lal_truckee wrote:

Mary Malmros wrote:

What a completely idiotic and weenie article.


I agree with you - the article is a slam piece. But I also agree that
there is something real underlying the article.

I think the Winter Olympics could do better at inclusion. There's no
excuse for the Jamaicans to be excluded for financial reasons when their
Bobsled team was otherwise qualified. Possible the dominant countries
could create a financial pool for such cases?

Lal, people in North American and European countries are "excluded", as
the article calls it, all the time for financial reasons. Except in the
few countries like China that maintain a comprehensive state-sponsored
development system, an athlete whose family can't foot the bill or
otherwise provide the opportunities, isn't going to have the chance.
People from the United States don't get some kind of pass because
they're from a "wealthy" nation; the ones who can muster the resources
get the opportunities, and the ones who can do something with those
opportunities get a trip to the Olympics. Everybody else stays home.

I also have to ask, what's the point of, for instance, Brazil having an
alpine skier in the Olympics? Alpine skiing means nothing in Brazil; it
means something in Austria and Norway and parts of the USA. How
meaningful is "inclusion" when the thing you're being included in just
isn't on your radar scope in the first place?