Whew
Thank God we’ve won some medals – a gold even. I was worried that when our Olympic team arrived home, thanks to the tireless admonishment provided by the press, that they might be lined up against the wall of the nearest Tim Horton’s and summarily executed.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Saturday, August 16th, 2008 at 9:31 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
hurrah for us!
August 16th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
True.
But, we have a lot of great winter athletes and due to our climate, we get a lot more practice in that field than we do in the summer games.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
It was nice to see the Canadian flag rise to O’ Canada with Huynh in tears of joy, I love that part of the games. I also love how the crowd at Bird’s Nest cheered on the British (?) marathon runner as she finished the race despite having injury problems earlier. I think that sums up the spirit of the games and why they are important.
But yeah, I also wouldnt have been surprised if the CBC aired public executions of the athletes had they shamed Canada further by continuously coming up short… at least thats the impression I got from the media coverage. :D
August 16th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Funny, I always spell it ‘phew.’
August 16th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Oh it’s ridiculous.
I’m on a sports forum and the people were ready to disown all the athletes and move to another country. To which I replied, “if you can do better, give ‘er”.
The athletes devote their lives to their sport and it is a great accomplishment to be there, representing their (our) country. Even if the people don’t appreciate it.
I’m proud of each and every one of them. Ryan Cochrane was awesome…led for most of the extremely long race.
And the female wrestlers are performing above and beyond expectations. All of the athletes are reason to be proud.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Oh, Canada. Way to go.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Our athletes would’ve likely had to work at Tim Hortons if they hadn’t.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:19 am
words cannot explain my GAF on the olympics
August 17th, 2008 at 5:50 am
That was getting embarrassing, and still is, but these few medals will hold us over. You have to admit that for a developed country our medal haul is underwhelming, and it’s uniquely Canadian to play the apologist instead of asking what we can do to better the results. The whole point of competition is to win, this isn’t a grade school soccer league where the goal is to have fun, and people are in the right to feel embarrassed for our athletic programs. There just isn’t a national sports conscience unless we’re talking about hockey. If they made street hockey a summer event we’d get a few more medals I’m sure.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:57 am
[quote comment="62011"]Our athletes would’ve likely had to work at Tim Hortons if they hadn’t.[/quote]
Some of them aren’t far off from that in their normal life.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:25 am
mmmmm dough nutsssssssss
I’m happy for all athletes that win medals but I honor those who show courage such as the woman marathon runner who was told not to compete because of a stress fracture of the femur but did anyway and struggled to finish despite no chance of winning. Or the 100 meter sprinter fron Djibouti who ran with a head scarf on because she honors her faith. Then of course there was the Tunisian who won the 1500 meter swimming freestyle and is now a national hero. And who DIDN’T love that 100 meter men’s sprinting final?
Those are the stories that make me love watching the Olympics.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:46 am
You know how sick I am of the olympics and what it has come to be a symbol of here in the States? I am tired of hearing abotu Michael Phelps winning 8 gold medals yet nobody knows a damn thing about him. If the USA Men’s Basketball team wins a medal, that will be more highly though of and remembered and talked about longer. So what is the point of talking about him if you do not know him or haven’t heard about him until it comes for the Olymics and he comes into eyesight.
That is what I don’t like. This guy had to have worked his ass off, and had a lot of deication to get where he is at, and what do we care? “Hey, an AMerican won 8 gold medals”. What if he were from a different country? Would we care then?
Even as somebody who enjoys sports, I don’t enjoy this. People seem to think his work is their work. That his effort is theirs. So where does he and only he get credit? Why does it have to be an american winning that much? Why can’t it just be the person?
August 17th, 2008 at 6:47 am
Damn typos of death
August 17th, 2008 at 7:37 am
If we are to compare ourselves to the Americans we are right where we should be. The U.S. has a population roughly 10 times that of Canada. Currently, Canada has 7 medals, the U.S. 65. We have almost one for every 10 of theirs. We have 2 golds, the Americans 19. Do the math. One could argue we put less money and resources into developing our athletes. I’d say we are doing quite good.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Canada’s athletes are sub par in comparison to other countries at the games and half of them don’t belong there. The contingent allowed to represent this country in comparison to other countries - pro rata - means our standards to send athletes is far too low.
Throw into that drugs, human rights abuses, pollution, falsified passports, professionals competing, blood doping, the crooked IOC, bias judges, lack of sponsorship and fair weathered support from Canadians in general and the Olympics in general fall well short of the competition for my attention to sports in comparison to say the Women’s PGA.
Lennox Lewis got it right when he jumped ship to a country that supported its talent early on and rewarded promise, endorsed potential and promoted success ahead of waiting for results to jump on a bandwagon.
The best thing that could’ve happened to Canadian Amateur athletics would’ve been for Canada to have completely tanked this thing.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:09 am
[quote comment="62024"]The best thing that could’ve happened to Canadian Amateur athletics would’ve been for Canada to have completely tanked this thing.[/quote]
Oh, agreed. Imagine the public backlash if we got no medals at all. We’d be worse than Togo! Then we’d certainly see a change in the amateur sport spotlight.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:12 am
I agree with Patrick’s last paragraph. Now that we have some medals everyone is breathing a sigh of relief. In reality, it’s like everyone has forgotten that it took us a week to get that first medal, and it came in an indoor event.
Saying that it’s because of the seasons is an easy out. That might make sense for things like the track and field athletes, distance running, equestrian, or any other event that is solely outside. It’s blown out of the water, so to speak, by looking at the Canadian Rowing team. 4 medals and it’s purely outdoor. The swimmers have made inroads and have improved considerably over their performance in Athens.
Everybody in this country bemoaned the fact that a week in we didn’t have any medals at all. What do we expect? Our athletes don’t receive anywhere near the funding that other countries afford their athletes, unless it happens to be that you are in a Winter Olympic event. The snow only lasts for 4-5 months at the most, which leaves 7-8 months otherwise. Look at the Kazakhstan boxing program. How do you argue with a $250000 bonus for a gold medal?
I’m not saying that this is the road that Canada has to take, obviously we have other things to spend the budget on. Great Britain has 25 medals, and a similar social construct as Canada. Maybe we need to look abroad for solutions…
August 17th, 2008 at 9:24 am
We could do that anyway…
August 17th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Climate has NOTHING to do with our lack of success at the Olympics. Most of our athletes have to work regular day jobs in addition to their training. Phelps, for example, has no such responsibility; all he does is eat sleep and train. There’s no way any of our athletes could compete with that.
If we really wanted to win medals, we’d ensure our athletes had the same luxuries. However I don’t think most Canadians care enough to put that kind of money towards it. In a week, nobody will remember how few medals we received.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Patrick B has made some good points.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:27 am
[quote comment="62002"]Funny, I always spell it ‘phew.’[/quote]
Both ‘phew’ and ‘whew’ are given the same meaning in the Oxford dictionary. Soon, both ‘peace’ and ‘war’ will too.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Whew is right. I’ve been barely able to sleep at night knowing that some of our athletes are only fourth or fifth or twentieth in the world. The horror, the embarrassment…
The athletes who didn’t perform according to “expectations” are surely beating themselves up enough– they don’t need the media and everyone else berating them as well.
