Olympian1010

I visited last summer

surfers both relegated to the 1st repechage. I imagine they won't go much further, but hopefully they stay with the sport. It'd be nice to see some representation at the CAC/Pan Am Games.

The annual tends to be more "samey" with the songs, but this year does feel incredibly similar. There's maybe half dozen or a few more songs that stand out to me. Everything else is pretty much a blob.

The 15000km distance between events would make a potential double from Sky interesting.

Quite a ride for that team over the last year. Highs and lows

I wonder if they are eligible should either one of them qualify an athlete through the current competition?

Olle Dahlin (IBU President) is reportedly under investigation in Source: https://apnews.com/article/biathlon-ibu-investigation-dahlin-f63a39a410a2ce1b33bd3f23a0af4e3f I’d hazard a guess that the IBU won’t be using those first two paragraphs in any promotional material

I believe it is mostly core strength and balance from what I've been told. Surfing is one the few popular sports in California I haven't tried. Flexibility might help in skateboarding, but its more just about board control and individual skill from what I can tell.

The broadcast slots the women's event are able to get might also have something to do with it.

A lot of that does come down to publicity and broadcast coverage though. Would women's biathlon be as big if not offered as dual package with men's biathlon for the last few decades?

Yes, and no. Women’s sport has been an afterthought for broadcasters for so long. There’s just this belief that “no one wants to watch that,” and so a lot of networks don’t/didn’t really bother to program women’s sport. We’ve seen attendance records shattered in women’s sports over the last few years, and when those events are broadcast on mainstream channels or freely on publicly available channels people pay attention.

This is a bit of a "Catch 22" though. You can't give women less opportunities to compete, win medals, etc. and expect growth in their sports. If there's less opportunities to make a living, win accolades, train with a nearby club, etc. there's probably going to be less athletes. The point of women's events and domestic laws like "Title 9," are to give female athletes equal, or at least equitable, opportunities to compete. If NOCs (outside the few at the top) can't qualify athletes or win medals in women's event, what incentive do they have to invest in women's sports? In terms of mixed events, some of them have awful formats. I'll agree with you there. However, I will say that they encourage an NOC to develop a sport/event in both genders. If the point of a relay/team event is to measure the depth of an NOC's talent, then I don't really see a problem in that regard.

I would agree with some of this, but I'd add that women's sports should at least be given the same opportunities to make those kind of earnings. If you relegate their events to backwater channels, then you can't really be surprised they don't rake in as much.

I mean...there are a lot people on this forum who follow both genders and find equal interest (or at least enough interest) in both sports. Plus, women sports have been putting up great broadcast numbers in the United States, especially when given more optimal broadcast slots. I don't think equally, or better phrased "equity," means we need to ignore biological difference necessarily. You can have discus for both genders and have a slight weight difference. However, if a majority of female athletes wanted the weights equalized, then I don't see a problem really. Women also constitute a non-insignificant proportion of the global population. As someone with a degree in public relations, I'd argue the available research doesn't really support excluding large segments of your potential audience. Generally, not a great idea commercially or socially (at least in most circumstances). I also don't think it's crazy to request equally pay (or earning potential, or business rights, etc.) when doing (essentially) the same the job. Yes, I understand the men's leagues rake in a lot more money, but that's also related to have less historical barriers to practice sport, getting more broadcast time (and better time slots), and more media exposure. There are a lot of male athletes who complain about their pay, but still do some pretty remarkable things in sport. I think the last part of that thought is pretty moot. I mean...again...I think there may be some policy related reasons for that. I think there are also sports many American (or Japanese, or Ghanan, or Indian, etc.) viewers feel the same way about, but the beauty of the Olympics is the diversity of what's offered (at least in my opinion). Skateboarding might not make the Olympics "more relevant," but I think same could probably be applied conversely on that point (and if people have a problem with athletes being too young, that can be tweaked of course).

I do agree that is a major concern, if not huge problem, with the proposed format. The beauty of athletics is how accessible it is globally. World Athletics needs to make sure it stays that way (and the super shoes and world rankings format are already cause for concern in that regard).

To play “Devil’s advocate” on this issue, would the changes to the event actually make it about the “longest jump,” rather than the most accurate takeoff?

Definitely a story to keep tabs on… My initial thought is that I’m not opposed to this decision, but it will be interesting to see how this develops.

The amount of power IFs/NFs hold over athletes is a problem in my opinion. Just look at the abuse cases, or examples of athletes blacklisted for meeting bringing attention to issues within the sport or their national programs. I do think there is a legitimate power balance problem in international sports. I do understand funding issues (among others), of course. I just think the current state of affairs could be tweaked for the benefit of all.

NFs should only exist to facilitate athlete's participation. I'm not a fan of the "we have higher standards" crowd, personally.

I mean, each sport/event would likely have (at least) 8 of the best teams in the world represented, so an island representative (along with North/South America, Asia, Africa, Europe) wouldn't change things drastically. It would just offer a bit of universality. I disagree from the major of sports fans, but the the Olympics should be seen as an exposition/celebration of sport, not a glorified world championships. The best teams/athletes in the world should be there, but there should be room for universality too.

The 2017 edition conflicted with the Nordic World Championships, and some NOCs opted for one of the other. I think a few sent the "A" team to one, and then the "B" team to the other. Unless you need some points from the world championships, I don't know why you'd opt for them (especially if the bigger programs choose to go there.)

Not sure if it will be available outside the United States, but CBS aired a piece on Kelvin Kiptum after his recent death. They were going to release it ahead of his next race in April (The round table discussion at the end is “meh,” but the piece itself is nice)

36 countries and 1003 athletes have been entered according to the LOC/ICSD. won't participate unfortunately. More info on that decision: http://usdeafsports.org/news/usadsf-letter-on-the-20th-winter-deaflympics

The most realistic proposal, in my opinion, would be to let them compete under the Olympic flag (if they can qualify). I don't either side of the issue would be totally satisfied, but maybe it would be a workable compromise in the end?

Yeah, barring a change in the U.S. Government, it does feel like ultimately the IOC will be the organization forced to make a decision.