We're number Four

So far in this winter Olympics, Canadian athletes have finished in fourth spot 10 times. That's got to be some kind of record.

It's great our athletes are finally competing with the best in the world consistently, but it's also the worst place to finish at the Olympics. Fifth would be a better finish than fourth, IMHO. So close, but so far...

However, this is good news for Vancouver in 2010, as the younger athletes will have a solid experience of what to do in four years, when they can compete for gold on home turf (oops, sorry ).

On an even more upbeat note... Canada got an unexpected GOLD medal in women's cross-country skiing this morning. She's just 22 years old and in her first Olympics.

[Launch Mini]

It is very good to see our kids performing so well.

Yes, we have had an incredible number of 4th place finishes. I agree that this is good new for Vancouver...

Agreed (hey, I just agreed with myself).

BTW Al, I think we should petition the IOC to get them to drop the guns in Biathalon and move to bows and arrows.

I'd love to see how accurate archers can shoot after cross-country skiing five km at break-neck speed.

Originally Posted by Atomic

Agreed (hey, I just agreed with myself).

BTW Al, I think we should petition the IOC to get them to drop the guns in Biathalon and move to bows and arrows.

I'd love to see how accurate archers can shoot after cross-country skiing five km at break-neck speed.

Actually, the sport exists.......it's called Ski-archery (very creative name, don't you think? ).

Ski-archery is a sport managed by 2 groups, the archery people, and the skiing people (when I say people I mean international sport federations - FITA and IBU respectively). Unfortunately, these two groups don't always see things in the same light, even though the goal is the same - promote the sport and eventually get it into the Olympics. As with any sport, there are minimum requirements for participation in areas across the globe, and in the 2 genders before it is considered for the Olympics. Ski-archery isn't quite there yet......

Here is a photograph of the shooting station in a ski-archery event:



As you know from being involved in provincial level sport associations, there is a lot of politics in sport. I can tell you it increases when you go national, and again when you go international......

Oh yes, there is also Run-archery.....similar concept.

Both of these would be good training for regular target archery. In fact, when I was at the national training center in Montreal, we would often run laps to get our heart rates elevated, and then go the shooting line and shoot at 70 meters. It was a way of simulating when you were under pressure and had your heart pounding in a match....

[G Shearing]

On their way home and good for them. Bertuzzi pulled a penalty as he seems to like to do here where the Canucks front line is just about as useless as the Olympic team. Bah Humbug!!

[Launch Mini]

I was at 5 of the World Junior games this year. Those kids played every game with determination.
Not just Canada, but even the weaker teams.
Heck there were 13,000 fans watching Norway-Swiss and both teams gave it there all.
I think Olypics should go back to the people who want to be there. Non Professionals.
Do you think those Canadians/Americans got pumped up over the Olympics ? or are they more concerned about hoisting Lord Stanley in a few months?
Just my $0.02 ( Cdn eh)

Originally Posted by Launch Mini

I was at 5 of the World Junior games this year. Those kids played every game with determination.
Not just Canada, but even the weaker teams.
Heck there were 13,000 fans watching Norway-Swiss and both teams gave it there all.
I think Olypics should go back to the people who want to be there. Non Professionals.
Do you think those Canadians/Americans got pumped up over the Olympics ? or are they more concerned about hoisting Lord Stanley in a few months?
Just my $0.02 ( Cdn eh)

I agree 100% John. Granted most elite level 'amateur' athletes are pretty much professional, but there was a difference back when the Olympics was an amateur contest. For my sport of cycling, winning a medal at the Olympics was a springboard to a professional european contract. Now the race is just another race that happens every four years on the pro race schedule.

Sadly, games like the Commonwealth and the Pan Ams have lost their lustre when they used to be a very close second (and pre-test) to the Olympics.

BTW, Ottawa is gunning for the Commonweath Games in 2014.

Originally Posted by Atomic

I agree 100% John. Granted most elite level 'amateur' athletes are pretty much professional, but there was a difference back when the Olympics was an amateur contest. For my sport of cycling, winning a medal at the Olympics was a springboard to a professional european contract. Now the race is just another race that happens every four years on the pro race schedule.

Sadly, games like the Commonwealth and the Pan Ams have lost their lustre when they used to be a very close second (and pre-test) to the Olympics.

BTW, Ottawa is gunning for the Commonweath Games in 2014.

Okay Johnny, now we are talking about the real issue!

Although I agree that sending the BEST people/players in any sport to the Olympics should be the goal (so in that respect I do support the pros being there, as they are "typically the best) but isn't the issue is really what sports should be at the Olympics in the first place?

In my view, the Olympics MUST be the pinnacle of any sporting accomplishment. So, if the pinnacle of your sport is not an Olympic Gold Medal, then your sport should not be at the Olympics. Period!

