McKeever NOT going to be first Paralympian to be an Olympian

[browna]

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/vancouver/alpine_skiing/news?slug=cr-mckeever022710&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Just saw this on CTV too.

For those not aware, McKeever has only 10% vision but qaulified for the Olympic team, as well as being on the Paralympic team in 2006 and of course 2010. Big news around this from international media that he would race in Vancouver.

Not anymore.

McKeever is 5th guy on team. The CC analyst said that although the 4 guys going to race would beat McKeever 8 times out of 10, it also puts pressure on the other 4 guys (who did all place in top 15 of 30km event) to place well.

Plus, those 4 guys have done a lot of skiing over the past week.

A shame really, and likely to turn into a PR issue today before the race tomorrow...yes, those 4 guys have done better then expected in the 30k race, but none are likely to contend in the 50k, and certainly not all 4 are challenging for a medal, which would allow one to step up and allow McKeever to realize his dream.

[drewboy12]

read this this morning... To bad really, would have been a pretty cool story.

[GirlySports]

Bad PR from the start. They should have just said he was an alternate for the team when they named him. It would be like a blind guy being the 5th in curling.

These Canadian officials want their cake and eat it too. Wanted the publicity from that start. They've got publicity NOW!

[tkflames]

Worst call I have ever heard. Yes you have 3 guys who finished top 10. That means they are putting an outside of top 10 finisher into this race, because he has a better chance. At least that is what I read from the article. I agree the Olympics should be about the best competing, but this is absolutely embarassing and what...for a 15th place finisher to finish 15th???

To me this is like Fleury playing in the pre-season, you let him try because its the right thing to do. If it doesn't work out, you are no worth out, because its a far-fetched arguement to suggest Canada is going to get a medal out of this...especially from their worst athlete of the four.

[valo403]

Worst call I have ever heard. Yes you have 3 guys who finished top 10. That means they are putting an outside of top 10 finisher into this race, because he has a better chance. At least that is what I read from the article. I agree the Olympics should be about the best competing, but this is absolutely embarassing and what...for a 15th place finisher to finish 15th???

To me this is like Fleury playing in the pre-season, you let him try because its the right thing to do. If it doesn't work out, you are no worth out, because its a far-fetched arguement to suggest Canada is going to get a medal out of this...especially from their worst athlete of the four.

Well then where's the issue? This isn't the preseason, it's the pinnacle of the sport, if the Olympics are about the best vs. the best then this decision is the right one.

It's been somewhat poorly handled in that most people didn't know he was named as an alternate, but outside of that the association didn't do anything wrong.

[Slava]

I guess its a feel good story and all, but how do you say to a guy who has been one of the top ten finishers earlier this week that "you're going to sit this one out and give up your shot at a medal because we want to give this guy a chance to compete this week and again next week"?

[Papi34]

Tough call but gotta agree with it. You have a coach who is expected to turn this sport around for canadians from the laughing stock it is right now and has produced its best results ever so far. Its a great story for sure, but you have to do whats best for the team as a whole.

It would be like benching Higgins in favor of Conroy in the stanley cup final game 7 to give conroy the chance at a last hurrah. You dont do it because it hurts the team despite how great a guy and story Conroy is.

[Matty81]

I disagree - I think when you have 4 guys with almost no chance of hitting the podium who have all already had a chance to take part in the games you throw him in.

If they actually had a hope in hell of winning with all of the other 4 it would be different but they are not of that caliber.

[Resolute 14]

If they actually had a hope in hell of winning with all of the other 4 it would be different but they are not of that caliber.

Neither is McKeever. In fact, the only reason they would race him ahead of the other four is specifically because he is blind, not because he is one of the four best we can send to the starting line.

If they send him now, they send him only for the purpose of charity.

Canadian officials massively bungled this PR wise, however.

[Table 5]

In the spirit of the Olympics, you race the best team you've got, regardless of podium finish, and that's what they are doing. Hell of a tough decision for personal reasons, but it seems like it's the right one for pure sporting ones.