Yeah, our medal haul is meager compared to some other countries. *shrugs* I guess if we wanted to make medal counts our national priority, we could develop a system like China’s. I mean, they’re earning a shit-ton of medals. And their national athletic program is so fair and open and free.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:05 am
I should really read all the comments before posting.
Some great points being raised about our lack of funding & support here for the athletes, as well as expectations and goals.
And Ket’s touched along the lines of my thinking…beyond the monetary costs, how much do you “invest” in training athletes? Is the “gold at all cost” mentality (China/US) really what we want to adopt or are we o.k. with being o.k.? There’s probably a happy medium between shame in not getting gold and just being happy to be there. We’re currently trying to get over that “happy to be here” hurdle and it is important to support the athletes in their quest to do that.
With that, I’d like to see it easier for our athletes to compete by providing them with adequate funding…I think Australians pour more money into things like their swimming/rowing programs than we likely do in our entire team. But I don’t know that I’d like to see our country so intensely focused on winning at all costs either…sportsmanship and fair play sometimes get lost in that and it ruins the entire idea of sport.
Whatever the deal is, I’m extremely proud of all the athletes competing in the games. I find myself pulling for the underdog and share Dan’s thoughts on things. When I heard that one of the Jamaicans in the 100 M finals was the only one who didn’t leave his country for training and trained on a dirt road, I suddenly found myself in his corner. Which is also why I was happy for Phelps in his quest to win 8…learning that his father left the home and he was raised by a single mother (and teased when growing up) made me pull hard for him to do it.
I like the stories behind the athletes too Dan.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:20 am
When I mentioned the “CLIMATE,” thing I was just saying that our winter athletes are supported more than our summer athletes and I believe it is due to our climate. For the lucky folks who only see 4-5 months of winter, good for you. I can tell you that here in the prairie provinces and further east, we’re not so lucky. Climate aside, the thing is our country puts money into Hockey, Football, Curling, Snowboarding, Skiing, and things like that. Things that a lot of people (olympians or not) have more access too.
I’m not saying that people don’t have access to a gymnasium or a pool to practice, it just that those sports aren’t considered as important as our winter ones. I think we’ll see a huge difference in Canadian Performance come 2010.
I used to train 35hrs/wk in the 90’s for synchronized swimming, only to find out before nationals that the Olympics were pulling the sport (I don’t know if it’s come back since then?). I also play softball and this year is also the last year for womens softball in the Olympics (until further notice). So, I just think the Olympics are kind of bogus when they can decide what sport is worthy of attention and what isn’t. Also, while training for certain sports, most of these athletes parents are paying the way or their working their asses off to pay for their training. I, certainly didn’t see any support in the any of the sports I was involved in when I was younger.
The idea of Olympics used to be great, but when you look through all the politics and technicalities involved, it isn’t going to make or break Canada. I would be more worried about our participation in the Afghan war if that’s the case.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Thank goodness for multiculturalism, hey Canada.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:40 am
woooot! is that all we got going for us?
August 17th, 2008 at 11:56 am
“If we are to compare ourselves to the Americans we are right where we should be.”
I strongly, with all due respect, disagree.
“Is the “gold at all cost” mentality (China/US) really what we want to adopt or are we o.k. with being o.k.? ”
That’s what the athletes are there for.
While it’s comforting as a fan to hear an athlete toe the corporate line and give the “happy to be hear” sound bite - every last athlete is dreaming of and training for the opportunity to be last standing on that podium.
11th place is for your kids at day camp.
And what’s this “we” stuff I keep hearing when people refer to the athletes?
I didn’t catch any of you in the 100m dash?
I know “I” wasn’t a member of the mens’ eight in rowing.
I know I wasn’t up at 430 in the morning swimming laps.
I also know I wasn’t spending any money sponsoring an athlete. (If you did, good for you but still.)
I know I didn’t lobby for amateur sport funding to my MP or watch any of the qualifying events leading up to the games. (I did follow the Pan-Am’s and Commonwealth for boxing but that’s due to my love of the sport, and I did spar Mike Strange - BTW, best of luck to Adam Turpish Canada’s ONLY competitor in that sport.).
The right to claim “us” or “we” when referring to any athlete that actually has to deal with this timely cheer leading is non-existent. Not that I’d want to.
But much of the media and a great deal of the viewing public of Canada sure can take ownership and gold for pissing and moaning about the thing afterwards. And I for one don’t buy the pro rata of our medal count in comparison to other countries, again sorry Bell.
What I will happily compare is the NUMBER of athletes we send in ratio to our results - which are among, if not the single worst. Again that suggests our standard for qualification to represent the country is far too low. If a low standard is the standard, excellence as a group will never materialize.
I am not referring to the ineptitude of the current team, but let’s face it.
331 Canadian athletes in Bejing (there was 263 in Athens, 295 in Sydney and 306 in Atlanta). While the stories of success of individuals are endearing in the face of the odds, the results of the collective performance of the country’s teams is getting bad, badder and even badder still.
“We” are in the top FIVE, maybe 10, of number of athletes sent, from a country with the similar sized population as say Angola. Hardly an Olympic powerhouse deserving to send 331 participants.
Why are “WE” sending so many athletes? Why are “WE” sending so many athletes that don’t place in their independent tournaments and therefore likely, DON’T Have a CHANCE? Do WE enjoy the embarrassment?
So here’s another ratio. Instead of medals to current population. How about times successful to attempts.
If not a single other medal is acquired by Canada it would be 7:331. Wow.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
More fun with Stats to deflate those “hanging in there with the USA mentality.”
The states sends 500 athletes to our 300 .
If we were to do a match up based on population - the US should be sending around 3300 athletes in order to parallel us or we should be sending 50 or so.
We’re sending too many that have no chance of success. (And by that I mean not placing in below the 16th).
August 17th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Pitt - Touche. And all very very good points!!!!!!!!!
August 17th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Btw matt fave you been catching the Jays’ sox series this weekend? Sox will not see baseball in October
August 17th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
and the Jays?
August 17th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
will spoil their efforts 9-0 right now. jay’s lead the season seris 5-2 (and that should jump to 6-2 today)…bay for manny. good for the canuck, bad for the team.
even with eva longoria and crawford and percy going down tampax bay will take the division….maybe…
got tix for the sox vs jays next friday next week, should be a gooder.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Pitt…there are no guarantees at the games. Although you can predict who’ll win medals, it’s also possible that an up and coming “underdog” will achieve unexpected success. So you send the athletes who you feel have a chance and, in doing that, some of the inexperienced ones who don’t come through with a medal gain valuable experience in being there and it might help them reach their goal in future Olympics. If you could do it all on paper then, fine, send only the athletes guaranteed of success. But I don’t think you can determine who has a chance and who doesn’t until you send them. So we send the ones who “might” have a chance and the rest is out of our hands.
