Ski Club 2.0 Home
Snow Reports
FAQFAQ

Mail for help.Help!!

Log in to snowHeads to make it MUCH better! Registration's totally free, of course, and makes snowHeads easier to use and to understand, gives better searching, filtering etc. as well as access to 'members only' forums, discounts and deals that U don't even know exist as a 'guest' user. (btw. 50,000+ snowHeads already know all this, making snowHeads the biggest, most active community of snow-heads in the UK, so you'll be in good company)..... When you register, you get our free weekly(-ish) snow report by email. It's rather good and not made up by tourist offices (or people that love the tourist office and want to marry it either)... We don't share your email address with anyone and we never send out any of those cheesy 'message from our partners' emails either. Anyway, snowHeads really is MUCH better when you're logged in - not least because you get to post your own messages complaining about things that annoy you like perhaps this banner which, incidentally, disappears when you log in :-)
Username:-
 Password:
Remember me:
👁 durr, I forgot...
Or: Register
(to be a proper snow-head, all official-like!)

Should the government fund elite sport?

 Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
I think that if a governing body invites somebody to be a member of a National team then the governing body has an obligation to fund the programme, I don't expect a teenager to have to find the funding themselves. I don't expect that this funding should come from taxes.

This is what is being done now for British ski racing, the funds seem to have been found through commercial sponsorship by the board of BSS. There used to be a small amount of Sports Council funding to SSGB, it was enough to run a limited National programme and to pay for the office support for all the other registered racers, the problems started when Alain and Chemmy got respectably good and needed more costly support. The first interview question to recent prospective CEOs of SSGB should probably have been to ask them what sponsorship leads they had.

I guess I was the last person in the thread to use the term "punter", I'm sorry. There are only a limited number of times that a training course can be used before the ruts become too deep, this is reduced further if people take different lines down it. The next time somebody, often a boarder, is chewing up a course that I have spent an hour or so setting on snow that I had to pay extra to use then I will just thank them for letting me take an early lunch.
ski holidays
 Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
laundryman wrote:
I wouldn't be happy for that to be funded through the tax system. You would end up with minimum-wage earners subsidising middle class kids who in-between times ski in Verbier and Aspen.

Bit of stereotyping going on there I feel. Our kids' club generally has a Feb training week in Flaine. Some of them also go for a week in the autumn to a glacier in Austria. Aspen is more a place for affluent snowHead s to go. We as a club certainly don't get any subsidy - and sometimes wonder exactly what we get for our SSE affiliation fee. As for numbers our slope has 3-4 clubs training there at various times. The kids' club has capped itself at 50 as they get little enough slope time at that.

IIRC, small bursaries are awarded to the winners of the national Grand Prix series - but they probably cover little more than a few coaching sessions, or a set of race entries. Can't remember whether that's SSE money or sponsor's money. Actually Hemel (and our slope) have been earmarked for Sports England money: http://www.leisureopportunities.co.uk/LOemail/wider_newsdetail1.cfm?codeID=172923&CFID=42049925&CFTOKEN=32393820 . In our case I think a chunk of that is going to extend the slope a bit, adding a raw beginners' area. Unfortunately it won't be extending it in a way that will improve our chances of getting national level races there.
snow report
 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?
GrahamN wrote:
laundryman wrote:
I wouldn't be happy for that to be funded through the tax system. You would end up with minimum-wage earners subsidising middle class kids who in-between times ski in Verbier and Aspen.

Bit of stereotyping going on there I feel.

Not really. I'm just saying that it (or something akin) would definitely happen; not that it applies to all members of junior race clubs. And, that the average club member would be from a wealthier background than the average taxpayer (which is everyone, through VAT, etc).
ski holidays
 You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
Quote:

The behaviour is different. Whereas instructors will often ask politely if they can cut in from the ski school line with their groups, racers in training sessions don't, in my experience anyway. They just cut in, block and generally act in a ignorant way.


