Please do not get confused with fact and fiction.
BICTSF is the international board and they select the GBR teams. No one at British Shooting or even Cpsa for that matter, can de-select a team member chosen by BICTSF selection procedures to represent their country as a GBR team member in ISSF or FITASC disciplines. They have no remit to do so....and any attempt should be immediately rejected.
Pathway is a training exercise ......selection shoots are the fair reality...!
I think Hotshot may have touched on a point that was raised in discussion at the OT at Beverley over the weekend.
This apparent obsession with the young is probably more of a feint? There has always been young shots coming up through and doing well in all clay disciplines, and there will be more, which is why my thinking although it may come across a bit Machiavellian is as follows:
I think the talent pathway is probably just another rebranded means to unlock large amounts of funding (justified, in the name of developing young talent), but is really most probably end up being an abused mechanism for lining certain individuals' pockets. I reckon the way it will probably work will be that some of the funds will get spent on legitimate development programme expenses, more (an obscene amount) will be spent on the coaches, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if even more is embezzled - why not if there's no demonstrable accountability.
As a result, some of the influencers of the current selection process (whether BICTSF board or not / or clay shooters or not) would be sh*t scared of any self funded shooter getting into finals or holding a place at the top of the rankings, which could mean that whether the BICTSF endures this or not (if it actually does pan out this way), it won't be a selection board, but an individual picking the team. I bet this idea is pursued by someone soon if it hasn't been tabled already.
Such an autocratic selection process will at some point render the current selection process meaningless when a high performing self funded shooter at the top of the rankings loses their place for a lower ranked 'young star' because the selector(s) will have to justify the cost, and this is exactly what happened to Ian Belcher in Wales who invested heavily in his shooting. Ian no longer shoots OT.
If there must be funding then it needs to be managed by an independent organisation that is audited, transparent, appropriately staffed (with no ties to shooters), and it doesn't have to be big. The funding should be spent on existing team members, and not people who '
might' still have an interest in the sport after they get girlfriends/boyfriends, pass their GCSE's and A-Levels etc.
So if someone asks me if I think developing the young through this talent pathway is a good idea I say no - I think it's short sighted, and because OT is already heavily influenced by too many people/cliques who have conflicting/vested interests we have already seen evidence that impartiality is already compromised.
Unless the administration, selection, and funding organisations become more professional then participation will eventually dwindle and it will ruin a sport that is already in a delicate position. And for what? To line the pockets of those who always come out of the woodwork when they think they can smell some cash.
I'm not saying this is fact, and there may be some overlapping points in there, but it's just my perception at the moment.