JMO…go easy on me. I’m by no means an expert and am only trying to join in on the discussion…my “thoughts” are simply that.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
* lol at “our hands”. Cause you know I’m in there, training with these guys. I do refer to “us” and “we”, only because I’m so totally enthralled with any athlete who does what I could never do. I’m a pure wannabe.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
[quote comment="62019"]mmmmm dough nutsssssssss
I’m happy for all athletes that win medals but I honor those who show courage such as the woman marathon runner who was told not to compete because of a stress fracture of the femur but did anyway and struggled to finish despite no chance of winning. Or the 100 meter sprinter fron Djibouti who ran with a head scarf on because she honors her faith. Then of course there was the Tunisian who won the 1500 meter swimming freestyle and is now a national hero. And who DIDN’T love that 100 meter men’s sprinting final?
Those are the stories that make me love watching the Olympics.[/quote]
Totally agree Dan, that’s what it’s all about.
What I find very bothering is that many of the young from China are forced to leave their home to train and might see their parents once a year. One of the girls on the gymnastic team wanted to come home for good and her parents refused her wishes. Many of those girls don’t even look happy out there. It’s very sad. IMOP of all of them, China is the one with the “Gold at all cost Mentality” and not the U.S. as someone stated in an above post. Agree to disagree on that one.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Quoting Deb: “And the female wrestlers are performing above and beyond expectations. ” Is this a joke? I didn’t know female wrestling was an Olympic sport… ;0p
How come you don’t see it on TV? ;0)
August 17th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Cdn. female wrestlers have won two medals thus far.
August 17th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
[quote comment="62043"]Why are “WE” sending so many athletes? Why are “WE” sending so many athletes that don’t place in their independent tournaments and therefore likely, DON’T Have a CHANCE? Do WE enjoy the embarrassment?
[/quote]
Who cares if they “don’t have a chance”? Let them go, have the experience, better themselves… why punish them by prohibiting them from attending just because they don’t measure up to the sport powerhouses of the world? More importantly, why on earth would you be embarrassed if Canada’s athletes aren’t the best in the world? (Especially after your rant about not using the term “we”… they clearly don’t represent you, they represent themselves, so why do you care how they do?)
August 17th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
“Pitt…there are no guarantees at the games. Although you can predict who’ll win medals, it’s also possible that an up and coming “underdog” will achieve unexpected success”
So “IYO” the Olympics is a place for “underdogs”? Perhaps someone should tell the other nations participating of this intent.
290 or so underdogs - from Canada? I’m not buying into that one, and I mean that quite literally if my tax dollars are at all involved.
“So you send the athletes who you feel have a chance…”
Go back and check how the country selects its team - they are not “selected”, they qualify. The problem is our qualifications are lower than other nations’. Do you see at all a problem with this approach? It promotes the celebration of mediocrity.
“Valuable experience in being there and it might help them reach their goal in future Olympics”
I’ve heard this argument before and I’m not convinced. How many Olympics did Phelps go to before this one? While experience could be used as an argument for Lewis’ success, what are the stats on Canadian athlete’s returning and achieving success greater than the time before? How many of your “underdogs” never come back?
Obviously success is subjective.
Again, for me, 11th place is for the neighbor’s kids. If on the world finals stage in athletics, swimming, track, boxing, wrestling, fencing, etc., Canada is not performing 16th overall or better, that athlete should sit the Olympics out.
If a competitor cannot show the promise of making it to the finals if not medaling, then they should not be allowed on the plane.
The Olympics are for the elite, and it would appear that Canada is in the lead for not sending that pro rata.
Now if you celebrate, “just making it”, that’s fine and I’m sure you won’t be disappointed. But if one nickel of taxpayer money is to spent on an amateur athlete then they owe it to the country sending them, during their failed post event interview, to say something other than “I tried my best” or “I’m happy to be here.”
I’d rather send 50 promising athletes than 100 “happy-to-be-there”.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Have you guys ever been in Boston during a Sox game?? It is amazing. A lot of exhiliraton in the air. So much fun.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Ket re-read the rant, I wrote I’m not speaking to the ineptitude of the athletes currently there or have ever gone for that matter.
If one can find a way to go, then go, it’d be a fantastic opportunity.
But the country is at folly when it lowers its the standard to allow those that don’t have a chance against countries that have a higher standard. That is the whole point of representation of the country. (This is why it was a farce to have a Jamaican bobsled team at the winter Olympics). The ancient Olympics was a celebration of the human body’s ability in comparison to the gods themselves.
My argument is the country, that is the “WE” to whom I speak, sends too many athletes. And when closely examined, compared to countries of similar make up and population, we send a DISPROPORTIONATE number of athletes.
Dare I say it’s akin to throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Is that the representation that you are comfortable with?
If an athlete cannot qualify via performance at a World Championship or continental championship, qualifying times or international rankings (and in some cases invitation) - they should not be allowed to go due to performance at a national trial, which many Canadians are. It sets the conditions for a poor collective showing.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
And the use of “we” which I was using was not used to throw the atheletes under the bus - its a criticism of a fan mannerisms (a fanism if you will).
One will often hear a sports fanatic like a Leaf fan or a Yankee’s fan say, “If we could win three in a row we’d be up on Boston”, or “we should trade such and such.”
I think it’s disrespectful and ignorant to those who are doing all the work to take ownership of their successes or their actions. In many cases the “we” is dropped during a loss. You also don’t hear fans do this often when it comes to musicians.
“If we could just play my favorite songs from Avalanche tonight it’d be a great concert.”
You do hear it wrt our soldiers:
‘We need to get better equipment in Afghanistan.”
So why does it happen with atheletes who work so hard in the absence of the support they need? (For the record I don’t consider cheering an athlete on at the Olympics and the Olympics alone as support).
Let’s face it, other than over simplifying a sentence, people cheer for the atheletes of their country for no other reason than they are residents of that country. No Canadian cared about Ben Johnson when he was training in Jamaica. And very few Canadians other than those involved in the sport knew anything about our participants in tae kwon do or equestrian sports prior to (or even during) the games.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
more fun with stats:
percentages of atheletes sent to represent canada winning medals:
Atlanta - 15%
Sydney - 11%
Athens - 6%
Hmmmmmmmm…..
August 17th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
[quote comment="62066"]
“So you send the athletes who you feel have a chance…”
Go back and check how the country selects its team - they are not “selected”, they qualify. The problem is our qualifications are lower than other nations’. Do you see at all a problem with this approach? It promotes the celebration of mediocrity.
“Valuable experience in being there and it might help them reach their goal in future Olympics”
I’ve heard this argument before and I’m not convinced. How many Olympics did Phelps go to before this one? While experience could be used as an argument…
Obviously success is subjective.
If a competitor cannot show the promise of making it to the finals if not medaling, then they should not be allowed on the plane.
The Olympics are for the elite, and it would appear that Canada is in the lead for not sending that pro rata.
Now if you celebrate, “just making it”, that’s fine and I’m sure you won’t be disappointed. But if one nickel of taxpayer money is to spent on an amateur athlete then they owe it to the country sending them, during their failed post event interview, to say something other than “I tried my best” or “I’m happy to be here.”