Not my experience. Here at our local hill- racers join a line like anyone else. We even saw the swiss women lining up with the general public, even though the national squad racers are allowed to queue jump
ski holidays
 Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
PJSki, Agenterre (and stoatsbrother/axsman, who I've had some heated exchanges with too),

Just want to say - for my part - that I would never refer to recreation skiers as 'punters', and you won't find that I've done so on this thread. I was involved in the tourism industry long before I became involved with the elite level of skiing, and I have the utmost respect for the members of the British public that venture beyond our shores to enjoy the snow. There was a time when Brits abroad were a laughing stock to European locals in the mountains, but that was long, long ago. When I'm on the hill today, I'm proud to be British, whether I'm representing GB or not.

If you've misread my comments on this thread as disrespectful to non-racers, then I apologise for my part in that. I'm not an alpine racer myself, so if any sentiment of that kind did seem to come across, I assure you it was imagined. I do like a good old heated debate though, and I've enjoyed my part in this one. I do and will continue to do my best to leave any personal gripes at the door. It's only a forum, after all!

snowHead


Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Thu 3-06-10 23:26; edited 1 time in total
snow report
 You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
Quote:

So you'd be happy to see grass-roots support for UK ski clubs? I regularly see 80+ kids training at least once a week at Hemel Ski Centre, and there are many other clubs around the country.


Actually I think snowsports need to take advantage of this. They need a governing body, of which clubs have to be affiliated to and then anyone who is a member has to pay in.

Here, we buy compulsory raffle tickets to the tune of $100 per family. This is to profit the national and provincial squads. We also pay a compulsory membership charge of $55 to Alberta Alpine for each participant, whilst this does include insurance it mainly goes to provincial team. Plus we have to volunteer and do fundraising for club, some of which will support the K1, K2 and FIS skiers.

We used to belong to Lions at Castleford and it was full of people getting cheap ski lessons for their kids, they could easily cough up a bit of cash to support elite level sport. But it has to be a requirement of membership and something all clubs sign up to.
ski holidays
 Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Looks like the Aussies have recently decided to continue their funding of elite sports:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE64A22B20100511

Of course one way to fund elite sports may be in some sort of student loan type arrangement. Qualifying atheletes get funded but once their personal sports income (say personal sponsorship, appearance fees, prize earnings tops say 25K) they have to start paying back on a % basis. If they are not succesful in their sport no payback, if they are then maybe there is a way of taxing them , eg successful tennis players who take personal lottery funding and then make a lot. Bit complicated though.
latest report
 After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
GrahamN, Some valid stuff in what you write, but one of your observations is indicative of one of my earlier concerns ie that people who question are somehow anti ski-racing.

Quote:
There's some pretty trenchant stuff coming from the antis based on them not liking ski-racing. Fine, you don't like it, so don't do it


I suspect a 'Fair Conclusion' in the case of PJSki but in my case, nothing could be further from the truth and I have seen noone else here even suggesting they are 'anti' . In the sporting World a British World Championship would mean much more to me than Soccer World Cup success for example; an Olympic Gold in alpine skiing more than any equivalent in the Summer Olympics. The argument here has at its core 'How should it (elite sport and winter sports in particular) be funded' not our attitudes to the sport itself. This argument has naturally drifted but I just dont see how you draw the above conclusion.


welove2ski, I used the term ( I think) ... I can not find the original reference now so can only assume it was my interpretation of what someone else (not you) wrote. Sorry. Edit -- I found the reference (puinters) , it was not you!


Last edited by After all it is free Go on u know u want to! on Fri 4-06-10 10:21; edited 1 time in total
ski holidays
 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.
GrahamN wrote:
....

Axsman is clearly a fully paid-up son of Thatcher, so I'm not going to get into a long argument with him - I'm clearly not going to change his views, and I doubt he's going to change mine. I'm afraid I see that attitude as the usual "knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing". However, if we are going to decide on individual things we are or are not going to spend our taxes on I'll let you off funding elite sportsmen as long as I can be let off funding a Trident replacement, please?