In Hockey, for example, if you asked any of the players if they would rather win the Stanley Cup or an Olympic gold medal, I think 100% of them would pick the Cup (and if any said otherwise they would be lying ). Would you rather win an Olympic cycling race, or the TDF? Most would say the Tour. How about Tennis - Wimbledon, or an Olympic medal? And what about soccer (football) - I'm sure the World Cup is much, much bigger than the Olympics.

So really is it the issue of Professional Athletes in the Olympics, or is it the issue of Professional Sports in the Olympics? At this time I am inclined to think it is the latter, rather than the former.

Jeeze, can you tell that I think about this stuff waaaay too much?

I think the issue is that while professional ranks 'should' be the pinnicle of sport, the Olympics should be the pinnicle of amateur sport.

Would I rather have a gold medal at the Olympics than a win at the TDF? No, I'd rather have a TDF win on my CV. However, as an amateur, I would want to ride in the Olympics, in order to have a shot at winning a gold medal that would likely get me a pro contract that could lead me to a win at the TDF.

The Olympics should be the top of the feeder chain TO professionalism.

My old buddy, Jocelyn Lovell, rode in three Olympics for Canada, even won himself a silver medal... but he never turned 'pro' per se. He did in fact race full-time, but he also had to run a small business on the side to make ends meet.

I really don't like that we have pros in the Olympics. They have their professional events to worry about and going to the Olympics because it's 'in your contract' and then playing at 70% to avoid risking injury isn't fair to the fans or to the country you represent.

This is one aspect of the Olympics that really pisses me off.

Originally Posted by Atomic

I think the issue is that while professional ranks 'should' be the pinnicle of sport, the Olympics should be the pinnicle of amateur sport.

Would I rather have a gold medal at the Olympics than a win at the TDF? No, I'd rather have a TDF win on my CV. However, as an amateur, I would want to ride in the Olympics, in order to have a shot at winning a gold medal that would likely get me a pro contract that could lead me to a win at the TDF.

The Olympics should be the top of the feeder chain TO professionalism.

My old buddy, Jocelyn Lovell, rode in three Olympics for Canada, even won himself a silver medal... but he never turned 'pro' per se. He did in fact race full-time, but he also had to run a small business on the side to make ends meet.

I really don't like that we have pros in the Olympics. They have their professional events to worry about and going to the Olympics because it's 'in your contract' and then playing at 70% to avoid risking injury isn't fair to the fans or to the country you represent.

This is one aspect of the Olympics that really pisses me off.

Sorry, I disagree. By not using the "best" players/athletes from the sport in question, you are giving the Olympics second billing, and in my view that's not right.

If I had to choose between the system we have now, and what we used to have with regards to "amatuer status" I would choose the current system. If you have ever dealt with the issues around someone being considered a "pro" because they won some money at some sporting event (it would not even have to be the same sport as your Olympic sport) then I think you see that is just a huge can of worms.

With all the sports out there trying to get into the Olympics, in my view if winning that medal is not the ultimate for your sport, then get your sport the hell out and let someone in who would appreciate it more.

Oh yes, sorry I meant to comment on the Pan Am and Commonwealth Games.......

In terms of a pure sporting event, the Pan Am Games are far superior, as the Commonwealth Games are an odd combination of a few select "must have" sports, plus a selection of sports that the host country would like to have included. At least this is the way it was run the last time I checked. So, this explains why sports like lawn bowling can be included in the Commonwealth Games, and other sports are left out. It also explains why some sports are in those Games on time, and are not the next (just compare Manchester with Melbourne, and you will get the picture).

What makes the Pan Am Games a much lesser Games for Canada than it used to be, is the way the COC selects/funds the teams. They have several tiers of selection that are applied to various sports, and whether or not you are funded depends on performance, and also how ciritcal these Games are to your sport. For example, if Pan Ams is the top of your sport other than Wolrd Championships, you are given a high priority for funding. If the Pan Ams are part of your Olympic qualifying procedures, then it is even a higher priority for funding. In the case of archery, neither scenario applies, so we are at the bottom of the funding barrel. In addition, the way the COC is working the selection, our sport will be using results from an event in 2004 for earning our Pan Am spots for 2007 - how f*cked up is that? we wanted to use an event in the fall of 2006, but that is outside their time frame for earning spots (even though they had told us earlier that we could use that event). To make matters worse, we sent what would amount to a "B-Team" to the even in question in 2004, because we had no idea then it would be used for earning Pan Am spots.

Okay, so if you are still reading, you will have likely determined that the biggest problem in Canadian Amatuer sport is the COC.......

Don't get me started on the COC.

Truth be told, just after I accepted my job in Ottawa, the Olympic office in Toronto wanted me to interview for a position (in Toronto).