I’d rather send 50 promising athletes than 100 “happy-to-be-there”.[/quote]
Absolutely. When I was younger, from what I can remember, the goal of getting and going to the Olympics was to win a medal, that was the whole point of the Olympics, to train hard enough and “perfect,” if you will, your ability to prove your worth as an athlete (and while that may sound callous), it’s the truth. Somewhere along the way, someone decided that no athlete should finish last…(oops, maybe that was George Carlin on Education… “no children finish last.”) But we’ve taken that approach from the education system and placed it on the athletes as well. What was wrong or is wrong with losing and not being able to qualify for the Olympics? Isn’t losing a learning/life experience? Not everybody is a winner and even if we wanted to make the argument that everyone IS a winner, well ,they’re not all going to win at the same thing or in the same area. And doesn’t the experience of losing help people to re-evaluate themselves and try something different or try harder?
I’ve lost a lot of things in this life and it’s made me a better person for going through those trials…why would that not apply to athletes or education as well? Why when it comes to athletics or education we thrive on mediocrity and when people learn valuable life experience (losing in the REAL world) it is looked down upon as a waste of time, poor choice, or hitting “rock bottom.”
Anyways I think you make some very valid points, Patrick Pitt. You’ve used great logic and math and ratios to address your point of view, plus you’ve added a very realistic argument in regards to our changing times in the Olympics.
Another thing that I noticed to which I find odd is the swim wear that’s being used in the last few Olympics. Two swim caps and full body suits to avoid excess drag. Seriously? Another swim cap over the goggles because the straps on the side stick out and cause like 0.001% extra drag (I know, I’m exaggerating) and the body suit for another 0.02% drag? Whatever happened to just being the best with what you have? Without the accessories? I’m sure one could argue that “this is what science has done for the sport?,” but where is the fun in that when it comes down to senseless technicalities? (I’m just ranting here)
I agree with Pitt, the Olympics are for the elite, they’ve been for the elite since the time of the Romans. It’s not a concept that should be new to anyone, it’s not like the track field competitions we had in elementary/high school. Those were the places where we practiced and competed against other competitors to learn where to improve and who to learn from, the Olympics aren’t the “track and field days of our youth” to practice for the next time or the next time.
I do think it is quite crazy some of the stories behind some of the athletes and I congratulate all of them. At the same time, it’s nauseating to hear a story behind the athlete before the competition, gathering sympathy and enabling feelings of grandeur only to see them fall into the sidelines later on in the Olympics and ultimately, forgotten, because they didn’t even qualify. What does that do for that athletes self worth? I dunno, I think some people have made great comments but overall feel the Olympics aren’t worth all the extra attention, considering how they’ve changed and are used politically.
August 17th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
So you’re saying it’s better to put all your eggs in fewer baskets to ensure they get there. But it’s not foolproof…what if one breaks? Look at the high hopes that were dashed in Tyson Gay. So if we send a few “elite” athletes and keep the other “underachievers” home, what if they fail? Have an off day? And what if one of those underdogs was destined to have the performance of a lifetime and win? My point being that these are human beings - subject to all the things that make this unpredictable. They’re not machines that you program and they do exactly what you expect - they just don’t know until they try. Sure, you can presume - based on past performance, how an athlete will do, but there are so many variables that might come into play and throw it all out of the window. Fatigue, illness, mental distraction and an “off” day….so why not let more athletes have a shot at it? It’s a crap shoot Pitt….those who are expected to win don’t always do so. So do we shortchange others who haven’t shown their best but might still be capable of doing so? Deny them the opportunity based on what have you done for me lately?
I guess it all depends on how you look at it. Sure, you have the right idea about what the Olympics stand for, which is excellence. But I guess I tend to also focus on the dreaming the dream part. Giving it a shot. I understand that, at taxpayer’s expense (and that of other athletes who may be in better contention) you don’t fully buy into that. But I guess (for me) success goes beyond holding that piece of medal up over your head. It also includes that guy in 100 degree heat whose trained on a dirt road to try and achieve his goal. Maybe he’s not the best shot to win, but it’s all about the dream. And he’s a winner in my eyes.
An underdog is only an underdog until he has that big win. And that can happen to anyone at any time is my point. Maybe we do need to lift the standards but then maybe some who haven’t realized their full potential would be chased away before doing so. I honestly haven’t seen any Canadian “failures” that scream underachiever at these games. We’re performing as expected…should we expect more?….maybe. Are we shortchanging those with the real potential by spreading things too thinly?…again, possibly.
More funding could definitely go a long way to help these athletes but as far as only sending the cream of the crop - you might just draw that line right in front of a potential superstar. I’d rather send the whole bunch and let them experience it than cut some (possibles) to focus on some others who could be disappointments. JMO.
August 17th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
The “send only those with a chance of winning” mentality is ridiculous. Canada is going to send a team to the Olympics. Make the team and you go. That has to be the first step.
“Only a chance of winning” would whittle 90% of ALL athletes and eliminate some countries altogether. At the close of these Olympics some guy is going to call upon the youth of the world to gather in London in 2012. He’s not going to call just upon the medal contenders. He’s going to call on ALL who can go.
And that’s exactly who SHOULD go.
August 17th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
and I should’ve put “disappointments” in quotes there in my last sentence. Because I don’t think any of the participants disappoint…which leads me to my next point. I hear ya ket…why ON EARTH would someone tie “embarrassment” in to an athlete’s performance? Did they hold up a picture of your ass crack during their race? Tell jokes about your mom from the pitcher’s mound? How have they embarrassed you? They trained hard for years, went out and gave their best effort at a sporting event. I don’t get how people tie themselves into that picture? My only embarrassment comes with not getting my lazy ass off the couch for the past week while I’ve been watching the games.
This also ties into the “we” won/lost thing. But I’ve used up my free time pass so it’ll have to wait.
August 17th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
First of all, I never said send the cream of the crop and I never said put all the eggs in one basket. And for the recored I NEVER said more funding was the solution.
My argument is that the COC’s standard is too low.
The majority of the atheletes qualifying for the games are not good enough to be there. Period. Too many qualify based on performance at national tournaments DESPITE falling short in the world and continental championships.
It’s not my opinion. It’s a fact. The numbers, don’t lie.
Deb look at those stats. They’re dropping!
And yet -
Our numbers of sent atheletes…ARE INCREASING!
It is a philosophy that celebrates mediocrity, costs Canadians money, AND puts on a poor showing of Canada’s ability.
You are making an argument based on an individual - an underdog, so to speak - and I am making an argument about a pool of atheletes.
And your argument to support an “underdog athelete” with all due respect is poorly thought out.
First of all, the games are not a competition that occurs “on paper”. You need not lecture me on the intangibles that exist in sport.
That said, I am not against supporting an athelete who is not favoured to win - against whom the odds do not stand in favour. If the conclusion was never in doubt there’d be no reason for medals at all.
I am, however, against supporting an athelete, or to be more exact, A POOL of atheletes that has NO chance to win.
“maybe some who haven’t realized their full potential would be chased away before doing so.”
Again, with all due respect, that’s bull. It wouldn’t be a dream as you put it, if they abandoned it so easily.
But let’s test your theory.
You’re willing to support an extreme long shot. How much money, per 311 atheletes, are you willing to fork over, even if the outcome is HIGHLY unlikely they will finish on the podium, let alone in the finals?
