 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
There's more discussion on this, including some comments from Simon himself on the moguls competition, in the "Men's Moguls" thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
And Simon has contributed some excellent stuff already in his first post to snowHeads (Men's Moguls thread).
The attention of the governing body's Chairman Oliver Jones was drawn to the thread on MSS, however I imagine the Beeb might be in with a slightly better chance of squeezing an official response out of Snowsport GB! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Much as I think he deserved to go, Simon did not make the qualifying criteria. All the athletes could find out about the criteria required either on the net or by simply calling Snowsport GB. If he or his advisors did not call then he only has himself to blame. Now if he can prove that SSGB moved the goalposts for any reason then someone has to be accountable and there is no place in the sport for that type of behaviour. I am neither for or against Simon's inclusion or exclusion from the Games.
On the finding issue he is ranked number 1 in the UK which is very commendable but not in the World, he is, last time I looked at 160+ in the world. It is hard to get into the funding area when the sport is not televised greatly in the UK. C4 do a great job in promoting all wintersport but Moguls does not attract the same sort of coverage as the historically popular events. Maybe in the US but we are not the US.
Simon, stop whinging about what might have been and prove the bugs wrong. You have missed these games, you HAVE scored points in the World Cup events, now go and do that again and again. Don't waste your energy on what might have been - life is too short!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I may be missing something obvious, but why are national olympic committees allowed to set different qualifying criteria anyway? Surely the "quality control" aspect lies with the IOC setting their criteria? And any criteria other than the IOC criteria are, by definition, moving the goalposts? And if a national olympic committee has more athletes meeting the IOC criteria than allocated places, then send the top X athletes, X being the number of allocated places. It's not rocket science - is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I think BOA said they want people to finish in the top half of the field at the Olympics. Let's suppose every nation did that. Well there was 35 in the Men's Moguls so that means that in 2010 there should only be 17 competitors. By 2014 there'd only be 8 and in 2018 they'd only be letting 4 people fight for 3 medals. Just illustrates how stupid that thinking is.
For most of the winter sports events I think that as long as the athletes are vaguely in touch with the best performances then there's no reason not to send them. Being unrepresented doesn't make us better at an event. But letting athlete's compete, and get media exposure, can help them attract the sponsorship and funding that they are not currently getting, which will benefit the sports longer term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Being unrepresented doesn't make us better at an event
|
No but it does save face for the gimps that set the qualfying objectives. Like it or not and there are a lot of people out there who would rather see Britain not even entertain the thought of going to the Winter Olympics - more fools them!
| Quote: |
But letting athlete's compete, and get media exposure, can help them attract the sponsorship and funding that they are not currently getting, which will benefit the sports longer term.
|
I agree with this line totally. I feel it was a poor decision not to take some of the young guys like Andy Noble in Alpine to the Olympics so that come the next Games they would not be suffering like Finlay was with NERVES! This was Finlay's first games, courtesey of breaking his legs before the last games.
I believe that qualifying standards are needed so as to give athletes the goals to get there but if you want the TV to promote the sport the you have to have athletes competing to raise the profile: No entry no interest and the sport dies away. You only have to look at how football suffered from this when England failed to qualify for a number of tournaments, and how Scotland is now suffering the same effect: no entry no interest.
This does not mean that you give people a free ride to the games but that as long as they make a reasonable and acceptable standard, they should go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| simon_bates wrote: |
| I think BOA said they want people to finish in the top half of the field at the Olympics. Let's suppose every nation did that. |
A logical point - in fact, that was the exact query raised by your predecessor Michael Liebreich (a very clever bloke) back in 1992 when that policy was first announced. That would indeed be the logical conclusion. But obviously the BOA are aware that different countries will take differing approaches and set different standards. And that doesn't seem fair - why should you be excluded purely because of an accident of birth? (Should the Olympics be so much about nationalistic fervour anyway? We are all just humans after all.)
So, by the same token, why should someone get to compete at the Olympics purely because of where they were born? Did Florentin Nicolae (the Rumanian who finished last in the Mens DH, 12 secs off the pace) have more "right" to be there than Andreas Buder (who didn't make it on to the Austrian team despite finishing 9th in a training run, only 1.1 secs back)?
If you really want the most "deserving" competitors there, surely you should just take the top 60 or so from the world ranking list and enter them. But this would end up producing a boring contest between the Alpine, Scandinavian and N American nations.
Conclusion: if you want a "diverse" Olympics of sovereign nations, you have to accept the right of each nation to set its own qualifying standards. And after that, it's simply a discussion about degree; top 20 in World Cup, top 25, top 30? Should, say, top 15 in Continental Cups count? Should there be a clause about the strength of the field in those Continental Cups? etc, etc. Or do you simply undertake to select a full quota (ie. the best 4) in every event?
Hopefully you have kick-started an open debate about all this stuff for the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
[quote="Martin Bell"]
| simon_bates wrote: |
| Should the Olympics be so much about nationalistic fervour anyway? We are all just humans after all. |
Only just, in some cases.
Martin Bell raises a good question, and its particularly good to hear it from an (I assume) Olympic competitor. My understanding is that the modern Olympics were conceived as competition between the best sportsmen and women in the world, not particularly between countries.
From what I've been told by a chum who participated in the Olympics in the 50s, there was less nationalism in those days and in her view, the games were better for it. Presumably the 'need' for the IOC and the organising countries to generate ridiculous amounts of cash to keep themselves in the style to which they have become accustomed and to put on evermore absurd and self aggrandising spectacles (I mean the opening and closing ceremonies, not expensive glasses) requires them to pander to the media's (and presumably the public's) desire for national competition so that a load of couch potatoes can take vicarious pride in the achievements of people who have little or nothing in common with them. Presumably also, governments will only fund sportsmen and women if they are likely to achieve something 'for their country' (yeah, right) so that the governments can take some of the credit for the achievement, as governements will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
richmond, Well I didn't participate in the Olympics in the 50s , but I was around them and my first recollection is c 1960 - Rome. Over those years I honestly believe that the Olympics ( both Winter and Summer) have moved the other way. They have become more of a celebration between nations rather than national rivalry which I feel was stronger then. The clear anti Soviet and iron bloc commentaries of those days still ring in my head.
The Olympic movement has moved with the times -probably most of us can remember when it was 'Amateurs-Only' and any hint of sponsorship meant an inability to compete. Not unique to The Olympics - the much-loved Wimbledon tennis tournament was Amateurs - only and the transition period meant weaker listings for a number of years.
The Olympics and The 'Governing-Body-Centric' events ( The World Cups etc) are fundamentally different . I have no problem with that and the athletes still hold the games in high regard if the joy on their faces is to be believed ( let alone the efforts of some to circumvent the rules).
BTW - I suspect that Prince Albert of Monaco and Princess Anne ( first 2 names that come to mind) do not need any additional exposure or self-aggrandisement.
However simon_bates's treatment is unbelievable. SSGB is guilty of some very muddled thinking ( See, I can be polite) and it seems every time a couple of their exec open their mouths another clanger falls out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