Think you'll find that maintaining a nuclear detterent (in some form) is perhaps a little more important to us as a nation than whether Chemmy (bless her) comes 8th, 9th or 10th. rolling eyes Laughing
snow report
 Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Axsman, if you look up you'll see Agenterre's point flying over your head. His (satirical) point was that if we could pick and choose how our individual tax contributions are distributed he wouldn't want to fund nuclear weapons, just as you don't want to fund Chemmy. It's a personal preference. If it was a question of either/or then you might be close to having a point, but it isn't and you don't.
snow conditions
 snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
The point is facile. Everyone gains from an effective national defence (whatever means might be chosen), so everyone should contribute (even if they lose the argument about the means). But there are many millions who couldn't give a stuff whether or not a British person wins a skiing medal and it is not fair to ask them to contribute to the likes of Chemmy Alcott (even if she could thereby be given a realistic chance of medal winning).
snow report
 And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
Dr John, do you want to disclose an interest here?
snow conditions
 So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Dr John, Wot laundryman, said. wink Toofy Grin
snow report
 You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
laundryman, ok, I'll give you that. But humour me on something I've mentioned before in this thread:

I have BUPA. It's a personal choice, and I work hard for it, so don't let's start judging. Point is, I don't use the NHS, and so I don't benefit from it at all.

Around 3/4% of the country don't benefit from state education. Some of them probably "don't give a stuff" whether the majority of kids have decent teaching or facilities, or books since their kids go to schools that cost £1000s a year instead.

These people don't benefit from these things provided by the state with public money. I put it to you (playing devil's advocate) that they should therefore be able to opt out of contributing.
snow report
 Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
welove2ski wrote:


I have BUPA. It's a personal choice, and I work hard for it, so don't let's start judging. Point is, I don't use the NHS, and so I don't benefit from it at all.



I'm not aware that under my BUPA I can be immediately be treated privately without a referral from my GP. Similarly private hospitals don't seem to fall over themsleves to scrape up RTAs, deal with MIs, strokes or most emergencies.

I think you're making the general point that hypothecation of taxes at an individual level doesn't work as everyone would pick a different level of "benefits" and no-one would opt for the big costs. I agree.

But there is a big difference between benefits which are worthwhile to society as a whole and the warm glow a "very" limited number of people get from seeing a British skier close to a podium on Ski Sunday.
ski holidays
 Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Agreed, totally. I've said as much throughout the thread - elite funding is hard to justify. The methodology of the arguments against is where I've had a problem. In this case, axsman's idea we should only pay taxes for the things we individually benefit from is unrealistic. It's just not as black and white as that.

Lots of people do care about elite sport and national teams, believe it should be funded centrally, and benefit from it. Lots of people don't and think the opposite. Government expenditure is 'in for a penny in for a pound' by nature. It's a conundrum; there is a divide of opinion and yet government policy has to be polarised - either they
fund it or they don't.

This discussion doesn't have an answer where all the other side of the argument can be discredited as stupid or nonsensical. There has to be some kind of argument in favour of funding elite sport, or we would not be in a state where elite sport is funded. Any attempt to make it into a black and white issue is futile.
snow report
 Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
fatbob, Nail, on head, hit. Toofy Grin
snow conditions
 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?
welove2ski,(for the umpteenth time) I wasn't saying that we should 'only pay taxes for things we personally benefit from'. I was saying that our tax monies should not be used to support activities that only provided ENTERTAINEMENT TO MINORITIES. hope that's clear (now). rolling eyes Toofy Grin
snow report
 You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
Agenterre, sorry to tar you all with the same brush, but my perception was skewed by stoatsbrother, who along with PJSki has been one of the main protagonists here, commenting "For me - as a reasonable recreational off-piste skier and a truly abysmal mountain-biker- there is almost no connection between what I do on skis and Alpine Ski Racing." If that disconnect exists, I believe it's based more on prejudice than reality. What elite skiers do is exactly the same as we do, but at a hugely higher level of competence, and there is a continuum between us. I know how my own skiing (which is also predominantly off-piste - despite me being one of the "racers" here, this is really only a sideline) has been transformed out of sight since I started race training, and that has only been with involvement of coaches who cover both elite and grass-roots skiers.

