Alpine Skiing at the Winter Olympic Games 2018

[JoshMartini007 2,765]

1 hour ago, Quasit said:

On what basis would you decline any quota? Isn't participating at the OG alone worth something anymore?

 

Some nations only want athletes that will perform well (Netherlands) or that they feel they have a too easy path due to essentially free continental spots (New Zealand and South Africa). Money is usually the issue too, most sporting budgets are small and funding is sometimes based on how well athletes perform (so an athlete performing poorly may bring in less money than no one competing at all).

 

Then there are the times where the qualified athlete is injured.

Edited January 22, 2018 by JoshMartini007

[De_Gambassi 1,267]

il y a 27 minutes, heywoodu a déclaré:

Because plenty of major countries don't want to send athletes without realistic chances of finishing at least in decent positions (I would perfectly understand Norway, Germany, USA etc not sending an alpine skier who never really came close to the top-20 for example). It's different for smaller countries. 

 

I'll never understand that logic. The Olympics are not just about medals. Sport is not just about the very top, participation is a key factor also. Federations and NOC should care about that too.

 

Besides, it's not like potential medallists are schoolboys that somehow will get deconcentrated by the "bad pupils".

[heywoodu 16,004]

37 minutes ago, De_Gambassi said:

 

I'll never understand that logic. The Olympics are not just about medals. Sport is not just about the very top, participation is a key factor also. Federations and NOC should care about that too.

 

Besides, it's not like potential medallists are schoolboys that somehow will get deconcentrated by the "bad pupils".

 

I still understand it depends on the sport and nation. The Netherlands declining a skeleton quota would be rather bad, since the athlete is actually a potential medal outsider (or at least top-6), whereas declining alpine skiing quotas is more logical in the Dutch case, since I highly doubt it would work as a motivating factor for our youth when a slalom skier comes in 36th or something. They don't have unlimited money, so choices have to be made. I do think the criteria are too strict sometimes, but I do understand they exist.

[Agger 1,700]

2 hours ago, Quasit said:

On what basis would you decline any quota? Isn't participating at the OG alone worth something anymore?

 

Denmark has always had some pretty high demands to qualify. I don't quite know what they were in alpine skiing, but I know that in cross-country you needed to go below 100 FIS-points twice in a World Cup or World Champs to get the spot.

[uk12points 434]

2 hours ago, Quasit said:

On what basis would you decline any quota? Isn't participating at the OG alone worth something anymore?

GB has pretty strict rules too! 2x Top 67% in a World Cup or World Championships. Might be harsh but produces a stronger quality team as a result and doesn’t seem to affect too many athletes, just 2 this time - 1 in women’s ski cross and 1 in women’s cross country!

[Gianlu33 5,278]

I really don't understand why reject a quota... What stupid decision.

Luckily in Italy all athletes that have a quota are sure to go at Olympics

[OlympicsFan 860]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb heywoodu:

Because plenty of major countries don't want to send athletes without realistic chances of finishing at least in decent positions (I would perfectly understand Norway, Germany, USA etc not sending an alpine skier who never really came close to the top-20 for example). It's different for smaller countries. 

It isnt even about not wanting to send someone who never cam close to top 20, its just not possible. To qualify for the olympics you have to finish top 15 twice or top 8 once, so someone who never cam close to top 20 couldnt be nominated by german skiing federation, because then german NOC would decline, otherwise hell would break lose and everyone would sue them for making an exception. Of course we could talk about whether finishing top 15 twice in nordic combined for example is as difficult as finishing top 15 twice in cross-country skiing for example.

[dcro 10,210]

49 minutes ago, heywoodu said:

 

I still understand it depends on the sport and nation. The Netherlands declining a skeleton quota would be rather bad, since the athlete is actually a potential medal outsider (or at least top-6), whereas declining alpine skiing quotas is more logical in the Dutch case, since I highly doubt it would work as a motivating factor for our youth when a slalom skier comes in 36th or something. They don't have unlimited money, so choices have to be made. I do think the criteria are too strict sometimes, but I do understand they exist.

 

Top-8 should really be the strictest possible standard. Finishing 8th at the Olympics still gives you a diploma!

[JoshMartini007 2,765]

46 minutes ago, dcro said:

 

Top-8 should really be the strictest possible standard. Finishing 8th at the Olympics still gives you a diploma!

 

I remember when to qualify to the French swimming team you had to break the French record in some events.

 

Canada has some additional standards, but usually it's to prevent "free qualification" due to easy qualification for some sports (sailing was a big one in 2016).

[Andry84 106]

1 hour ago, Gianlu33 said:

I really don't understand why reject a quota... What stupid decision.

Luckily in Italy all athletes that have a quota are sure to go at Olympics

Are you sure that Italy will go with 22 alpine skiers or 4 women in ski jumping, but also 4 male jumpers are not sure (in Sochi we rejected some quotas in ski jumping).