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!!

Originally Posted by 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!!

Well, on the bright side at least he is able to get his civil trial under way a bit earlier......

By the way, I hope the Moore family takes him to the cleaners.

I wonder if Gretzky still thinks it was a good idea to have him on the team, considering it was his penalty that lead to the power play where Russia scored the winning goal......

Oh well, at least the US won't win it (I don't think I could take another "Miracle on Ice" movie)

[C.J.]

At least your athletes can come home with their heads held high Our two candy asses on the mens speed skating team have been embarrassing to say the least It amazes me that they would choose to act like children and air their differences on television for all the world to see, rather than in private and with some dignity.

Originally Posted by Avalon

Well, on the bright side at least he is able to get his civil trial under way a bit earlier......

By the way, I hope the Moore family takes him to the cleaners.

I wonder if Gretzky still thinks it was a good idea to have him on the team, considering it was his penalty that lead to the power play where Russia scored the winning goal......

Oh well, at least the US won't win it (I don't think I could take another "Miracle on Ice" movie)

Well, I haven't said anything about the team roster, but since it's done, I think Gretz made a huge error by having so many 'old' guys on the team. And I think it's a disgrace that Bertuzzi was named. I too, hope the Moores rape him into the poor house. Cowardly, cement-head bastard that he is.

I also have to give a thumbs down to Chris Pronger. WTF is he thinking taking a dumb penatly when you only have a minute left to try to tie the game.

I think our team came in thinking they could 'glide' through the preliminaries, into the final game for gold and win it. That attitude does not win medals.

On a positive side... anyone catch the interview with Chandra Crawford yesterday? What a spark plug and a babe! WOW, talk about the Olympic spirit personified. If I could bottle her attitude and sell it, I'd be a multi-millionaire... I'm 99.9349848029839% sure of that.

I'm also glad that dink-head Bode Miller hasn't been able to convert any of his bragging into medals. What a huge disappointment he has been to the USA.

BTW Al... I'm amazed about the archery/skiing. That's hilarious! I was joking. LOLOLOL

Originally Posted by Atomic

Well, I haven't said anything about the team roster, but since it's done, I think Gretz made a huge error by having so many 'old' guys on the team. And I think it's a disgrace that Bertuzzi was named. I too, hope the Moores rape him into the poor house. Cowardly, cement-head bastard that he is.

I also have to give a thumbs down to Chris Pronger. WTF is he thinking taking a dumb penatly when you only have a minute left to try to tie the game.

I think our team came in thinking they could 'glide' through the preliminaries, into the final game for gold and win it. That attitude does not win medals.

On a positive side... anyone catch the interview with Chandra Crawford yesterday? What a spark plug and a babe! WOW, talk about the Olympic spirit personified. If I could bottle her attitude and sell it, I'd be a multi-millionaire... I'm 99.9349848029839% sure of that.

Well, as someone who has been involved in selecting national teams in my sport (including Olympic teams) I will say that my philosophy is that you pick the best players, regardless of their personality. Of course we are essentially an individual sport, rather than a team sport (although there are team events) so the ability to gel with other members of the team to an event is not as important as it is in hockey. For the hockey team, choosing Bertuzzi was a mistake, not only because he is a disturbing influence for the team, but mainly because he is simply not the best player that could have been chosen.

I agree that our team was old and slow, and the Gretzky picked it based on loyalties rather than talent. It is this same thinking that lead him to support Bertuzzi after he nearly killed Moore on the ice.......of course Gretzky relied on this kind of enforcement when he was a player, so he can't very well turn around and condemn it, even if he should. This is one reason why I feel Orr was the better player - he wasn't out there running away from everyone....he was always in the mix and paid the price for that with his knees (but this is another subject entirely).

The bottom line is that our skaters did not have the speed to play the international game - we have had this happen before, so why we would focus our team to the more aged side is beyond me. Gretzkey has taken full responsibility for the early exit, and in my mind he is the most responsible person for the loss. How could you not have someone like Sidney Crosby on your team? Yes he's young, but so is Ovechkin, the NHL rookie who is playing for......you guessed it, Russia! And what did he do? Well, he scored the winning goal to take Canada out of the tournament......not too bad for a rookie, eh?

Well said, Al. I agree 100%. I think Hockey Canada should fire Grezky's ass today! I've never been a Wayne fan because he got all those scoring records because the unwritten rule was, 'lay a hand on Greztky and you get to talk to Semenko in the corners'. He may have been a talented player, but he's a pussy player cuz he never mixed it up.

