FIS/IOC=morons(maybe throw VANOC in there too)

From Ski Racing Online:
IN MAY, the International Olympic Committee advised the international federations that the Qualification and Participation Criteria for the 2010 Olympic Winter Games would be analyzed by the IOC at the end of August. Due to logistical, organizational and financial problems facing the Vancouver Organizing Committee with accommodations, notably in Whistler, the IOC is obliged to introduce maximum team numbers for all sports, and not just for some sports, as has been the case until now.
Even though the IOC alone will take a final decision in regard to the regulations for the National Olympic Committee’s participation in the Olympic Winter Games, FIS has undertaken extensive analyses in regard to implementing the principles defined in the IOC documentation.
Regrettably, it has not been possible to consult all National Ski Associations and the FIS committees on this subject, due to the short time given by the IOC. Furthermore, the situation is more complex for FIS than the other federations due to the fact that we have six entirely unique disciplines that have to be looked at independently. In this respect, each FIS technical committee can (and may) only be concerned about its own discipline, and each National Ski Association is rightly concerned about how the quota system affects its own opportunity to participate in the Games with as many athletes and officials as it would like in the National Olympic Committee’s delegation.
In view of this, an analysis of possible qualification criteria to conform to the IOC’s maximum number requirements was submitted to the FIS Council for review. The FIS Council’s task is to look at the picture from an international and multi-discipline perspective, and not only the specific, yet merited arguments from the six FIS disciplines and 108 National Ski Associations. For the IOC, the problem is multiplied even further with each of the seven international federations and 205 National Olympic Committees presenting different arguments defending their sports.
With the deadline to communicate back to the IOC by Aug. 31, the position of FIS is to strongly request the IOC to retain the exact same qualification criteria and procedures that were in place at the 2006 Olympic Winter Games in Torino.
It is the philosophy of FIS that both the world’s top athletes as well as qualified competitors from as many nations as possible will have the opportunity to participate in their National Olympic Committee’s team in the Olympic Winter Games and we can assure you that this position will be clearly represented in all discussions with the International Olympic Committee.

— FIS

i can solve all these problems in a couple fell swoops:
-need more beds for athletes? quit sending IOC officials from non-winter countries to the WINTER OLYMPICS
-need more beds for athletes? with reporters outnumbering athletes 2:1 at least, make sure the press actually cover the frikkin games when was the last time you actually saw an original story out of the Olympics? OK maybe the CDN x-c team at the last games but otherthan that?
-need more beds for athletes? if World Cup is any example FIS "officials" could stay home as well as most are just here to scarf down free food
-need more beds for athletes?only send "athletes" to the games, the days of rich kids(heck rich adults) showing up from the Virgin Islands and Monaco only to poop their pants in the DH start gate are long gone

% of this issue that relates to beds = "0"

could be, but that is the excuse based on the article...

I don't doubt that such is the case. To what do you attribute it?

Virgin Islands and Monaco - both tax havens, If I was a successful sponsored athlete from somewhere like the UK where I would be paying 40% on my hard earned £££ and it meant commuting 8-10 hours to get to decent snow. I would be living in Monaco as well. 10% tax, get to live in the sunshine only a 2 hour drive to the snow. I can't live and train in the UK anyway and have to live somewhere in Europe as my training base so why not Monaco. I think there is somewhere in the US a bit like this - oh it is called California.

Virgin Islands - slightly different but again if I was on the margins of the National team but due to a decent understanding of the needs of a sponsor I had a decent package. Would I pay 40% tax, train full time at vast expense and personal sacrifice and maybe not make the WC and Olympic team cut or would I represent the Virgin Islands, pay my 10% on the interest I earnt on my savings and get to ski my dream. I still have to live in Europe to train and race anyway.

I think 'poop their pants' is a bit extreme given that to be within 10% of the winners time means that you are still in the top 1% of skiers in the world.

Would I do it - no because I am a Kiwi to my roots and would never wear another countries sporting colours. But I am also not lucky enough to be a talented enough skier to be skiing ata level where I might be tempted to ski for another country in order to achieve my dream.

Think global not local.

A fairly straightforward translation of the article = The IOC has asked FIS how many athletes will need accomondations. FIS has replied back " We have 7 federations and 205 national olympic committees, none of whom can agree on anything. We have a long history of debating this acrimoniouly, and you want us to settle it by when??? Let's not open that can of worms."

