereon the aggregate scores will keep adding on – from the National Championships, trials I and trial II and for some, a different event score could be substituted for the trials.

The policy also does lip service to giving merit points for those winning top level competitions and an Olympic quota place. The aggregate points of each trial will add on through one calendar year against each shooter and finally the one that has higher aggregate gets selected to the team.

Sounds quite okay, you might think? Sounds more like a grading system for class eight students. Exam 1 + Exam 2 + an alternate exam substitute for marks. Deduction of marks if you question the system and whoever has the highest marks gets selected.

3] No level playing field for trials

For 2010, the base line scores taken by the NRAI are from trials that were held in Feb before the Policy was made. Why? Was it done to accommodate someone? Does this decision not create a condition of prejudice?

To stay above-board, shouldn’t the policy have been announced first and then a base line score be taken (if at all). To make matters worse, all shooters could not participate in the trial in Feb 2010. So some shooters had scores counted from the Commonwealth Championships which was 10 days apart.

In fact, it is on record that some shooters who had initially agreed to take part in the trials, pulled out hours before the trial to be tested later and they were allowed to do so by the NRAI.

Climatic conditions play a big part in shooting and bad conditions influence the game and thus, scores. Did the weather forecast have anything to do with it? It was cold cloudy and rainy that day.

So is this trial fit to be counted as baseline score? No! If the baseline is flawed, how can the outcome be considered valid?

4] No recognition for ‘winning form’ closer to big competitions

Why should this policy require aggregate scores through the year? How can a score shot in Feb 2010 be considered for team selection for an event that’s scheduled in October i.e. the Commonwealth Games?

This aggregate system is like a deficit system (and ironically the policy too calls it a deficit system). For example if a shooter has poor form at the start of the year, and hopes to get into the Indian team by June, he must first shoot a high score to fulfill the deficit score of Feb and still score higher than what others have scored in June.

Simply put, at the selection trials in Patiala scheduled from 18th Mar 2010, some shooters have to shoot just 160 targets out of 150 targets to make it to the Indian team, yes 160 out of 150.

5] Pruning shooters, or pruning India’s medal winning pool

This deficit scoring system further states that shooters are required to notch up the aggregate score to prevent being ‘pruned from the core group’ and losing any chance of even being a part of the selection process for the Commonwealth Games New Delhi 2010.

Even shooting a new world record of 150 out of 150 will not count as it does not fulfill the deficit of low form in the beginning of the year it has to be 160 out of 150. Is this a sane policy? Have these people ever played sport to understand that there are good days & bad days, periods of bad form and good form?

And why prune the list of probable from 6 shooters to 5? Countries like China are doubling the strength and depth of top shooters so that they have a world-class and large pool to choose in-form shooters before a competition?

Why are we axing a pool we have developed, seven months before the Commonwealth Games? Shouldn’t we have the full strength of our current core group available to us till it’s time to announce the Indian team for the Commonwealth Games 2010? As the host country, do we want to create a position of strength or dilute our chances even before the competition?

6] Discouraging younger talent

The new policy says, “At any point of time in a year the national pool of 12 shooters will be considered in each category and event for the National Team selection”. Its also mentioned that this pool will be selected from the National Championships. What this implies is that the difference between 12^th and 13^th may be in decimals but shooters from 13^th onwards can pack their guns/rifles and wait for the next year.

Their hopes and desires all crumpled and their motivation down in the dumps. Meanwhile the top 12 shooters will continue training as they have competitions to look forward to and keep getting better with match practice. So probably the same people will retain the top 12 slots the next year too. The development of the sport of shooting could do with a little more foresight.

7] Flawed system of taking International scores

The system of taking international scores is flawed. Its well known in shooting circles that some ranges afford good sighting of targets and are thus high scoring ranges and then there are others that are low scoring ranges.

Competing and coming good in tough conditions should be applauded but instead will be penalized by taking into account the low score registered as the policy has dealt with the matter very mathematically. In some cases the last international score will be counted and thus even a one point margin score over your own team mate will be rewarded by a place in the team despite the high margin of lower score as compared to the same team mate at a just concluded competition of the same level.

8] Gross under utillisation of foreign coaches

We are paying thousands of dollars to our foreign coaches. They are specialists in leading sportspersons to high performances? Above all they are professionals who work closely with sportspersons, and can make a huge difference in physical and mental conditioning.

Yet the policy states: “role of foreign coaches is restricted to technical training only” Why prescribe such a limited role? Shouldn’t we be taking advantage of their ability to understand the sport and the sportsmen and thus play an important role in team selection. We don’t go to the best doctor and tell him what to do?

Opportunity wasted by NRAI

These are just a few of the drawbacks of the New Selection policy. It pains me to say there are many more but do not find a mention here since I am just driving home the point. The NRAI has wasted an opportunity to create a policy that would attract more people to the sport of shooting and encourage shooters.