Hell, even in my sport of cycling, I got involved in a few fist fights at 40km/hr. Musta been funny watching stick men fight at speed.

But, Gretzkey should be fired and Hockey Canada find a program director with more smarts for the game, rather than giving free rides to old buddies and bullies.

This should be a wake-up call to shake things up to ENSURE we win hockey gold in 2010.

[dman]

Some guys are paid to "mix it up" and others are paid to grind and some to score and set up. The problem with both Team Canada and US is that neither had enough pure goal scorers. There were a few, but the problem with the North American teams is that they want to play old time hockey. That is find and good, but meanwhile the rest of the world is skating right by their asses.

I was really disappointed in both teams play, hopefully they will get guys like Crosby on the team and get back to where they belong, on top. Especially the Canadians.

Gretz was the single greatest player in any team sport, put his numbers up against any sport and it proves true. Nobody can dream of being that dominant. His coaching and managerial style is not showing to be as good though. But to pin this on him is crazy, IHMO.

Now as far as the US Hockey committee, those guys are like a bunch of monkeys 'EFIN a football.

Originally Posted by dman

His coaching and managerial style is not showing to be as good though. But to pin this on him is crazy, IHMO.

Not really. Gretzky made the final team selection. He selected old, slow guys who aren't really producing in the NHL this season. There are a LOAD of younger, faster, more 'on' players he could have chosen to play for team Canada. But as Al said, he chose based on loyalty, rather than who's hot THIS season. Ultimately, our loss is his fault.

[dman]

I can see your point, but to get shut out 11 out of 12 periods, hardly his fault. Fact is, they had horses to compete and that did not happen.

Originally Posted by dman

I can see your point, but to get shut out 11 out of 12 periods, hardly his fault. Fact is, they had horses to compete and that did not happen.

Don't get me wrong, I agree the team didn't produce and that's the fault of the players. However, had different players been selected, the outcome WOULD have been different.

I've never seen a team Canada play worse hockey as this past Olympics. It's pathetic. At least the women produced as experts said they would.

But I think a lot of this cavalier attitude (of the players) comes from them being professionals. The Olympics used to be about (mostly) being at the height of amateur athletics, and often a springboard into the pro ranks (assuming your sport supports pro leagues). These guys on the hockey team are all millionaires, who don't want to get injured before the NHL playoffs... so where's the motivation?

Management selected a bad team and the team selected wasn't motivated.

[dman]

Originally Posted by Atomic

Don't get me wrong, I agree the team didn't produce and that's the fault of the players. However, had different players been selected, the outcome WOULD have been different.

I've never seen a team Canada play worse hockey as this past Olympics. It's pathetic. At least the women produced as experts said they would.

But I think a lot of this cavalier attitude (of the players) comes from them being professionals. The Olympics used to be about (mostly) being at the height of amateur athletics, and often a springboard into the pro ranks (assuming your sport supports pro leagues). These guys on the hockey team are all millionaires, who don't want to get injured before the NHL playoffs... so where's the motivation?

Management selected a bad team and the team selected wasn't motivated.

I agree with all you said, well put. Especially about the prima donna attitudes of these guys.

[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.

[C.J.]

Originally Posted by Atomic

Don't get me wrong, I agree the team didn't produce and that's the fault of the players. However, had different players been selected, the outcome WOULD have been different.

I've never seen a team Canada play worse hockey as this past Olympics. It's pathetic. At least the women produced as experts said they would.

But I think a lot of this cavalier attitude (of the players) comes from them being professionals. The Olympics used to be about (mostly) being at the height of amateur athletics, and often a springboard into the pro ranks (assuming your sport supports pro leagues). These guys on the hockey team are all millionaires, who don't want to get injured before the NHL playoffs... so where's the motivation?

Management selected a bad team and the team selected wasn't motivated.

Well said, John That seems to be exactly the problem. Even though the players were professionals, they had no incentive to be their best. If anything, they had good reason to hold back and avoid injury so as to not disrupt their professional careers when they got home.

[C.J.]

Originally Posted by dman

Some guys are paid to "mix it up" and others are paid to grind and some to score and set up. The problem with both Team Canada and US is that neither had enough pure goal scorers. There were a few, but the problem with the North American teams is that they want to play old time hockey. That is find and good, but meanwhile the rest of the world is skating right by their asses.