There is also a very strong bias expressed here against anything involving the governing bodies, spilling over to denigrating the activities in which they are involved. Fine, they may be a bit of a shower, but I see the events organised through them on a weekly basis involving hundreds of kids striving to get better and enjoying themselves doing so. Those events also acts as an incentive for further privately financed activities - as a trivial example, my local slope would be several hundred quid a year worse off just from my own slope fees if that didn't exist. And as I said above, it's not just racing either; our region is supporting an increased amount of freestyle, which is attracting a significant amount of sponsorship. No-one has said the support should be entirely from the state, but that support is a valuable part of the full package.

I do agree with you that there should be much greater opportunity for sponsorship. Individual sponsorship is clearly easier the higher profile the athlete, so there is probably a fair argument for reducing the proportion of central funding the higher up the ladder the athlete gets. At youth level the opportunities for that sponsorship are probably fairly limited, but at senior level, if an athlete is going to make it I would expect they should have a individual profile that should be pretty attractive to sponsors. While I have come in to contact with some kids who do stand a chance at making it in professional competitive sport, I do get slightly concerned at some of the mid-teens I see who put a huge amount of effort into time on snow etc., but are never going to make it at the top level - at what point do they have to stop living the dream and face reality? It would be interesting to get david horsley's perspective on this transition, given his connection with our unfunded, top-ranked Nordic skiers.

BTW, does anyone know what the funding make-up is of the US ski team? In the home of free enterprise, is it entirely privately funded? There are of course huge numbers of US residents who never get anywhere near a mountain, so any argument we make about difficulties of access for large sectors of the population should apply to an even greater extent there.

As for the hypothecation question - of course my example was extreme, but I do think it is valid. If, as I believe, success at elite levels gives a general societal advantage then it's valid for general societal support. As I also believe (at risk of diverting this thread even further OT) that our renewing Trident brings no enhanced security to this country, and actually reduces it (I also recognise that I'm in a minority on this one), no I don't buy the "common good" argument for that - but hypothecation for the goose is hypothecation also for the gander. Of course nuclear defence is in a totally different league to support of a few elite athletes, but then so are the sums involved.
latest report
 Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
welove2ski wrote:
laundryman, ok, I'll give you that. But humour me on something I've mentioned before in this thread:

I have BUPA. It's a personal choice, and I work hard for it, so don't let's start judging. Point is, I don't use the NHS, and so I don't benefit from it at all.

Around 3/4% of the country don't benefit from state education. Some of them probably "don't give a stuff" whether the majority of kids have decent teaching or facilities, or books since their kids go to schools that cost £1000s a year instead.

These people don't benefit from these things provided by the state with public money. I put it to you (playing devil's advocate) that they should therefore be able to opt out of contributing.

There are a couple of differences between tax funding of schools'n'ospitals and funding of elite skiers:

(1) all (health) and most (education) benefit directly from the former but a tiny minority, directly, from the latter

(2) the former represents a net transfer of wealth from rich to poor (good), the former from poor to rich (very bad).

I think there is an argument for private health and education expenditure to be tax-relievable, on the grounds that it would encourage people to take more responsibility for themselves and their families and would concentrate the tax revenue to fund those who can't easily provide those things for themselves. But on the whole I'm against that argument, preferring low rates of tax and no exemptions whatsoever.
snow report
 You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
GrahamN, missing the point there old chap. By a mile. I think you are obtusely misinterpreting what I mean by connection.

Of course we are all on planks using some of the same core skills, honed to an infinitely higher level in racers. But for 99% of recreational skiers there is no participation and no desire to participate in competition. And no connection at all with the competitive element. In fact we ski because it is a social and a transcendent experience, usually as part of a holiday, and to escape stresses and competition of everyday life. Many of us actively do not want to compete. The trouble here is that the people who are asking for more central funding on this thread all come from the 1% of competitive skiers who seem not to understand the motivation of the rest of us.

This is lack of connection between recreational and competitive skiing is totally different from football or tennis or Golf, where the minute one hits a ball one is counting and competing

So when some numpty says we should be grateful to elite skiers for what they do and fund them accordingly, some of us get a bit testy Wink

The key determinants of whether a wider number of children skiing on surfaces other than fridges and plastic at a young age are going to be 1) whether the parents want to take them on a ski holiday and 2) whether there is a school trip. To say that funding UK alpine athletes is going to lead to a big increase in the overall number of children skiing and is therefore going to confer societal benefits is unevidenced and a pipe-dream.