And this is not rhetorical, I’d like a dollar figure. Because when you multiply that number, by the number of percentage of our atheletes that fail in the games, ( and I gave you the percentages above) I think you’d abandon the romantic approach of supporting “the underdogs en masse”.
If I contribute a red cent to an atheletes training:
1. He’s no longer an amateur, and he owes me more than, “I tried my best.”
Horse muffins. “You’re getting paid to do this, albeit poorly, you owe something better.”
2. Canadians are then entitled to a statement of value, otherwise there is absolutely NO argument for further funding.
“I honestly haven’t seen any Canadian “failures” that scream underachiever at these games”
To be in 19th, for the number of atheletes, 311, to the States’ 500 , that is a TREMENDOUS, under achievement. And it is not the fault of the atheletes, but the SANCTIONED committee that sent them.
I’m looking at your Mike Chamberlain.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Trust me Patrick Pitt I am the most competitive bastard alive. I hadn’t golfed all year and paired up with a few buddies today that have been playing religiously since spring. Guess who came out on top?
I’ll say this though, perhaps our countries standards are too low, but I ain’t about to piss on these people that have put their heart and soul into what they are competing for. That is my point.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Correction, Mike Chambers, my bad.
“Trust me Patrick Pitt I am the most competitive bastard alive. I hadn’t golfed all year and paired up with a few buddies today that have been playing religiously since spring. Guess who came out on top?”
I wouldn’t pay you or them a red cent either, what’s your point? That long shots happen, and that because your day on the links was a good one, I should cross my fingers for every athlete we send?
Alright everybody back up the bus, and this is the last time, I’m not criticizing the atheletes.
So let’s just not be accusing me of pissing on anybody but the COC.
I’m going to go out on limb here and guess that few of you know the 5 ways to qualify to compete at the olympics….
The standards for a country to send a team are different from country to country folks because an athelete can qualify by way of a NATIONAL TOURNAMENT.
By this logic, a swimmer could not final at the World’s, Commonwealth or Pan AMs, but be the best from Saskatchewan - and go represent the country against all the ones it failed against at those other tourneys.
By the looks of the increasing number of atheletes sent, and the subsequent results of the last 4 summer games, Canada is taking full advantage of this loop hole.
Other countries competing at the games don’t do this, so how is it a fair playing field.
Patrick Bell by this logic, if your friends beat you 3 out of 3 times this year at golf, but then in a tourney against two other lesser quality players you win once, you should consider yourself among the elite in that pool.
It’s an absurd standard and one that is not necessarily practiced by other nations in the games. Ergo donc, our COC sucks.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
You guys also know WHY they (media, atheletes, politicians) argue for more funding to the COC as a way to solve our medal woes right?
You do know that it’s the COC that is the lobbying authority to have the Pan Ams and the Olympics in Toronto or other cities in Canada.
So if you support the theory of throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks, have at her. Me, I can do without the woes that currently face Van coming (moreso) to Toronto by hosting this great and fair international celebration of, “excellence”.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
My point….having no medals until that last few days never ment shit to me. I guess I shouldn’t have used “WE” hey? as I am not the one out busting my ass off trying to be the best I can be for “OUR” country.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
unless i saw you in the highlights, i personally, did not think of you when jen hedger was informing me of the men’s 8 winning gold - no.
and this is just me, but all of you remind me of dustin hoffman’s character giving Gaylord a noogie in Meet The Fockers as he gushes over Gaylord to Deneiro’s character about taking 11th place when growing up.
i love the atheletes too, and again if one can find a way there, great. but the olympics used to be about excellence, and one who actually follows these things cannot help but wonder how we went from Donovan and Lennox to what’s-her face who won didn’t place in women’s decathalon.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Pitt. I hear ya. Canadian standards are what they are. If I was 18 again perhaps I’d try to meet the standards and head over for the “experience” because I could. I have played every team sport imaginable. Excelled in some, not so good in others. Looking at what most of the Olympic plate has to offer, I’d probably never be good enough to make the standards anyways.
However, there are a few pseudo sports there I might give a go had I been young enough…..Shooting…WTF is that? Archery? Equestrian (horse doing the work).
That said, I’ve enjoyed staying up late and watching. Beats watching all the bullshit about never ending conflict in the world. That shit is enough to get you hooked on pills.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Donovan Bailey…I think it was shortly after that Olympics (which I can’t even remember where they were because it was soooo long ago) is when I started losing interest. I always wondered whatever happened to him and that their fame is too short lived, considering I don’t believe any other Canadian Athlete has had the ability to win a gold medal since. Hmmm….
August 17th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Oops…I meant a gold medal in 100m…wasn’t specific.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
“Beats watching all the bullshit about never ending conflict in the world”
That’s no way to talk about married life Bell, but marriage does explain your interest in the Olympics.
Donovan Bailey Mr. 9.84 seconods, resident of Oakville ON (you wanna know what street even?).
Shortly after the big one he challenged Michael Johnson to a 150m sprint at the SKYDOME to challenge for fastest man in the world. It was the most a sprinter had ever earned.
(FTR I was there - so no more about this me not supporting atheletes.)
Made a second olympic showing but came down with a cold and by then was not the same as his former self.
Became part owner of the “Filthy McNasty” sports bar franchise. I too have supported this REAL Canadian Olympian by frequenting several of these watering holes. In the “Mcnaties’ in Oakville there is a giant mural on one of the walls of Don’s now famous mouth open victory run upon winning the gold.
Next..
August 17th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Olympics = much ado about nothing.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
lol. thats funny pitt….so right on…..Yeah, that race between Baily and Johnson was fab….loved the way Johnson pulled up with a fake injury. He has a serious case of “Munchausen syndrome.” I’ve seen it with kids….lol
August 17th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Next?
Do you feel I was questioning you…I don’t question you. He who speaks least knows most.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Oh, and that comment was not meant to be sarcastic, it’s just you only make funny comments, so when you do comment it’s usually quite good.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
No screw you becca! i’m reporting. kiss your word press account buh bye.
She who speaks most is likely my wife.
Hey Bell consider this - leading up to that race, Johnson was on Regis and Kathy lee and being paraded around like he was the fastest man alive based solely on the premise that maintaining the speed he did for an extra 100m was what gave him the claim.
So when that event transpired - and i believe it was for a million bucks (USD) - and bailey won, not only does MJ use this sprained crap, but SI publishes the story in some micro column as an after thought in it’s following publication.
August 17th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
The nearest Tim Horton’s would probably be somewhere in that airport!
August 17th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Pitt, yeah…what a debacle. I like alcohol and Natalie Merchant really loud.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
And what’s wrong with celebrating mediocrity?
I’ll have you know that, as a longtime Canuck’s fan, I wear my mediocrity badge WITH PRIDE.
“WE’RE NUMBER 11″ . Woot. Do the wave.
Hey, aren’t you a Leaf’s fan?
August 17th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
[quote comment="62131"]And what’s wrong with celebrating mediocrity?
I’ll have you know that, as a longtime Canuck’s fan, I wear my mediocrity badge WITH PRIDE.
