Olympic Superpowers That Have More Medals Than Canada...

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by fotze

“I’d like to ask the people who are complaining about our results are they playing Xbox or are they playing sports? Are they going to (amusement parks) on the weekend or are they swimming? Do they do swimming lessons? Are they encouraged to play sports at school? Do they have phys ed at school? Most kids don’t and that’s a real cultural issue in Canada. That gets me pissed.”

Well. Let's see. I support phys ed at school and I definitely think that kids should be encouraged to play sports. Adults for that matter. But why the hell is that rant directed at those that complained about the results?

Funny thing is that most of the complaints were not directed at the athletes. It was directed at exactly the stuff he is talking about. Why isn't there funding for sports and athletics the way there is in the US?

And where does he get off attacking people for playing X-box and going to amusement parks and calling them lazy? If I work 50 hours in a week coming up with algorithms to make our data processing faster, designing sleeker systems and resolving production issues... and I want to come home and play some X-box who the hell is Adam van Koeverden to criticize my life? Seemed all very snobbish and elitist "I'm better than all those guys that play X-box and go to amusement parks".

As for the "fans who only follow the sport during the Olympics".... well, gee, why don't we replace the NHL with the "100 meter dash" league. I'm sorry, but I couldn't grasp the excitement of watching the womens marathon.... watching people running, and running, and running and running and running and running.... oh my god... baseball is more entertaining. I only have so much free time (to spare from playing X-box and amusement parks) to watch sports, so I'm going to watch hockey, CFL and maybe some tennis if I come across it.... I most certainly am not going to jump to CBC every Saturday afternoon to watch Wide World of Sports to see mens gymnastics.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I understand medals take time and money - but why are we sending over a HUGE team that is largely full of people that have no chance.

If the athletes want more money - fine - we can re-allocate a lot of it simply by cutting the team down to a third of it's size. Less people get to go but at least they have a better chance.

How do you know much it costs to send them over? Pretty sure the plane tickets and hotel costs are less then 5% of the cost. For 300 athletes, lets say $3000 is spent on sending them there (flight, accomidation) we're looking at $900,000. Putting more money into the program means facilities, coaching, equipment and so on that goes towards not only developing these athletes, but bringing in young people into the program. Like the fat kid on the x-box thinking he's the x-men.

Sending only kayaking and wrestling competitors is the wrong message. Your idea of only spending on a few sports won't nessasarly mean not sending athletes that arn't favourites, but cutting costs out of things facilities and promotion of sports like white water rafting and so on. I don't know about you, but between having the option of having a whole wide range of facilities and equipment for many different sports and sending and showing the world Canada can compete in almost any sport out there - or having a few more medals, but showing we can only do a few sports, well thats a pretty clear option to me.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Guess the point is if these athletes truly were amateurs in every sense of the word I would feel hesitant to give them too much grief. On the other hand, if they're walking down that professional or semi-professional path then I don't see what the big deal is getting on their case a bit for poor performances.

Canadian athletes are amateurs in every sense of the word though.

Just because Phelps gets paid millions of dollars doesn't mean it's okay to rip on Canadian athletes. I guarantee Phelps gets much more private sponsorship than the entire Canadian Olympic team.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I don't think we need to sacrifice more money but rather simply be smarter about what we already spend.

Let's hear your ideas then. If you're going to make a statement like that you have to supplement it with what we're doing wrong with the funding and what we should be doing with it.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by JayP

Let's hear your ideas then. If you're going to make a statement like that you have to supplement it with what we're doing wrong with the funding and what we should be doing with it.

Well I'm far from an expert on the subject but I fail to see why we should send a team so big. Cut the team by 2/3rds and re-allocate the funds accordingly.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

How do you know much it costs to send them over? .

Did I said I do?

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

PSending only kayaking and wrestling competitors is the wrong message. Your idea of only spending on a few sports won't nessasarly mean not sending athletes that arn't favourites, but cutting costs out of things facilities and promotion of sports like white water rafting and so on. I don't know about you, but between having the option of having a whole wide range of facilities and equipment for many different sports and sending and showing the world Canada can compete in almost any sport out there - or having a few more medals, but showing we can only do a few sports, well thats a pretty clear option to me.

For me its not - how many teams send such a massive team? How many end up with only 12 medals?

I'm all for covering a lot of sports by why does the team have to be SOOOOO big? Do we need to have people going over that will finish at best 40th even if they hit a personal best?

[habernac]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I don't agree with everything fans are saying but as fans they have every right to say and feel whatever they want.

I don't think we need to sacrifice more money but rather simply be smarter about what we already spend.

Our good athletes need to be identified, funded and trained. They don't need to be working at Home Depot or any other such crap. They need to be able to focus on training. Period. Then we'll do better.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

how many teams send such a massive team? How many end up with only 12 medals?