To put it clearly, neither my equipment, my technique or my enjoyment of skiing will suffer if there is no UK alpine ski team. And I believe that there would also not be an decreased number of recreational holiday skiers, or a statistically significantly lower total number of children skiing (may be a few less racing on plastic and in fridges) and no consequent societal loss. After all, it did not take high level performance by UK team snowboarders to bring about the huge increase in boarders over the last 20 years.

SKi racing is not at the heart of skiing as a recreational and leisure pursuit. Sorry - that is just the way it is.

However that doesn't mean I don't admire racers, and occasionally will contribute to their funds, but I would not choose state funding of skiing as a tool to increase population fitness or effect societal change.

As regards governing bodies - they have only themselves and their recent history to blame if the perception of them is rightly negative. You do not throw good money after bad. The way things fell apart around the time of this years Olympics is a national disgrace. Don't you agree?

I do agree about Trident btw.


Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Fri 4-06-10 20:37; edited 1 time in total
snow report
 Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Without wishing to go back through 6 pages (!) can anyone explain the difference between funding elite, minority interest sports and elite, minority interest arts - ballet, opera etc.

I have always been taught, and over time have come to support the view, that the maturity of a society is measured by how many "non productive" occupations it can support - artists, poets, musicians, and yes, sports people. The same argument applies to documentary film making, or any TV that isn't an instant ratings hit, or science reasearch - going to the moon anyone? No-one knew what spins offs would come of that, but they were prepared to take that chance that there might be something. Or nothing

No, the quality of life is about more than just doing what is deemed necessary, or producing a return. It is about having the capacity to support the speculative, the risky, the driving force behind human achievement and progress. But how can sport do this - what has a sporting hero ever done for us? Who knows the value of the even in its simplest form, the 'feel good factor', or the medical / saftey advances which come about, but I'm glad I live in a society where we can afford to do it, rather than one where every last bean is spent on a hand-to-mouth existence.

It would be a grey old world if there was no provision for the 'nice' things in life.

PS I am wholly against the principle of more medals =more cash, since it biasses in favour of particular sports with individualism at their heart. How many cycling track gold medals are available at an olympics? about 12 (although I understand some have been dropped for 2012) How many basketball gold medals? 1
Seems a little odd to base your funding on that, when the latter is the second most popular sport in the world (just not in the UK!).

PPS I'd like to see the cogent argument that says spending billions on a defence force makes my life better - does interfering in Afganistan inprove my QoL?, how about Iraq?
As above, the fact that I can't hypothecate my tax contribution is probably just as well for those who continue to argue that in today's civilised (for the most part) western world, maintaining a 'nuclear deterent' deters anyone. It's globalisation and simple economics that does that.


Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Fri 4-06-10 22:50; edited 1 time in total
snow conditions
 After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
Quote:

Around 3/4% of the country don't benefit from state education. Some of them probably "don't give a stuff" whether the majority of kids have decent teaching or facilities, or books since their kids go to schools that cost £1000s a year instead.


Not being well educated I am unsure what 3/4% of the country is. However it is a clearly untrue to state that only those who are in receipt of state education benefit from it or have an interest in its quality. It is in everyones interest that their fellow citizens are reasonably educated. Current school children will be paying for the upkeep of those who will retire whether through taxes or through payment of capital providers. If we do not bring up children capable of decent economic output there will be noone to pay for or capable of building the roads hospitals etc. that we will need in the future.
latest report
 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.
From http://www.ussa.org/foundation

"The U.S. Ski and Snowboard Team Foundation is the non-profit, fundraising arm of the U.S. Ski Team and U.S. Snowboarding (tax ID #84-6030639). It was incorporated in 1964 as a 501(c)3 to raise money to support year-round athlete training, coaching, development, competition and educational needs. The U.S. Ski Team and U.S. Snowboarding receive no federal funding or subsidies and operate solely through private donations from individuals, corporations, and foundations. The money raised by the U.S. Ski and Snowboard Team Foundation supports athletes in all USSA sports including alpine, cross country, adaptive, freestyle, jumping, nordic combined and snowboarding."