It would've been a fantastic story, but the coach is not there to make Visa commercials relevant. Otherwise might as well just fill the team full of orphaned kittens.

Kudos to McKeever though. Even getting to be in such position is a herculean accomplishment.

[Matty81]

Neither is McKeever. In fact, the only reason they would race him ahead of the other four is specifically because he is blind, not because he is one of the four best we can send to the starting line.

If they send him now, they send him only for the purpose of charity.

Canadian officials massively bungled this PR wise, however.

I think you could even argue the performance side of things as the others have all raced already a number of times and won't be fully rested for what is a 50km race.

I disagree with the logic of putting your best out every time when the result is irrelevant, all of the hockey teams gave their backup goalies a run out when it didn't affect their chances of winning a medal, many of the relay teams in speed skating did the same with their 5th member. To me the difference between one individual finishing 55th instead of 65th doesn't justify it.

I wouldn't be shocked if one of the other 4 steps aside.

Also - I want to add just to illustrate the first point that I just looked up the last time they ran a 50km classical at the World championships, 2 and a half years ago in Japan and McKeever beat Babikov by 12 places.

[Resolute 14]

Today is not two and a half years ago.

If McKeever isn't one of the top four today, he shouldn't go. That simple.

[Matty81]

Today is not two and a half years ago.

If McKeever isn't one of the top four today, he shouldn't go. That simple.

I don't think you personally have a clue as to who are the top 4 in cross country skiing. I heard the main analyst on CTV for cross country this morning say he disagreed on the basis of potential performance. He said that the coaching staff debated for days and not all agreed. Obviously it is not cut and dry or "that simple". It had nothing to do with him being a charity case.

I think there's a strong case for him being in the top 4 - but even if it he isn't it's commonplace in sport that backups and alternates on the teams get a shot when the result isn't important, I could give you a precedent from the Olympics, or from any of the big 4 sports.

You agree with the decision, great - but reciting that top athletes always go and that simple like it's some kind of universal logic is totally out to lunch.

[valo403]

I don't think you personally have a clue as to who are the top 4 in cross country skiing. I heard the main analyst on CTV for cross country this morning say he disagreed on the basis of potential performance. He said that the coaching staff debated for days and not all agreed. Obviously it is not cut and dry or "that simple". It had nothing to do with him being a charity case.

I think there's a strong case for him being in the top 4 - but even if it he isn't it's commonplace in sport that backups and alternates on the teams get a shot when the result isn't important, I could give you a precedent from the Olympics, or from any of the big 4 sports.

You agree with the decision, great - but reciting that top athletes always go and that simple like it's some kind of universal logic is totally out to lunch.

So you watched CTV and now you're an authority on cross country skiing?

There may be a strong case for him being in the top 4, there may have been disagreements among the coaches, but the bottom line is that only 4 people could ski and the decision was made based on who the ultimate decision maker determined was in the best position to perform. End of story.

[Matty81]

So you watched CTV and now you're an authority on cross country skiing?

There may be a strong case for him being in the top 4, there may have been disagreements among the coaches, but the bottom line is that only 4 people could ski and the decision was made based on who the ultimate decision maker determined was in the best position to perform. End of story.

I'm no more of an authority on it than probably anybody else on here. Just saying I am gathering from the info I've seen that the performance argument is a toss up that was a close call.

[valo403]

I'm no more of an authority on it than probably anybody else on here. Just saying I am gathering from the info I've seen that the performance argument is a toss up that was a close call.

And it was decided that the other 4 were better positioned to get the best possible results today, I don't see where the argument is. People who know better may be able to argue that McKeever could have perfromed better, that's a legitimate argument, but giving it to him out of some sort of charity doesn't mesh with the idea of the Olympics being about the best competitors squaring off.

[OILFAN #81]

http://www.ctvolympics.ca/paralympics/sports/cross-country-skiing/newsid=55350.html?cid=rsstsn

He won Canada's first gold medal on home soil (ever) in the Paralympic Games today.