“WE’RE NUMBER 11″ . Woot. Do the wave.[/quote]
LOL
August 17th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
I am I am, and I am sad to say that even the members of that team have done more to earn their spots on that team than a good chunk of the atheletes made allowed to represent this country at the summer games. Even sadder is they have been grossly overpaid to do so.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Pitt, just out of curiousity what’s your stance on the Olympics being deemed a competition for amateur athletes yet more and more we’re seeing professionals in their place?
on another note… games coverage from India and Bangladesh is pretty goddamn bad… I think I’m up to about six gold medal rounds that have been cut off for televised prayer time…
August 18th, 2008 at 4:27 am
My stance is it isn’t a place for amateur atheletes anymore and the whole thing is a cash grabbing sham. The playing field isn’t level.
And if an athlete receives any funding, any money at all to prepare, he or she is no longer an amateur.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:18 am
I’d be careful debating any sports related topic with “Passionate Patrick Pitt”. “Fan” is short for “Fanatic”.
The casual sports fan will get crushed. His record number of comments on this thread proves there’s been a lot of thought put into this.
Coincidentally, I watched “Chariots of Fire” just last night, which is about the 1924 Olympics and the team set to Paris by Great Britain.
I can’t recall any of the characters in the film saying “I want to go just to live the experience”. But then again, it’s a film, so, probably not a great example.
Why is there no Canadian mens basketball team at the Olympics? Are we implying that those former Canadian University stars aren’t great basketball players? No. As a team, they could not QUALIFY.
I’m glad they didn’t qualify. I don’t want to see the US beat them by 60 points to we could watch our boys “enjoy the experience of being dunked on repeatedly”.
We know going in who are “Best” are and we know who our “Most Mediocre” are. The Olympics are for the best.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:24 am
pitt you are a fuckin MACHINE, dude! the amount of information you just spat out in this post is enough to write a thesis on why the COC sucks balls! wow.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Fearless - amen, and thank you for looking at this based on fact and reason versus emotion. The Olympics should be about the best, the elite, and not long shots. I am so proud of Lennox Lewis and Donovan Bailey and Mike Spitz and their accomplishments. They were terrific ambassadors of their sports and the country.
Let me ask you - would you feel comfortable with an American Basketball coach coaching the Canadian BB team? I would. Cuz the current coach sucks and might’ve been the difference in those guys qualifying.
Majority of Canadians, it would appear, celebrate mediocrity. And if the olympics is a forum of representation what are is being promoted when the nation is satisfied with 85% of the ambassadors the country sends are coming up short?
The majority of the atheletes sent to the last four olympics could not get it done. Period. And anyone could’ve seen that going in.
whenever you hear someone say our atheletes need more funding make sure you ask which atheletes - because as much as I love Adam Turpish, he’s no world beater. and then ask them how much these atheletes that don’t produce in other tourney’s should get.
Because if you reward a sub-par performance, that’s all you’ll ever get.
I’ll happily support those that perform at the Worlds, Commonwealths, and Pan AMs. But the rest are average Joes.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:00 am
If I see another pastel green avatar above a 10,000 word comment I’m going to shoot myself in the face.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:09 am
promise?
August 18th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Has anyone here argued Pitt’s point as far as Canadian performance standards being too low? Sure I mentioned funding resources. I’d like to know how much funding and attention has been put towards the summer Olympic program (especially these games) vs. the upcoming 2010 games. I bet it is substantially different.
Fearless quote. The casual sports fan will get crushed. His record number of comments on this thread proves there’s been a lot of thought put into this.
So Fearless, what you are saying is “volume” constitutes more knowledge on a subject?
August 18th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Good point Patrick…
“Volume”, as in word count, may not necessarily constistute knowledge, but “volume” as in LOUDNESS does speak to passion.
Word count either points to a blowhard, or someone who really gives a shit. I’m petrified of the power of those who really give a shit.
A rant without stats, trends, analogies or examples is just a rant. Our resident soldier battled with his stats, trends and anlogies. He really gives a Pitt
August 18th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
And Mr. Pitt (hehe from Seinfeld. How do your socks fit?)
“Let me ask you - would you feel comfortable with an American Basketball coach coaching the Canadian BB team? I would. Cuz the current coach sucks and might’ve been the difference in those guys qualifying.”
I don’t know if that was just a rhetorical “Let me ask you”, but, yes, I would feel completely comfortable with an American Basketball Coach coaching the Canadian BB team. Having said that, you could bring in Phil Jackson and he’s still going to have trouble getting our boys to play at the appropriate level, especially when this country’s best players like Steve Nash, or Jamaal Magloire would rather be fishing (figuratively speaking of course. I don’t know if either of them enjoy fishing). After all, in a per capita sense, there are only so many Canadian basketball players to choose from……..which is why we’re damn good at hockey. Apparently, there’s ice in Canada, while I had to break in to my high school gym to shoot hoops at night.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Awesomeness out ranks volume. Either way, I win, where’s my gold.
Patrick I bet you’re right about proportion of funding to summer vs winter games.
but as with any investment what is the value? Again the COC is in charge of lobbying for the Olympic Summer and Pan AMs to come to Toronto - so when it’s that organization that presses hard the issue that it is lack of funding that holds Canadian atheletes back, one has to be very VERY skeptical.
If one cent of my money goes to an olympian I am owed better than “i tried my best”. They’re supposed to try their best - that’s why they’re there.
“Steve Nash, or Jamaal Magloire would rather be fishing”
Good, let them. they don’t belong at the olympics any more than the US team’s key players do.
Could you imagine if we had to sit through a Korean, Chinese, or Greek hockey team at the winters. Once the Jamaican bobsled team irony wore off, I think the whole “good for them for trying” attitude would be snuffed out quickly.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I think this is a hot topic around the country today. More people are questioning the results in relation to the number of athletes and amount of funding. Reading a local article this morning..
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Sports/1073759.html
……the relationship between results and funding is established. I find this paragraph interesting…
“The result is that, for too long, the athletes and our Olympic programs have become woefully underfunded, compared to more competitive Olympic nations”
More “Competitive” Olympic nations or more “funded” Olympic nations? Does money always equal success? If so, EXPLAIN the Maple Leafs to me! How bout those Rangers? Yankees? Maybe money only increases the odds. Competitive fire comes from………somewhere else.
It made me think of Rocky 4. (Cuz you know, any good analogy can come from a Rocky trianing montage). Rocky shovelled snow, and lifted big rocks, while Drago had a team of scientists turning him into the perfect athlete.
Rocky kicked his ass as he always does, after chasing chickens, and punching beef and such.
Movies are fairy tales and bad analogies, I know, but the message remains: “Is the ‘happy to be here’ attitude the reason for the lack of success or is it inferior Gatorade? Is it a prevailing culture of mediocrity that defines the Canadian Olympic program? Hell, does a prevailing culture of mediocrity and acceptence of such define Canadian culture as a whole? hmmm…..
How much to we put to better Gatorade for our rowers when we have poverty and infrastructure issues? It’s a tough issue when there’s only so much Government cash to go around. Maybe, like the article says, the answer is in funding coming from the private sector.