A quick bit of research... we're the 7th largest team in terms of number of athletes, with 332. There's no team that has more athletes and fewer medals, but many who aren't that far from us.
Others with similar numbers: Spain, 286 athletes, 8 medals; Brazil, 277 athletes, 6 medals; Poland, 268, 8 medals. Netherlands, 245, 12 medals. It's also a similar ratio to Sweden, 97 athletes, 3 medals. A lot of the difference between us and them is that we have more sports that send large teams (7 teams of 8 or more, compared with 4 for spain), as opposed to a lot of underperforming athletes.

Some of the countries with the best ratio in this regard are China, US, Australia, and, umm, Armenia (5 medals, 25 athletes).

[4X4]

Originally Posted by habernac

Our good athletes need to be identified, funded and trained. They don't need to be working at Home Depot or any other such crap. They need to be able to focus on training. Period. Then we'll do better.

Again, where's the individual effort from the people that want to see more success on the olympic stage? Hockey players get billeted. Why not olympic calibre athletes?

I'm just tired of hearing that the government needs to spend more money on stuff. This particular issue gets little sympathy from me because it does nothing to further the cause of the rest of the population. Sure it'd be great if we were an athletic powerhouse and we cleaned up at the olympics, but not when there are other, much more pressing issues at home. If people want better olympians, people should contribute directly. I'd be all for some kind of tax break for a family that sponsors an athlete, but the general idea of just giving money to people to play sports all day rubs me the wrong way.
From a purely selfish point of view, I basically think: why should he or she get paid to play games when I have to work or else go hungry?

And as long as we're talking about government sponsorship of talent, what's next? Money for musicians so that they can compete on American Idol? My sister was in band in high school and to compete in some competition in Spain, they had to sell chocolate bars all year to afford the trip. I just fail to see why athletes are so important.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by habernac

Our good athletes need to be identified, funded and trained. They don't need to be working at Home Depot or any other such crap. They need to be able to focus on training. Period. Then we'll do better.

I'm all for giving fewer athletes better support.

[habernac]

better than some of the crapola our govt spends money on. Surely some corporate sponsors could step up (Coke, Mcdonald's, etc).

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I'm all for covering a lot of sports by why does the team have to be SOOOOO big? Do we need to have people going over that will finish at best 40th even if they hit a personal best?

There'll never be a perfect solution.

If you shrink the team and then make bigger targetted allocations to specific sports, people will complain that we are putting all of our eggs in one basket, and that we aren't giving other people a chance to improve.

I think of Croatia as an example. Both of their medals have come in sports that they don't traditionally represent (mens gymnastics and womens weightlifting). If the Croatian Olympic team only targeted athletes from sports that they traditionally had a shot at (football, handball, tennis, basketball), then maybe those other 2 athletes wouldn't have had a shot.

You never know what's on the radar in 4 years time.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Do we need to have people going over that will finish at best 40th even if they hit a personal best?

Frankly, if you believe that you experience is valuable, then yes we do. There's no other way to can teach your athletes how to perform under that kind of pressure so that when they are medal contenders four years later they'll be better able to handle it.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by 4X4

From a purely selfish point of view, I basically think: why should he or she get paid to play games when I have to work or else go hungry?

I often ask myself that about NHL players.

In his presentation to the House of Commons committee, Alex Bauman said he wanted $1/Canadian/year to improve our standing in world of athletics. I'll go ten times that and gladly give $10/year if it meant I would get more enjoyment out of the Olympics. I give $40 to see one Senators game up in the nosebleeds. I'd easily give $40 to these athletes.

Under the proposal Bauman was presenting about half the money would be going to facilities and half would be going to training (coaching, travel expenses, living expenses). As I said earlier in this thread, exercise/fitness facilities should be part of the community and come from communal coffers. But paying athletes living expenses, that should come out of donations to the COC. Just because I enjoy watching the Olympics and want to see our athletes do well doesn't mean everyone should be forced to pitch in.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by habernac

better than some of the crapola our govt spends money on. Surely some corporate sponsors could step up (Coke, Mcdonald's, etc).

McDonalds is supporting 28 athletes to varying degrees.
Coke is supporting many American athletes, but nary a Canadian athlete far as I can tell. Which gets back to a question I asked earlier - if I buy a can of Coke, profits from said Coke eventually filter back to the US, where they give the money to American athletes to beat Canadian athletes.

On the other hand, Coke knows that if there was a pee-wee house league hockey game on Sportsnet, we Canadians would watch that instead of the Olympics. They get better bang for their advertising/sponsorship buck supporting American athletes.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by SebC

Frankly, if you believe that you experience is valuable, then yes we do. There's no other way to can teach your athletes how to perform under that kind of pressure so that when they are medal contenders four years later they'll be better able to handle it.

If the competitors is viewed as someone that can develop into a medal hopeful in 4 years or whatever sure.

But that's clearly not the case with everyone being sent over.

Identify the best and support them. I'm all for that.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

If the competitors is viewed as someone that can develop into a medal hopeful in 4 years or whatever sure.

But that's clearly not the case with everyone being sent over.