Indirectly of course as a ski consumer I reckon I've paid more towards the US team than the GB through use of my Visa card, puchase of goggles, gloves, lift passes etc.
snow report
 Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
we are globally renowned for our historic contribution to the performing arts. We have also produced some tin pot skiers.
snow report
 snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
JimW, very fair points. To cut through the chaff - the proponents of state funding have suggested that funding elite competitive skiing will lead to increased uptake of skiing by younger people and societal benefits. If we lived in an alpine country, or in Scotland, I suspect they might be right. It is they who argue utility.

fatbob, makes a very good point that better teams manage to do without such funding and to be at the top of a pyramid of excellence.

If we can throw money at the bottom of the pyramid, and help more disadvantaged children take up the sport I would be in favour, but what the pro-funding people seem to be arguing for is a trickle-down (their words) from the elite.
snow conditions
 And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
stoatsbrother wrote:
If we can throw money at the bottom of the pyramid, and help more disadvantaged children take up the sport I would be in favour, but what the pro-funding people seem to be arguing for is a trickle-down (their words) from the elite.

Not this pro-funding person. State funding should be there to ensure a programme of grass-roots to elite athletes only in the event that privately raised funds are unable to put that programme in place. If the new BSS can emulate the success of the USST then I'll be delighted. I won't hold my breath for it happening, though, as charitable giving in the US seems to be significantly higher than in the UK. Just compare the endowments built up by Ivy League universities compared to Oxbridge. I think there are significant cultural differences which make it difficult, perhaps impossible, for the BSS to emulate the success of the USST Foundation.
latest report
 So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
JimW wrote:
I have always been taught, and over time have come to support the view, that the maturity of a society is measured how many "non productive" occupatoins it can support - artists, poets, musicians, and yes, sports people. The same argument applies to documentary film making, or any TV that isn't an instant ratings hit, or science reasearch - going to the moon anyone? No-one knew what spins offs would come of that, but they were prepared to take that chance that there might be something. Or nothing

No, the quality of life is about more than just doing what is deemed necessary, or producing a return.


Agreed.
snow conditions
 You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
rob@rar, Data for 2005 shows the US as having 2.2% GDP given charitably, 1.1 % in the Uk, ( and 0.14% in France for 2006). But 32.8% of US giving goes to churches/religious organisations.

But the lower tax economy in the US perhaps means that it is effectively a hypothecated voluntary tax, with corporations having a culture of pro bono and corporate community responsibility activity. Difficult to see how you inculcate that here.
snow report
 Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
rob@rar wrote:
JimW wrote:
I have always been taught, and over time have come to support the view, that the maturity of a society is measured how many "non productive" occupatoins it can support - artists, poets, musicians, and yes, sports people. The same argument applies to documentary film making, or any TV that isn't an instant ratings hit, or science reasearch - going to the moon anyone? No-one knew what spins offs would come of that, but they were prepared to take that chance that there might be something. Or nothing

No, the quality of life is about more than just doing what is deemed necessary, or producing a return.


Agreed.

Also agreed - but all those those things can - and will, at least to some extent - be done in the absence of state funding.
ski holidays
 Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
And, old bean, I think you are missing the point by a mile as well.

stoatsbrother wrote:
To put it clearly, neither my equipment, my technique or my enjoyment of skiing will suffer if there is no UK alpine ski team

And the same would be said about any recreational participants in athletics, sailing, rowing, MTB etc... There is a similar disconnect that you have such a problem with in skiing in rowing and sailing - probably even bigger in rowing in that the equipment is totally different, you'd never row along the beach or potter up the river in a scull or an eight - whereas a race and recreational ski are not that much different, and how many people out for a gentle sail on the solent are doing so around triangular courses? Fine, they race in the local sailing clubs to take it to the next level - in exactly the same way they also race in the local ski clubs. And yes, I have quite enjoyed sailing for leisure, but hated every minute of when I was dinghy racing (crewing for my dad), but that in no way reduced my enjoyment in watching Ben Ainslie wrap his opponents around his little finger, or biting my nails to the quick when watching a British eight or four inch their way in front.