Anyways, I believe our athletes are trying their best, even if they’re “funding challenged”. Very thought provoking post and comments….hmmmmm…must ponder.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
rocy also had two white guys fighting for the heavyweight title…too hollywood.
but you’re right, mo money doesn’t make atheletes more fit. plus it’s fine line for atheletes when they go from sponsorship to government funding.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Hell, politics perforate the Olympics. Why not capitalism?
“In this corner, Canadian 400 lb Sumo Wrestler, Patrick Pitt! Patrick is sponsored by Tim Horton’s Donuts and Molson Premium Ale. His sumo diaper is provided by Giant Jacks Big & Tall Clothing and his motto is ‘if you can’t beat ‘em, eat ‘em!”
August 18th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
No, there definitely is no guarantee that “mo money makes for mo success.” But, it helps a great deal if the money is there and it is channeled the right ways.
In 1996, my roommate at the time won a silver medal in Paralympics. He narrowly missed the gold by literally seconds. I can’t remember what level “carded” athlete he was, but the amount of funding he received was pathetic. It was under $1000 a month. He was fortunate to have had disability funding and other things to make ends meet. There are those that don’t.
Here is a quote from one of our Olympic boxing athletes. I know boxing is very dear to Pitt’s heart.
Boxer Adam Trupish, eliminated in the first round of his event, said a lack of funding certainly had an impact on the result.
“I see countries with as small a team as me and in the venue they’ve got three coaches, a manager, a physiotherapist and psychologist and I’ve got Charlie (Stewart) who is trying to play the part of all three and his massages suck,” Trupish said.
Canada started the “Road To Excellence” program to help Canada finish in the top 16 at these Games - and the top 12 in 2012. The program will have $20 million to work with in 2008-09, $28 million the following year and $36 million for each of the two years heading into 2012.
The trick is, you have to get results in order to get funding. Trupish said that’s backwards.
“We’re saying ‘give us funding and we can produce’ and the government is saying ‘produce and then we’ll give you funding,”‘ Trupish said. “It’s kind of the egg before the chicken.”
For Trupish, the lack of funding meant going $25,000 in personal debt and working instead of training until the last few weeks. ..
August 18th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Well I think there is a correlation between money and fitness/success - an example of that would be the Canadian rowers.
Their funding enables them to row full time (if I heard it correctly - I believe I did)….rowing is their job. And, because of this, they can focus 100% of their time & energy on training (and it shows). So maybe money does matter, as those who have to go to work and then train in their “spare” time obviously cannot devote the same amount of energy/hours into their sport as those who can train full time. Also, additional funding can provide better training facilities, equipment, etc. So I think it does translate to fitter/better athletes in the end. Sure, the argument is that dedicated athletes will somehow still make the time to train as hard, but obviously fatigue factors into that. So the funding provides the opportunity to focus solely on training which, in turn, results in fitter/better athletes.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Deb. For sure.
Here is a good article about how funding affects results. Look no farther than Australia.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43411
August 18th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Funding and how it affects results. Look no further than Australia.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43411
August 18th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Money doesn’t create or guarantee results. Talent, training and quality coaching does.
Money can help get those things but lets get realistic.
Who’s going to pay? And if you do pay, are they still amateurs? It’s a fine line.
I would rather see the money spent on the 200 atheletes that have no chance of making it to the finals be further spent on the 100 that do. Either that or dip into amateur hockey in Canada.
How’s Australia’s funding helping them at the winter olympics PB?
I once fought - and lost - to Turpish. Sean O’Meara beat him though, a few times.
Those were the days.
Hey any of you guys gonna watch Molitor’s next fight? If we’re all about supporting Canadian atheletes true and dear to the country, that live the dream and make it happen and stay true to their roots, I’d expect a huge following among the romantics that love the olympics.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
[quote comment="62164"]pitt you are a fuckin MACHINE, dude! the amount of information you just spat out in this post is enough to write a thesis on why the COC sucks balls! wow.[/quote]
You really should read what you just wrote, and do it out loud, but instead of saying the letters “COC” actually read it…and that’s why it’s funny how you said it!
August 18th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
As I said before. I ain’t questioning whether or not our performance standards are too low. I agree they probably are. I noticed a guy in one the 100 m heats the other day lagging behind everyone in the heat….I was curious to see what his time was so I waited to see what his time was. 13.6…WTF? I ran a 100 faster than that in Junior high and I wasn’t anything special. Obviously his country has lower standards than even Canada.
What do we have now?….9 medals….then we should have targeted those as likely medals winners and only sent those nine athletes. The US should have sent only those 72 athletes that have won a medal …not the entire 500 or whatever it is. Likewise for the Aussies who have 33 medals and sent 450.
How’s Australia’s funding helping them at the winter olympics PB? Obviously it isn’t. However, how is funding helping on Canada’s winter Olympic teams…like I said before, I’ll bet the funding and initiative for “our” winter program vs. summer program don’t equate. I do know this about the Aussie’s…where are the mountainous winter like training facilities in that country? Do they have a legacy of Calgary ‘88 and all the facilities that were left from it?(funding) And guess what? They actually have won a medal in short track speed skating…My guess is they haven’t made the effort towards the winter games for the obvious reasons…
August 18th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Actually, upon further research Australia has won a few medals in winter Olympics.
Wow, good read about Aussies and the Winter Olympics on Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_at_the_Winter_Olympics
Funding down there built the “Olympic Winter Institute of Australia,” after the Nagano games.
August 19th, 2008 at 4:26 am
A very few medals, what’s your point?That’s not necessarily because of their extreme funding to olympic sports.
You don’t honestly believe that Canada performs well at the Winter Games because of funding do you?
Let me ask you something, how many Tae Kwon Do, Ball Room Dancing, Atheletics or ping pong world championships did you catch prior to the summer games?
How many hockey games will you watch prior to the winter games?
That’s your answer as to our performance of one compared to the other. When the public gravitates towards a sport, and it becomes a fixture in the culture a funny phenomenon occurs. Kids start doing it, to emulate their heroes. Parents drive their kids to succeed in it.
Funding will help promote that culture, but the desire has to be their first. The lucrativeness for funding and sponsorship has to appear.
Consider this - what’s the name of the chick who won women’s wrestling? How many mulit-million dollar sponsorships will she get? How much air time can we expect on TSN or CBC dedicated to women’s wrestling?
Now How did figure skating do about when Kurt Browning competed? You can’t swing a dead cat without coming across that crap on the CBC if hockey isn’t on.
Lastly you’ll notice that boxing is around the 6th or 7th most medals Canada has won by sport and that was largely in part due to a very strong professional following of the sport from the 60’s-late 80’s. But since broadcasts and live showings have all but fallen off the map of the Canadian conscience, we now send but one no-hope competitor.
Our atheletes need more support, but not necessarily of the financial kind.
If you want to see a sport with truly an international appeal and support and therefore a level playing field regardless of funding (sans Tiger), look no further than golf. You go down the rankings and it’s a bunch of different flags from all different continents.
I wish that was allowed in the Olympics, we’d really stand a chance.
FTR I never said don’t send athletes that are a long shot to medal. I’m against sending atheletes whose only credentials are their performance at the Canadian games.