Identify the best and support them. I'm all for that.

Again though, the problem is that some of the people you don't send will be athletes who would have been contenders with funding. Case is point: David Ford. Got his funding cut under the current system, finished 6th, would've been fourth if not for an invisible deduction. We don't know what he would've done with better funding, but he might have hit the podium. Target your funding, and you get a lot more David Fords.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by SebC

Again though, the problem is that some of the people you don't send will be athletes who would have been contenders with funding. Case is point: David Ford. Got his funding cut under the current system, finished 6th, would've been fourth if not for an invisible deduction. We don't know what he would've done with better funding, but he might have hit the podium. Target your funding, and you get a lot more David Fords.

I think we are saying the same thing. Target the funding - don't take a shotgun approach where you have a big pile and hope someone steps up.

If Ford is good enough to be 6th I'm certainly not saying he should be funded.

I'm saying its the guys/gals finishing 40th/30th/20th - and have no hopes of ever getting better.

Not easy - and sometimes you might be wrong. But no one has really convinced me yet that a huge team is the way to go.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I'm all for giving fewer athletes better support.

I think that your view on this is very narrow and strongly influenced by natural gifted athletes like Phelps.

1. Most athletes aren't gold medal favourites by age 18 and usually don't win medals until their second or third Olympics (mid to late 20's), only because of the advantage gained by PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE.

2. The Olympics is not about you or I or how many medals Canada wins...its about the athletes that have devoted their entire life to their sport. If they qualify why shouldn't the government encourage them as the athletic role models they are (I am having a hard time articulating what I want to say here so I apologize how it sounds).

3. I would rather my children have the choice to pick whatever sport they want to excel at and have the opportunity to participate, than have to move out of the country to train (much like that fencer that had to train in Hungary of all places).

4. I think more than anything the Olympics are key in inspiring a nation (particularly the youth) to lead athletic lifestyles. Whether or not this is achieved (see a very obese USA) there is nothing wrong with encouraging this across a wide variety of sports.

5. Funding coaches and systems is the most important part of success (see Olympic rowing and swimming). These systems (much like an NHL team) need to be developed over time with experience, mentors and leaders. All of these are developed by competing and workign toward the Olympics.

6. If an athlete is good enough to compete government funded or not...why stop them from going (hence a big team)? Why not rather encourage them by putting the infrastructure in place to help them succeed.

Personal comment: I think the Olympics are a reflection of the political party in power. Whether or not funding in sport is worthwhile is a subject to be debated on its own, but I for one am in favour of the more athletics is emphasized in a country the merrier, and more importantly the happier the health care system.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by tkflames

I think that your view on this is very narrow and strongly influenced by natural gifted athletes like Phelps. .

Have I even mentioned Phelps. Disagree that's fine but don't presume to tell me how I form my opinions.

Originally Posted by tkflames

I
1. Most athletes aren't gold medal favourites by age 18 and usually don't win medals until their second or third Olympics (mid to late 20's), only because of the advantage gained by PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE.. .

Agreed but again that doesn't describe all our athletes. There are numerous that are competing in their final olympics that didn't stand a chance this time.

Originally Posted by tkflames

I

2. The Olympics is not about you or I or how many medals Canada wins...its about the athletes that have devoted their entire life to their sport. If they qualify why shouldn't the government encourage them as the athletic role models they are (I am having a hard time articulating what I want to say here so I apologize how it sounds). .

Sure but I would suggest our olympic bar is simply too low. Moreover, if its not about winning then I have no interest in it. I could care less about the world joining hands every 4 years to pretend we all get along. I care because it's sports. If that's not what's about - I have no interest.

Originally Posted by tkflames

3. I would rather my children have the choice to pick whatever sport they want to excel at and have the opportunity to participate, than have to move out of the country to train (much like that fencer that had to train in Hungary of all places)..

They would have that opportunity - if they are good enough.

Originally Posted by tkflames

4. I think more than anything the Olympics are key in inspiring a nation (particularly the youth) to lead athletic lifestyles. Whether or not this is achieved (see a very obese USA) there is nothing wrong with encouraging this across a wide variety of sports. .

If that's what the olympics are supposed to do - they are failing. Show me data that links the olypmics with kids getting out there and exercising more and I'll be happy to listen to that position. I think there are more effective ways of motivating physical exercise. For starters give parents a tax break on all fitness related costs. But that's another topic.

Originally Posted by tkflames

5. Funding coaches and systems is the most important part of success (see Olympic rowing and swimming). These systems (much like an NHL team) need to be developed over time with experience, mentors and leaders. All of these are developed by competing and workign toward the Olympics.

Sure. But that still doesn't answer the question as to why the team has to be so damn big.

Originally Posted by tkflames

6. If an athlete is good enough to compete government funded or not...why stop them from going (hence a big team)? Why not rather encourage them by putting the infrastructure in place to help them succeed.

I think a line has to be drawn between an ahtlete good enough to COMPETE and an athlete good enough to PARTICIPATE.