I've never been remotely proficient in almost every sport I've tried (mostly under duress at school), but when they appear on the telly and you see the huge effort and work they put into getting their results, and how much it means when they win something it's hugely uplifting, and I definitely go into work the following day with a spring in my step. The one exception to this is of course football, where they're all a load of overpaid whingeing softies.....but as I understand they're having some kickabout somwhere in Africa, even I may make an exception if Engerland get to the final of that one.

The societal benefits are firstly at the level of national pride and secondly at the level of increased participation - and that may mean either increased numbers, or increased proficiency for the same numbers. For those that think that "national pride" is too wooly a concept, IIRC there have been studies showing correlations between economic output and perfomance of national level athletes on the international stage. I think we're sorely in need of some of that at present.
ski holidays
 Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
stoatsbrother wrote:
rjs, thats a few lost sheep. And we get dog-walkers on our MTB racetrack. So what?

I could easily point to the empty public-use NASTAR courses I see in the US - a nation which actually is good at skiing.

Show me some numbers to prove I am wrong that racing is irrelevant for the huge majority of to 1.5 million recreational UK snowusers - rather than one anecdote?


I've never seen an empty NASTAR course except end of season when everything is empty because thoughts have turned to bikes and beach - they have quite long queues at Vail, Breckenridge usually has people lined up waiting for the course to open, Keystone has queues. I think you are confusing the fact that they let racers onto the course only after the previous racer has cleared the finish. This means the course looks empty from the chair lift much of the time. Go down to the start and you will be standing with a bunch of people. They need to pay extra for the runs and there are still enough people to form lines waiting to race.
ski holidays
 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?
fatbob wrote:
Plugboy wrote:

The race teams pay an absolute fortune to hire those pistes so they can do training safely without puinters like you straying onto them. If the resort thought it would not be economical or be any benefit to them they wouldn't do it! Get real!


Is this really true - I can imagine it being the case for limited summer glacier space and high level speed event training (due to safety protection, marshalling and sheer length) but I got the impression that most ski clubs attached to resorts had access to certain pistes on certain days as part of their overall community commitment. Admittedly this is largely based on exposure to ski clubs in N America where there is an overall commercial benefit in having parents bring their kids every weekend for ski club, captive market/real estate sales and all that.


AIUI you will always pay for a lane to set a course in... and then you need to pay a course setter, race guys to set fencing, timers, and people to control the start area for example(make sure that course is cleared before next person starts). I understand the costs are considerable in keeping a course open. Ski schools often have small learning courses available as this is understood to be necessary - but again it costs to establish, fence and maintain these. Instructors are regularly expected to slip courses to aid maintenance of these. Of course fencing and gates of various types, and drills, timers, computers all come for free Wink
latest report
 You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
little tiger wrote:
stoatsbrother wrote:
rjs, thats a few lost sheep. And we get dog-walkers on our MTB racetrack. So what?

I could easily point to the empty public-use NASTAR courses I see in the US - a nation which actually is good at skiing.

Show me some numbers to prove I am wrong that racing is irrelevant for the huge majority of to 1.5 million recreational UK snowusers - rather than one anecdote?


I've never seen an empty NASTAR course except end of season when everything is empty because thoughts have turned to bikes and beach - they have quite long queues at Vail, Breckenridge usually has people lined up waiting for the course to open, Keystone has queues. I think you are confusing the fact that they let racers onto the course only after the previous racer has cleared the finish. This means the course looks empty from the chair lift much of the time. Go down to the start and you will be standing with a bunch of people. They need to pay extra for the runs and there are still enough people to form lines waiting to race.


I never saw anyone ever lining up for the NASTAR course at Squaw this season. Chairlifts 2 or 3 hours before they opened - different story. Plenty of kick ass racers hammering the slopes generally though so I suspect the flat course wan't really to their taste.
snow report
 Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
GrahamN, have you read the thread?

