Sporting targets
I'm not talking archery, but the government's pre-Olympic target of 41 medals.
Norm isn't impressed with a specified target having to be achieved. That is fair. I think, though, there are two parts to the story from the government's point of view. The first is intention: money is invested in a given sport so that improvements can be made and achievements realised. This doesn't strike me as being different to, say, Sir Alex Ferguson investing £25m in a striker, if the intention is for that striker to score 25 goals a season.
But where Gerry Sutcliffe's perspective — "it is vital" that Team GB reaches the target of 41 medals from the Beijing Olympics... That is a serious target [and we] want it to be achieved" — doesn't quite hold up is in the attainment (which is the second part). Despite best efforts, it may not always be possible for a sportsperson to achieve what they hoped they would. It could be injury, or it could just be a better opponent. Whatever the reason, attainment doesn't always follow intention. So where Sutcliffe implies sanctions in sport for not reaching a target (as the government tries in education and the health service, for example) he does, as Norm suggests, seem to miss the basic concept of sport.
In this case, government targets don't quite hit the spot.
Filed in Politics, Sport