The Canadian Olympic Committee - a barrier for athletes

Tough standards or not, you have a marathoner who was the silver medallist at the last Pan Am Games. If an athlete medals in some sort of championship competiton and can "demonstrate fitness" to use an old phrase, say meeting at least the B standard, that athlete should, in my opinion, make the next Olympic Team.

My Olympic experience , 6 government officials per athlete

were sent to the Games. The US in no different , many offials love to hon-knob during the games. Its about the best that a country can support and send.

You wrote;

You will not find too many 'poor but spirited youth' standing on the podium collecting medals in Athens this summer.

............................................................

Perhaps in a lot of events, but for those not on the podium??.

The view of the young is now why bother.

Have you looked at ranking lists in many Western Countries,they are dying.

The youth must have a reasonable incentive otherwise they will leave the sport.

academictech wrote:

does'nt Jeff S run the company circuits over there?

Schiebler ran for NEC for many years. I believe he recently switched companies.

I see no reason why North American companies can't put an athlete on the payroll as a PR person to help promote a product or image and facilitate training....

I'd say that's what all those guys and gals wearing Nike, adidas and New Balance (among others) gear are doing.

Agreed, but I was thinking more like the oil and gas, auto mfgs, companies from the Fortune 500 lists, not necessarily just sporting good mfgs.

academictech wrote:

Why field an athlete when there is virtually no chance of placing in the medals?

It's worth asking whether everyone not ranked in the top 12 in the world has "virtually no chance of placing in the medals". The article linked at the top of the thread made the point that triathlon gold medallist Simon Whitfield, who was ranked 13th going in Sydney, would not have qualified for the Olympics using this year's criteria.

As for Orville Atkins' subsequent comment about people making the team, then putting on 10 pounds because they've fulfilled their goals -- let's hear some names. We've heard this sort of bullshit from administrators for years ("no more 'tourists' on national teams..."), but I've never seen any evidence of this in the modern era. Stop for a moment and think how hard people work, and how long they've worked to make the Olympics. Now you think they can't be bothered to work for another couple of months to do their best at the Olympics? Please.

And one final point. Someone like Jorge Torres, who squeaked onto the US WC team with a 5000m B standard last year, would not be selected in Canada (A standard only). Many of you would say that's a good thing, since he's unlikely to ever win a medal. I can't think of a better way to discourage young people from taking up the very arduous task of elite running than to say "There will be NO rewards until you run 13:00. The long journey from a talented 14:00 high-schooler to a 13:00 runner (who still won't win a medal at the Olympics, and thus should quit) will be devoid of any recognition or recompense."

But I guess it depends on how you view the Olympics: should it be the 12 best people in each event battling it out (ie 12 Kenyan steeplers), or should it be the best athletes from each country?

Here's an idea, instead of rampant nationalism (ie: guaranteed entries for each nation), why not hold continental Olympic qualifiers? About 30 days out, each continent holds a "trials" championships and the top 6 finishers in each event advance to the Olympics. For the marathon, continental champs would be held about six months prior.

No arbitrary standards, rankings, federation politics, cronyism, etc. Finish in the top six, pass your dope test, go to the Games and represent.

I know nothing about Canadian teams in the modern era.

You have a very good point in stating that it is how one views the Olympics. I have always wanted to see the best athletes in the world battling it out in the Olympic final. I do not care what country they come from. There seems to be no ideal way to get the best into that final. I do admit to getting a little extra thrill from an event if a personal acguaintance or someone from one of my two countries does well.

I?m glad to see this has provoked some discussion. Once you know what athletes go through to get to the elite level, and then how casually the COC will come up with reasons for not supporting these athletes, it really makes you wonder about the ?Olympic Movement?, and how hard it would be to come up with a national Olympic Committee that actually represented athletes and considered their interests when making decisions.

Chris Rudge, CEO of the COC, says that, ??his organization made a commitment to raise the bar of excellence to encourage high performance and stimulate sport development, not to destroy dreams.? He has also said, ?It's a fact of life that when you raise the standard, everyone achieves more.? (both quotes, Globe and Mail, 8/19/2003)

Yet if you call him on the claims that ?raising the bar? will encourage high performance and stimulate sport development, he won?t respond because there?s no evidence to support them. The claim he?s making is that athletes aren?t working hard enough just because we haven?t asked them to until now. Does this jibe with your athletic experience? Could you really have gone faster just because a higher-up in the sporting world said ?Faster!??

Of course, the answer is no. Any elite athlete knows that you need to be given the tools (money for equipment, coaches & therapists, time for recovery) that would allow you to go faster.

I wrote to Chris Rudge and asked him to supply some evidence ? some research that supports his claims. I got a letter back, but he neglected to answer my questions.