1) The equipment development argument has been used by a couple of pro-funding posters as a justification for central funding.
2) No one has given any evidence that UK team elite success in skiing would lead to increased total participation, and the growth of snowboarding strongly suggests it isn't necessary.
3) And if you think that more than a tiny proportion of people in the UK give a toss if someone British wins Alpine races, and that National Pride will soar... rolling eyes I bet those studies were about athletics, football, cricket etc...
4) I would bet a large amount of money that a far higher proportion of people who sail race, than people who ski. I have raced in boats, and most of the people who I know who sail have done so. Same for rowing, and probably half the MTBers I know have raced. None of my skiing friends ever race. The disconnect between the competitive and leisure elements is real.

I too hate football - but funding grass-roots level participation in it and athletics are where I would start if I were aiming to involve more young people, increase general fitness and enhance national pride. It is about reach, potential, media interest, cost to participate etc etc.

I really do think the racers on this thread are deluding themselves about the significance of ski racing, even to other skiers.
snow report
 You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
little tiger, do you think I have never been to the US or on a NASTAR course? Similar experience to fatbob, huge queues waiting for the rope to drop so people can hike ridges.
snow report
 Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
stoatsbrother,
Quote:
the proponents of state funding have suggested that funding elite competitive skiing will lead to increased uptake of skiing by younger people and societal benefits. [...] It is they who argue utility.


Agreed - but is their focus of the benefit based on 'utility' because they think (mistakenly, clearly!) that it is more likely to win the argument? Happy

laundryman,
Quote:
Also agreed - but all those those things can - and will, at least to some extent - be done in the absence of state funding.


Indeed they can, and perhaps may / should be, but, as per nuclear deterrent, NHS, strategic road building programmes and all 'social betterment' spending (for want of a better phrase - ho hum... communism back in vogue?), ie the 'big ticket' items, won't be unless someone takes a big picture view. And supporting sports men and women I suggest is one of those things, along with major arts productions that would miss out, were it not for some centralised funding of facilities or opportunities.

And whilst I am generally against stateist intervention, and someone telling me what is "best for me", sometimes, "we the people", need guidance in these matters (and when we don't like it we vote the buggers out...).
snow conditions
 After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
fatbob wrote:

I never saw anyone ever lining up for the NASTAR course at Squaw this season. Chairlifts 2 or 3 hours before they opened - different story. Plenty of kick ass racers hammering the slopes generally though so I suspect the flat course wan't really to their taste.


Ummm Puzzled Squaw don't have a NASTAR course AFAIK

These are the Californian NASTAR locations. - not many as Cali does not seem to keen on racing in general. Colorado and Utah have long lists
Quote:
Alpine Meadows 530-583-4232 Weekends & Holidays 10:00-2:00 PM 24.54 Kangaroo
Mammoth Mountain 800-MAMMOTH December 23, 24, 26-31 Jan 2-4 Feb 14-22 23.00 Ralphies
Team Mountain High 951-461-2310 Fri 7-9 PM & Sat 9-12 PM 21.50 Mountain High
Yosemite`s Badger Pass 209-372-8430 Sat & Sun 1-3 PM 19.57 Chipmunk



I think you may have seen a training course for the local team or ski school - these are not open to general public so no queue.
snow report
 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.
fatbob wrote:
Chairlifts 2 or 3 hours before they opened - different story. Plenty of kick ass racers hammering the slopes generally though so I suspect the flat course wan't really to their taste.


NASTAR courses in Colorado open around 10am... Racers I know ski from lift opening - get the good lines. Then head down to the course. Better racers are usually Masters or higher level and have access to training courses that are not NASTAR but only on training days. Good racers train more out of gates than in - including off-piste and bumps. So what is your problem with them racing again? That they don't ski "like you do"?

Fastman is organising a clinic - he had 30 people sign up immediately...
snow conditions
 Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
little tiger, But there are course at PCMR and JH. And no queues seen there by me.

and btw, Fatbob actually seemed to be suggesting that the US system was a good thing. He was just supporting my observation that even in the US, racing was an activity of a tiny minority of skiers.
snow report



Terms and conditions  Privacy Policy