Logistically, adding more athletes is a nightmare. As it is, many olympic races end up going far longer than scheduled, on different days than scheduled, and spectators are pretty (and the media) are walking out long before the last skier competes.

The US, Austria and the Swiss (who have deep teams) would like to see more athletes. The UK, Slovakia and Russia want to limit the number of athletes from each country to give their athlete a better shot at a "decent" finish. Monaco and Ireland are happy just to be in.

As far as the athletes from non-FIS level countries; Having watched many of them ski in Torino, I could have whupped the pants off the bottom tenth of the field. Politics says they get to play.

I don't understand why Vancouver was handed the Olympics if they can't handle all this stuff. Seems like they have overextended themselves and now the Games will suffer.

I don't see a bit of that in the post, but maybe you could elaborate?

There were quotas and stuff when they bid on the Games which were "givens" to contend with. Now the IOC has to change those quotas because the site can't handle the impact?

Anyone BUT the athletes should be impacted by this. I agree with Waxman that there are ways to allow the athletes to be accommodated and that is what should be looked at first.

But you gotta wonder why Vancouver was granted the Games if they can't handle the crowds that accompany them.

I would say you're reading a whole bunch into that that isn't there. The "quotas and stuff" is not something given to the host city 6 years ahead of the games. They are asking for numbers now, from the disciplines, 3 years ahead of the games, which is far more organized than the last two games.

There is nowhere in that article where the IOC is changing any quotas.

As I pointed out, the numbers of athletes has far more to do with national politics than with beds. Or do you dispute that?

I went to the last 2 games, and I'm watching what Vancouver will do. So far, I'd say they are going to pull it off better than SLC, and far better than Torino.

I guess my reading of the sentence

is different than yours. But I really don't feel like belaboring the point.

from my relatively poor memory: in Alberta there used to be a guy who could barely compete against the provincial athetes here, yet because his family was originally from lower slobevia or somewhere like that he had the ability to go to various international events where he invariably skied out od DNSed
that is the basis of my example not really good athletes using a country as a tax haven

A few notes:

- I read it the same way sibhusky did. The release seems to be pointing a finger at the Vancouver people. Whether that's justified, or just finger-pointing, is another question.

- Alpine racing is among the sports that already have a per-nation quota, and (notwithstanding the colorful scenaria above) modestly rigorous "ability" requirements. For the 2006 games, they were:

* Generally, only racers in the top 500 in the world on the FIS points list can enter. Countries with no racers in the top 500, however, can enter one of each gender who isn't in the top 500.

* No matter what, even the "one-per-country" racers have to be under an FIS-point threshold: 120 for speed events, 140 for technical. That's not an extremely rigorous standard, but it's not "everyone in" either. There are a grand total 146 American men who can meet it in downhill, for example (and a thousand-some worldwide). None of them are likely to poop their pants at the sight of real course.

In the actual 2006 Olympic Downhill, there were 55 racers. I believe all but one had less than 100 points.

sj, great statistics, as always.
Here is an example of one racer from an "exotic" nation that didn't make it in:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa...ame/index.html
Out of interest, on his website there is a video of Kwame skiing GS:
http://www.ghanaskiteam.com/
(Kwame promotes himself very well, but to be fair, he is working hard to promote winter sports in Ghana in general. He somehow persuaded Ted Ligety to travel with him to Africa last year for "talent identification"!)

Talking of Canadians skiing for other nations, I have raced with one Canuck who skied for Portugal, two who skied for the UK, and one who skied for Canada, the UK, the US (unofficially), and Estonia!
(Quite a character: http://www.iht.com/articles/1994/02/14/oian.php )

To quote Gene Hackman in Downhill Racer: "It ain't exactly a team sport". In the end, it doesn't really matter what sticker is on your helmet, but whether you fulfil your dreams and potential. Was Girardelli a joke skier because he raced for a joke nation?

Interesting guy. I wish him success.

Huh? Are you calling California a tax haven? That would be the first time I ever heard that...

I thought it was a tax hell actually compared to most states other than say New York and New Jersey?

Yeah...that was my understanding of the matter. Although I've not yet lived there.

I was referring to a location where one could live by the beach, enjoy pleasant and moderate weather and still be within 2 - 4 hours of decent skiing.

Tax - no planet USA wants its citizens (and visitors) to pay their tax and is quite happy to chase it up too. International Tax agreements - sure once you have paid your US tax.

I will take the Guernsey option thanks (for tax not skiing)