Many athletes who don?t make the OGs will have, over the course of years, sacrificed careers, social lives, educations and their health. If Chris Rudge is wrong about his ideas, will he ever be held accountable in any meaningful way? In 2001 he made over $800,000 at Quebecor, in 2000 it was over $1 million (from their management information circulars, available on sedar.com) - is it possible for him to have any idea about the experiences of elite athletes, or even of what the average Canadian expects of them?

Greg in Toronto wrote:

Many athletes who don?t make the OGs will have, over the course of years, sacrificed careers, social lives, educations and their health. If Chris Rudge is wrong about his ideas, will he ever be held accountable in any meaningful way? In 2001 he made over $800,000 at Quebecor, in 2000 it was over $1 million (from their management information circulars, available on sedar.com) - is it possible for him to have any idea about the experiences of elite athletes, or even of what the average Canadian expects of them?

Most successful business professionals sacrifice a great deal to get where they are today, most with no chance of making the Forbes 500 list. Unfortunately, it all comes down to $$, without a great deal of direct Corporate dollars to support a lifetime of training the OG will always be the 'Fortune 500' for most athletes.

There was a discussion awhile back just after the $$ and commerical excesses of the LA Games on Olympic reform. The idea was to limit the Summer Games to a single location and the Winter Games to another. There would be no flags allowed, no advertising and athletes competing would have to compete in one Olympic uniform. Revenues would come from selling television coverage only. The profits would be used to support the facilities upkeep and fund the athletes.

Radical change; but it would get back to the Olympic spirit of youth and cultural development. Unfortunately, the control of the Games will stay in the hands of politicians, there are just too many $$ as stake; and we all know that they will be used as a political statement of which country is the highest, fastest and strongest.

Incidentally, the budget for the '04 Games has been increased by about $1B to $3.7B, talk about the participants getting the short end of the stick! A lifetime commitment by some athletes will be rewarded with the 'Olympic experience'; in terms of ecomonical benefit, the average road paver in Athens will benefit more from these Games!

It sounds like very little has changed in forty years. It also sounds to me like there are still very few former elites involved. That is the way it was in my day too. As you indicate, the top people do not have the proper background. I am aware of only a very few from my day becoming involved later. I am completelly removed from todays situation. I was thrilled to see Abby Hoffman make an awards presentation in Paris. Are you planning to try and get more involved in a produtive way? Also, remember that things can look altogether different when one gets very involved. Unfortunately, it usually takes years to obtain a position from which one can be a real influence. I also assume that movement into the more important positions still is very political.

You're right on the political front. When Dick Pound was passed over for the top spot in the IOC, Canada was not impressed. So why not make him the Doping Control guy, after-all we all know that Canadian Ben Johnson started the whole drug thing [please see the sarcasm in the latter sentence!]. It would be no surprise if Canada is less interested after Seoul, that had to be tough week for most die hard Canadian Olympic supporters.

I was in Seoul. I still think Ben Johnson's race was one of the great ones I have seen. After the drug bust was announced, I stopped wearing my Canadian hat. The press was questioning anyone who seemed to be identified with Canada. We all knew then and know now that there are others in the sport who have thrived on illegal aids. There seems to be some protection provided by many countries. Pound has ruffled feathers and some do not trust him. I guess he did not play the political game well enough. His drug position and circumstances also hurt him. It is too bad that politics is so involved in the IOC, the USOC and in Canada.

By the way, I wore my Canadian hat in Paris.

Hi Orville,

I do plan on getting more involved. I'm beginning a masters in the fall in the sociology of sport, and my research will look at the nature of athletic careers. I hope that somehow I can apply my work in a practical way.

You make an interesting point in saying that things can look different once you're on the inside. I recently attended a talk given by one of the few researchers who have taken a good look at the Canadian high-performance sport system. One of the things he mentioned was that athletes who were once the biggest thorn in the side for Sport Canada, quickly became "part of the system" when employed by Sport Canada. It seems sad to me, but I hardly know enough yet to comment.

Cheers,

Greg

This is so true , once they put A Chalmers and Curt Harnet on the dole....

stumbler wrote:

Good article. In a track related example, the marathon standards are currently 2:12:38 and 2:28:14 -- quite a bit faster than the international standards.

And the Canadian men's record is?

and when was this time run?

thinitthru wrote:

The over use of the medal table is a corruption of sport.

Sure it is. But it's a hundred years old at least. There's a lot of evidence that rampant nationalism helped create the modern Olympic games. Baron de Coubertin was French, and they'd just gotten pasted in the Franco-Prussian war. He noticed that the Prussians had organized pfysical training for all youth, and wanted the same for France.

It all reverts back to politics.