Juniors

[steadyeddy]

The topic has come up slightly on the world xc thread, but just want to see what peoples views are on the 'over protection' of kids in fell running. I am currently 16 and hopefully going to start doing more senior races, but i find it curious how you go from having a 6mile distance limit up to 18 years old, but then once over 18 you can do nearly any race(lakeland classics etc....)Don't you think it would better in terms of gradually getting juniors used to the distances/skills needed in the longer races by maybe having 2 of the u18 championship races at medium length? The interviews in the fellrunner with scoffer and gary devine both covered this issue slightly, with them having a similar view to me. However i do appricate safety .... but just interested to see peoples views.

[karen nash]

I tend to agree that there is some over protection of juniors. I have two sons and do not honestly think I could make them run further or faster than they wanted to! In my experience children stop when they have had enough. The boys have regularly run for about an hour in various activities with us. This has at times caused some comment but they have always been given a choice and claimed to enjoy the activity.
They seem to have a strength in running more slowly and over longer distances and often feel frustrated that they are not allowed to enter these longer races, even though as they say they would not be last!
Ironically they both orienteer and here the courses are based on length, climb and estimated winners time. There is nothing to stop a younger person entering a longer of more difficult course. It is different as due to navigating they may not be running flat out but if they get lost they could be out for a long time.

I think they would both support your wish for the right to run gradually longer races as the move from small children into teenagers etc.

[Chris]

I have posted some views on this subject before.

There are a number of things that bother me.

A couple of years ago on these forums I made some comment about juniors and fell running and I was surprised by the response from those who said that the sport ust didn't need them. IainR was one of them if I recall correctly (and I apologise if I have misrepresented anything here, Iain).

I think our sport lacks credibility if only people over the age of 30 or even 40 participate in it. I even doubt that I can sustain an interest beyond a certain point.

I think the good aims of "protection" of children have changed into an industry which is incompatable with encouraging any effort at improvement. I know there are issues about sexual exploitation - I also think one has to be aware of the issue of eating disorders in young athletes but the problem is too many kids do far too little basic competition.

I ran a Marathon the day after my thirteenth birthday. If this happened nowadays some social worker or insurance executive or journalist or do-gooding member of the public would have something to say about it.

[Ady In Accy]

Did anyone see the TV program about the very young Indian kid (think he was 9ish at time of filming) who's dad pushed him to train for many hours a day and run marathon+ distances in the misguided idea that this would make him strong and fast and become an olympian in future years? Regulation for juniors needs to be in place but it's tough to say what's too tough and what's acceptable. I remember riding 80+ mile rides with Pendle Forest CC when I was 13 which would seem excessive to non cyclists/athletes but distance racing limitations for juniors are currently imposed by those who understand the athletic physiology of youngster are they not?

[harrymoon]

I saw that programme Ady , remember it being quite horrific towards the end with that 40 mile run (at four years old)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...7/ixworld.html

(follow up story online http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6944052.stm)

[Chris]

I saw that programme Ady , remember it being quite horrific towards the end with that 40 mile run (at four years old)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...7/ixworld.html

(follow up story online http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/sou...a/6944052.stm)

Get a grip though, Ady and Harrymoon. Forty miles at age four isn't like ten miles at age 16 is it?

In other words it is silly to say that letting teenage athletes run ten mile races is the same kind of thing as making a little boy in India run huge distances for commercial exploitation.

This is the kind of logic that stops kids doing anything much.

[Yorkshire Thug]

This is the kind of logic that stops kids doing anything much.

Absoultely correct - logic IS what stops kids doing too much.

Quite often kids are pushed too far and too soon by parents (and others) because they show keenness and talent. You can understand that parents (especially if they're runners) being proud of their kid's achievements.

But they are kids, they are still developing and those lines are drawn in the sand for a reason.

[Stolly]

If kids want to run longer distances in the hills, there's nothing stopping them from a recreation and/or training point of view. I agree with them not entering the longer races though - if an under 18 year old did get in trouble, get lost in clag or get hypothermic, you can imagine the huge Daily Mail led outcry against the sport.

[Witton Park]

Along with my wife, I coach young uns.
We have 15 year olds who will struggle to get around a 4km cross country race without having a walk somewhere - partly because they are rookies - but also because they are "social" young athletes.
We also have a 9 year old who can run around a 6 mile undulating trail race route in 46 minutes, without any discomfort.
We have to hold back the 9 year old and limit her, mainly for the reason that we have been conditioned that it is wrong to let them do "too much" and also due to concern about the stick we will get.
So we keep the lid on her for a year or two and hit the race scene as she becomes an U13 all being well.

The point I am trying to make is that the restrictions are too rigid. What is good for one 13 year old is not necessarily good for another and athletes, parents and coaches need to be allowed to make many more of the key decisions.
A lad I was team managing, and recently moved clubs to one with more fell running (a few months later and he might have stayed as we have now a growing fell race presence). He is now 19 - just, was an athlete who came late to us, and had no real interest in track etc, and he was a decent runner, but nothing special. But he's done really well in some long distance fell races, such as the Full Tour in 3 hours and is in the PPP.

My 14 year old daughter, as an U13 was crying out for longer races, but was restricted to 1500m in the local league and 1200m in the National league, not allowed to do anything on the roads except a "Fun Run".

A 100m sprint, due to it's explosive nature, can put much more stress on the joints and muscles than a 5,000m.
How many athletes have you seen pull up in a 1500m + track race - compared to those in races up to 800m?

I think the opportunities on the fells are fine. As a young kid, my daughter had FRA races last year at Pendle and Lothersdale that were over 30 mins even for the top athletes at U14 level. Some would say too long, but hardly anyone complained. The mix in fell running is very good for juniors, and the progression in to seniors is fine. It is left to the athletes. Like anyone, a new senior should try the Half Tour before the Full tour for example. Trust them to make the choice.

There should be more opportunites in Cross Country to compete at longer distances. eg. For Senior Men, we have 10K - 12K with a few short-course options. Why not add in some long course events? 20K XC races? 10 milers? Half Marathon XC?
This could be extended to the younger age groups with specific long course races, or the option for athletes to move up an age group.

Same on the roads. Some races up to 10K should be open to younger athletes.

Until we stop being so mamby-pampy, we will struggle to develop a new generation of world class endurance runners.

[john doe]

Just on a different thread of juniors and athletics in general, I wonder if you think your clubs do enough to recruit new young members?
If you look at your membership and your top runners are all vets, what future does your club have? Do you rely on 40 somethings having a mid-life crisis to turn up asking to join, or do you have a vibrant junior section as a pool for future talent.
I think you'll find if your clubs a bit of a dinosaur it ain't got much future.