Big match temperament cannot be mathematically calculated by the scores shot and added over the year like a school mark sheet but composite in the medals won under good and bad conditions and importantly, current form.

In India, sports federations are private societies. But since they represent India, their actions reflect the collective will of the country. How many sportspersons will suffer before someone recognizes the injustices being done under the garb of autonomy?

Let the sports federations work with sportspersons and not against us.

It’s not easy for a competing sportsman to talk and if I have spoken, I do hope people of India realize my deep anguish.

I appeal to the Sports Minister of India and the fair minded souls of NRAI to immediately withdraw the flawed ‘new selection policy’ and open it up for deliberations transparently before the sport of shooting is irreversibly damaged.

WADA and the ‘price’ sportspersons pay to compete

The Indian cricketers’ stance on WADA compliance has drawn a lot of comment, both positive and negative. I’d like to look at this issue another way: does the Indian cricket team need to comply with a standard WADA-directive?

Instead, why can’t ICC and BCCI and other notables from the cricket world formulate a dope testing norm that is better suited to the sport and ensure regular testing to keep the sport free of dope-criminals?

Why did IOC set up WADA to put an end to doping?

Before I get into that, let’s take a step back. WADA was established around 1999 to prevent doping in sports. Though WADA is an independent body, it was raised by the IOC (International Olympic Committee). Performance-enhancing drugs were tarnishing the glory and prestige of the Olympics and more importantly, the use of such drugs is detrimental to the health of sportsmen.

The Olympic Games are among the most prestigious brand of global sport, and a mega marketing opportunity [just like the IPL]. The IOC markets various rights related to the event, ‘owns’ athletes while they compete; and all event-related performance and images are the property of the IOC forever.

WADA is an important initiative that protects the brand and marketability of the Olympics.

Why have international athletes complied with an invasive whereabouts clause?

So now to come back to the contentious whereabouts issue which states: "every sportsperson must declare his/her whereabouts for 1 hour of every day for the next 3 months" and 'if the sportsperson is missing 3 times in a period of 18 months from the declared location, he/she will be banned from competing for a certain period".

Athletes who compete and hope to compete in the Olympics have signed it. Tennis pro's and FIFA initially objected, but then signed it since it is a pre-requisite for competing in the Olympics.

What is the ‘price’ every sportsperson must pay to keep sport drug-free?

Most of us (and that includes me) firmly believe that sports must be rid of doping and all efforts must be made to prevent manufacturing, trafficking and finally usage of performance enhancing drugs. Out-of-competition testing is an effective means of ensuring this.

Some of us, as the numerous public comments show, also feel that giving our location for 1 hour everyday for the next 90 days is a price we willingly pay to help rid sport of this malaise.

All Olympic athletes have signed on also because they have no choice and yes, they conscientiously update their locations on the WADA site.

Their passion for sport and pride in representing their country is, in this context, ‘controlled’ by the Olympics committee. This organisation can bar any athlete with adequate reason. [On another note, I hope this post will be received constructively, and not be seen as a ‘borderline infringement’ of any sort! J].

I must emphasize, I believe WADA serves a great cause. However, that in itself must not give anyone unlimited right over others.

WADA spends millions of dollars on research. So why isn’t it possible to come up with an alternative way for out-of-competition testing?

The practical issues around administering out-of-competition testing are also amusing, considering many of India's sportspersons have their roots in villages and often visit them, the addresses given out could be as unidentifiable as taal no 3, or quila no 6, near jhulli walan gali, Gandhi Nagar. Indian villages are not completely mapped or on GPS like the western world and finding such locations is quite impossible without the entire village knowing about outsiders looking very lost.

Can the discussion with BCCI & Indian cricket players help improve the system?

We should accept that Indian cricketers and the BCCI don’t ‘need’ brand Olympics to grow [neither did FIFA] and hence they are in a strong position to negotiate.

I don’t think we should put aside the very valid invasion of privacy and security-related issues the Indian cricket players have raised, until the BCCI and WADA can convince the players there’s a fool-proof system that will not let them down.

The risks arising from a leak are much too real and personal, for a sportsperson to ignore.

Let’s look at this issue another way: We all want to rid our country of crime. As conscientious citizens, are we willing to report to the police, for instance, our location for 1 hour (in daylight hours) everyday for the next 90 days? And will anyone not found 3 times at those locations be labeled a suspected criminal?

So, should the cricketers comply? Why should we sit on judgment if we are not willing to accept the same principle to rid our country of crime?

The cricket establishment has a unique opportunity to help improve a system that has worldwide compliance and protects athletes who commit years of training to compete at the highest level, from being cheated by dope-criminals.

Yes there is the issue of cricket being included as an Olympic game: lets not ignore this is also linked to marketing the Games and hence IOC’s need to control the process - besides the absolute need to keep the Games dope-free.

As an Olympic athlete, my humble view is: this is a case of the level of intrusion you are willing to accept to live your passion, to represent your country and for that ‘big opportunity’ to bring your dreams to life!