I was really disappointed in both teams play, hopefully they will get guys like Crosby on the team and get back to where they belong, on top. Especially the Canadians.

Gretz was the single greatest player in any team sport, put his numbers up against any sport and it proves true. Nobody can dream of being that dominant. His coaching and managerial style is not showing to be as good though. But to pin this on him is crazy, IHMO.

Now as far as the US Hockey committee, those guys are like a bunch of monkeys 'EFIN a football.

You're right, Daren. You've gotta have skaters who can complete the drives and get the puck in the zone. Scorers who can get into and stay in the slot and get the puck in the net. As well as the goons who are going to create consequences for the opposing team members who who take pot shots at the goal scorers.

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.

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).

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.

Originally Posted by Avalon

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.

Okay, I agree with you 100% on this.

BUT if this were true, the number of sports where the Olympics were the pinnicle would be minimal. Every sport seems to have a 'world cup' or world championships, which in my view is likely more important than the Olympics because they happen every year (figure skating worlds start in two weeks!).

So you'd likely pare the roster of Olympic sports down to a couple dozen 'obscure' sports that don't feed into professional ranks. And that would either turn the Olympics into a shadow of itself, or make all sports readjust themselves to MAKE the Olympics the pinnicle of their sport. Since pro sports is about making money, I doubt most sports would adjust their schedules so that the BIG SHOW would come about once every four years.

I still say Wayne messed up big time.

Originally Posted by Atomic

Okay, I agree with you 100% on this.

BUT if this were true, the number of sports where the Olympics were the pinnicle would be minimal. Every sport seems to have a 'world cup' or world championships, which in my view is likely more important than the Olympics because they happen every year (figure skating worlds start in two weeks!).

So you'd likely pare the roster of Olympic sports down to a couple dozen 'obscure' sports that don't feed into professional ranks. And that would either turn the Olympics into a shadow of itself, or make all sports readjust themselves to MAKE the Olympics the pinnicle of their sport. Since pro sports is about making money, I doubt most sports would adjust their schedules so that the BIG SHOW would come about once every four years.

I still say Wayne messed up big time.

Hmmmm - no way would I say that just because a sport already has a World Championships that the Olympics would not still (already) be the pinnacle. Archery is a very good example of that. We have World Indoor Championships (shot inside at 18 meters), World Outdoor Target Archery Championships (similar format to the Olympics), World Field Championships (shooting at targets laid out in the woods with extreme angles - uphill/downhill, over cliffs etc.), World 3d Archery Championships (shooting unmarked distances at 3D foam animals will kill zones - much like bow hunting), World Flight Championships (who can shoot an arrow the farthest), plus World Ski-Archery Championships (as we discussed like biathlon). I can tell you that despite all these world championships that are held every 2 years, the absolute top thing in our sport is winning the Olympic Gold Medal.

Archery was taken out of the Olympics in the early 20th century due to the fact that the format for the events weren't standardized around the world. FITA, our international federation, was formed to standardize formats for the sole purpose of getting us back into the summer Olympics. That eventually happened in 1972, and so far, we have stayed there......so far.

I can tell you with complete certainty that people, archers and non-archers alike, react totally different to someone who has been to a world championships than they do to someone who has been to the Olympics (not won the Olympics, but just having been there). I have seen people's eyes bug out of their heads when they see an Olympian, or someone who has won an Olympic medal. You don't get that same reaction with any other "winner" of any other event. I have very good friends who have made several World and Pan Am Games teams, and have even won medals at Pan Ams - yet they still strive for a spot on the Olympic team above all else. The olympics are something very special, and I have seen people lie, cheat, and file lawsuits/protests to get a spot on the Olympic team - these are otherwise normal, rational individuals. A large multi-sport event, especially the Olympics, just can't be compared to a single-sport world championships event.

As for the Olympics being full of obscure sports, you could already make that argument - including my sport, but when was the last time you went to a water polo game? However, Olympic sports are under huge pressure to change their competition formats to make them more viewer friendly. This has lead to more team sports, the "pursuit" events, and things like beach volleyball. In archery, we have adopted a competition format that leaves a lot to the luck of the draw - it is widely accepted that it is NOT the best way to pick the best archer, but the IOC really does not care about that as much as they do TV ratings.

And I agree that Wayne screwed up.