High Performance Training Center? Whatever for?

Sometime ago the government, or rather the cabinet, approved a proposal to build an elite sports training centre in the UK. It was to be built at a site where the Rubber Institute research centre stands at Brickendonbury, north of London. This proposal received a lot of flak from the public and we, amongst retirees, had our private discussion on the subject and most were against the project. The original budget for the project was RM 490 million but this was scaled down to 70 million. Even for that kind of expenditure I thought, was a waste of public funds. We do not need such a training centre, more so in another country. Why the UK? What advantage that location has over any one of the many training centers within our country. Would the centre in UK produce better athletes? I do not believe so. It is not the centre that matters but instead the quality of the training and the determination of the athletes to excel. The training centers in the country to my mind are not inferior to the one they plan in the UK. Even if there is a need for better facilities, can’t these be built in the country and maybe upgrade the existing ones to the standard desired.

I detect an egoistic phenomenon in this proposal for a ‘high performance’ training centre. We are so engrossed in trying to achieve better or more than others, never satisfied with what we already have, always the upmanship attitude (is there such a word?), and at all cost too. Then when we arrive there it is all forgotten. The follow ups and continuity are not there to match the original intent. Is that not a waste? It is the public funds being used for all these ego trips and we are not prudent at all.

I read in the news recently that the high performance training centre at Brickendonbury 60 km north of London where the Tun Abdul Razak Rubber Research Centre stands was rejected by East Herts Council as inappropriate development within a green belt. The argument forwarded was that it was too large a center for a contingent of only 26 athletes at the Athens Olympics. It went on to say that a FIFA standard football pitch with elaborate fencing and intrusive floodlighting is unreasonable for a country that has played only once in an Olympics football tournament and had never made it to the World Cup. The council's main consideration was that Brickendonbury houses heritage listed buildings on a green belt and any development would be against national planning policy. Several buildings, 11 of them, with 3 listed as curtillage buildings, were to be demolished and new buildings rebuilt to accommodate athletes and officials, training facilities and other related amenities.

I am sure this proposal will not end there. The proponents to the project will continue to pursue and appeal the decision. I do not think they can accept the ‘bubble pricking’ rejection sitting down. But then, at what expense? Already they have spent at least 2 million on the proposal. How much more will it take to satiate the ego?......

MKI Ramblings Unlimited
Petaling Jaya