Medals and False Aspirations and Meaning
AS of today one the largest and most continuous CANADIAN stories (as opposed to Phelps, fireworks, and the cuteness of child singers) of the Olympics has been the lack of medal success of Canadian athletes thus far.
At this point (late Thursday locally, early Friday in Beijing) Canada is tied in the medal standings at 49th with a massive lot of countries at a whopping 0 medals. That places Canada behind a number of countries such as Togo (43rd place - 1 bronze - and by the way Togo was my underdog pick in the last World Cup), 30th place Summer Olypics perennial champ Norway (2 - 1 bronze, 1 silver), the 18th place economic powerhouse of North Korea (7 medals - a gold, 2 silver and 4 bronze) and the country that most in the world look to as a sign of international success, 27th place Zimbabwe (3 medals, all bronze, all the same athlete who may still have at least 1 more medal coming her way).
Most of the talk has been around whether Canada and its government bear some responsibility for the weak showing so far due to low funding and general support of athletic programs that aren't skating related.
Here are my thoughts. Based on the above, spending has little to nothing to do with athletic success. Population does. Aside from Australia (which has no significant winter so thus has double the time for summer sports) the top 10 medal winning countries thus far all come in at about 50 million people each. Together they have won nearly 56% of all of the medal thus far (161 of 288 medals). The only major exception to this is India's present showing at 1 medal, a gold.
If money did it, how do Zimbabwe and North Korea get up there in the ranking? Money is only of importance at the extreme end of success - China pours piles into it and what are the costs for other citizens? Foreign training is a poor excuse (Zimbabwe's medal winner has trained in the US for the past few years) since many Canadians train elsewhere. Furthermore, the more that is spent by one country, the more others must spend to keep up. where does it end and how do you decide where and when to spend?
My solution: no funding at all, aside from travel and uniforms. If you qualify to go, we will pay you to go. Otherwise that is it. Much of the present funding is predicated on the belief that this is an issue of national pride and we can't be any good if we have poor medal performances. This is Cold War thinking (is actually an idea promoted by former PM Pearson - athletics is a theatre of war without weapons) and arcaic nationalism. It assumes a national identity that does not exist.
If Canada wins some medals, good for those athletes. If they train and work hard to get there then good on them. But don;t come expecting money for playing games. They are only games. If money is to be spent, spend it on getting more kids playing, and making amateur sports more affordable for more kids.
At this point (late Thursday locally, early Friday in Beijing) Canada is tied in the medal standings at 49th with a massive lot of countries at a whopping 0 medals. That places Canada behind a number of countries such as Togo (43rd place - 1 bronze - and by the way Togo was my underdog pick in the last World Cup), 30th place Summer Olypics perennial champ Norway (2 - 1 bronze, 1 silver), the 18th place economic powerhouse of North Korea (7 medals - a gold, 2 silver and 4 bronze) and the country that most in the world look to as a sign of international success, 27th place Zimbabwe (3 medals, all bronze, all the same athlete who may still have at least 1 more medal coming her way).
Most of the talk has been around whether Canada and its government bear some responsibility for the weak showing so far due to low funding and general support of athletic programs that aren't skating related.
Here are my thoughts. Based on the above, spending has little to nothing to do with athletic success. Population does. Aside from Australia (which has no significant winter so thus has double the time for summer sports) the top 10 medal winning countries thus far all come in at about 50 million people each. Together they have won nearly 56% of all of the medal thus far (161 of 288 medals). The only major exception to this is India's present showing at 1 medal, a gold.
If money did it, how do Zimbabwe and North Korea get up there in the ranking? Money is only of importance at the extreme end of success - China pours piles into it and what are the costs for other citizens? Foreign training is a poor excuse (Zimbabwe's medal winner has trained in the US for the past few years) since many Canadians train elsewhere. Furthermore, the more that is spent by one country, the more others must spend to keep up. where does it end and how do you decide where and when to spend?
My solution: no funding at all, aside from travel and uniforms. If you qualify to go, we will pay you to go. Otherwise that is it. Much of the present funding is predicated on the belief that this is an issue of national pride and we can't be any good if we have poor medal performances. This is Cold War thinking (is actually an idea promoted by former PM Pearson - athletics is a theatre of war without weapons) and arcaic nationalism. It assumes a national identity that does not exist.
If Canada wins some medals, good for those athletes. If they train and work hard to get there then good on them. But don;t come expecting money for playing games. They are only games. If money is to be spent, spend it on getting more kids playing, and making amateur sports more affordable for more kids.
posted by The Avatar | 11:38 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home