If an athlete is not among the top 16 in the world, if not a finalist in his or her respective sport, what is he or she doing at the games?
August 19th, 2008 at 5:03 am
I am in China right now and the most ironic thing is I know very little about whats going on with the olympics because the only information (if i desired it) I can get re: the olympics in on CCTV where of course the language is Mandarin. And if I attempt to type in “olympics” in a searchon the net here I always get “Page Cannot be displayed” ..not to mention a handful of other searches I have tried. I am thankful for this site because this is in one of the very few sites I can get daily info on.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Our success in winter sports…of course I don’t believe its all due to funding….
But, I will say take a look at the medal count following the Calgary Games. Yah think all the money poured into those facilities hasn’t paid dividends?….remember, funding isn’t just what goes directly to the athlete.
Funding and money spent in infrastructure has played a big role as to why the Aussies have won gold medals in the last few WINTER games. Want a prediction? Australia will continually get better in the Winter games….and money money money used to hire the best people and develop their athletes and built needed venues will play a huge role. All directed through the proper channels as I said a few comments above.
FTR I never said don’t send athletes that are a long shot to medal. I’m against sending atheletes whose only credentials are their performance at the Canadian games.
If an athlete is not among the top 16 in the world, if not a finalist in his or her respective sport, what is he or she doing at the games? AGREED.
Here is one to feast on…..I hate judged sports in the games. I rarely watch ‘em. Why? Because of the history of corruption that has gone with judged Olympic sports. Look no further than boxing and figure skating. And yes, I love boxing as a sport too.
The very first post I put on this board was a medal comparison between the US and Canada per capita. My whole point in posting that was that I wasn’t worried about how many medals Canada had/hadn’t won. I was only putting positive spin on it as up until the last few days lack of medals had been so negatively perceived.
Yes, the conversation morphed into the funding issue, but I’ve enjoyed the discussion none-the-less.
Hey, Canada just won a medal in “red rover.”
August 19th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Yah think all the money poured into those facilities hasn’t paid dividends?
No I don’t.
Period.
I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that this is the case.
Can you prove this other than saying, “We won more medals at the next one?” And Australia does about as well at the winter’s as we do at the summers, and I think there is a key observation in that phenomenon.
Lennox hated judged sports too - that’s why he knocked Riddick the fuck out in the 2nd to secure gold. Why Yanks clamored for a rematch during their pro careers is beyond me.
And I am not conversing about the fund raising issue. If an individual wants to go out and sponsor an athlete, be my guest. God Bless ya I hope you get everything you want from them.
Take my tax dollars for it though? Screw you!
Firstly, you can’t prove value. Secondly, the money could easily be spent elsewhere.
I do believe in support though. Again, via sponsorship or just fostering the culture - I’m looking at you CBC who didn’t air any boxing and progressively less each year! You wanna draw a correlation? Look at how Canada used to place 6th overall in medals won since the inception of the summer games - and as coverage lessened not only did the country’s performance deteriorate in results - Canada literally started sending less atheletes. Despite them meeting the same “national standards” that other atheletes had.
What a fucking crock. The COC and the whole thing is more lopsided than a poor breast job.
.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Ironically, I watched an interview today on the BBC world news with a couple of Britain’s ex. Olympians now part of their Olympic program. They both were convinced that a lottery added in the UK in 1994 to increase available funds for their program has been directly responsible for their Olympic success in recent years. They said that the increased funding helped provide better coaching, etc. and helped them sponsor more athletes and diversify the teams existence in the games.
I know, a lottery isn’t the same as direct tax money allocated towards athletics, but their point was that increased funding has been totally beneficial towards recent successes.
Firstly, you can’t prove value. Secondly, the money could easily be spent elsewhere. I know…you don’t want tax dollars going towards Olympic funding. I think most Canadian’s would agree as there is no definitive way to prove that it is money well spent. Instead, take that money and put it towards the federal “slush fund” and know for sure the money will never be accounted for. :-)
August 19th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Bobby4…go here…people discuss the events all night long. Come join us:
http://forum.canucks.com/index.php?showtopic=207436&st=4660&start=4660
August 20th, 2008 at 4:53 am
This page, if accurate, is pretty good.
http://best.olympicstats.ever.com/?skip_login=1
The first table is for all those fair weathered fans who like to do the statistical analysis based on population alone.
Which the stats prove - is a ridiculous hypothesis.
The SECOND table shows how many medals we SHOULD win based on atheletes sent.
Canada is at 27.55%. The last table shows what we should be winning based on atheletes sent to population - 16%.
Currently with 13 medals we are at: 3%
AND OH MY FREAKING GOD THE VERY LAST TABLE SHOWS HOW MANY ATHLETES SHOUDL BE SENT TO HIT TARGETS PRO RATA AND IT IS:
55!!!!!
How many did I say above to support - 50! WOOOO HOOO! I swear on the lives of all of you and your children that I didn’t check this page before coming up with these numbers.
Canada’s policy sucks, it’s a waste of money, and all the heart wrenching stories in the world don’t justify a chunk of our atheletes being there. Take it from a Leaf fan who knows a little something about supporting a bunch of losers. The vast majority of atheletes sent are not good enough and don’t deserve to be there. Period.
And if you think that sounds unpatriotic, you’re an idiot, because the numbers don’t lie. Something stinks about this level of participation and it probably has A LOT to do with the COC lobbying to get the games to a Canadian city. If you can fool the idiot population of Canada with stats from Table 1:
That is, Medals:population
then that justifies bringing the games to a Canadian city.
Hogwash.
Oh and as for funding- how’s Cuba do so well in boxing?
August 20th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
dude….you were in the military…you’d be the last guy I’d accuse of being unpatriotic :- )
August 20th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
[quote comment="62514"]
Canada’s policy sucks, it’s a waste of money, and all the heart wrenching stories in the world don’t justify a chunk of our atheletes being there. Take it from a Leaf fan who knows a little something about supporting a bunch of losers. The vast majority of atheletes sent are not good enough and don’t deserve to be there. [/quote]
I was reading a little Carlin today and I was reminded of your post.
“…Nor do I wanna know about some athlete’s accident prone little brother or his sick little sister (I’ve edited the wording here, could offend). The Olympics specialize in this kind of mawkish bullshit. Either his aunt has the clap, or his kid has a forty pound mole, or his high school buddy overdosed on burritos, etc. Can’t sports exist on television without all this embarrassing, maudlin, super-sentimental, tear-jerking bullshit? Keep your personal disasters to yourself, and get in there and score some fuckin’ points!”
-George Carlin - “Play Ball”
August 21st, 2008 at 4:08 am
only canadians would think that slamming a crooked organization like the COC would be considered “unpatriotic”.
listen i’m glad i got out of the army, because based on the comments here, i’d be sent into a nuclear war with a slingshot just because you guys are “patriotic and you believe in me”.
Carlin was irish descent and in the military too - go figure.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:50 am
[quote comment="62576"]listen i’m glad i got out of the army, because based on the comments here, i’d be sent into a nuclear war with a slingshot just because you guys are “patriotic and you believe in me”.[/quote]
LMFAO - that was good. Write that shit down.