Ironically, the 6 medals earned by US fencers should have resulted in a higher USOC funding level over the next quad. Unfortunately, our relationship with the USOC has changed as a result of the organization's financial mismanagement. Anyone want to speculate how our fencer's stellar performance might impact on the immediate future?
Hopefully we will capitalize on this remarkable publicity (unlike 2004) generated by these results. This will be the first test for the "new" administration.
Hopefully USOC will give teh new admin the benefit of the doubt....perhaps the same level of funding fir one year with a significant increase if they show fiscal responsibility.
Need fencing equipment? See me at H.O.M. Fencing Supply
Going to your first tournament? Read "Choose yer weapon, Laddie (or: Dude, where's my foil?)"
Just a guess, but I doubt that USOC funding to athletes will be cut or downgraded.
I'd think they'll either continue to directly disburse funds, or impose strict controls and oversight on USFA disbursement (and probably charge the USFA for their oversight).
--Philistine
What the fiscal irresponsibility showed is that investing heavily (considerably more than what was allocated in the original budget), paid off with more medals.
Epee is the Sword.
Should have spent more on ref lunches in Miami and brought home team Golds!
I really don't think the fiscal irresponsibility could be called an investment strategy - it was much more likely to have been a lack of oversight. I doubt the cost overruns had any impact on performance but were much more likely to be related to coaches and administrators eating and drinking habits.
Any talk about the USOC funding is, right now, just speculation.
We'll find out more in the next few days.
Craig
I don't understand where the irony in this sentence is.Originally Posted by heretic
VERMONT OUT OF U.S..
http://www.fencing.net/forums/chat/flashchat.php
Why do I have a mask-shaped dent in my chest?
This Space For Rent
He's proposing that despite the high performance, funding will be cut due to USFA problems.
Did the USOC also plan for "Operation Gold" money for individual Gold, Silver and Bronze results for individuals, and the 2 silver and bronze team medals in fencing?
"Sometimes we, as coaches, get into that dictator mode where you just tell and you don't listen and you don't try to understand them." Tom Izzo, Mich. St.
"Fraud is the creation of trust. And then: its betrayal."
William Black, Ph.D.
No, they'll go over budget and have their funding cut by GE.
You obviously have a mistaken view of GE.
GE cuts your funding no matter what - "great job, now do it with 10% less!"
If you do a bad job, funding isn't just cut, its removed.
At this point in the games, it's becoming painfully clear that the US isn't going to win the gold medal race, and is in danger of relinquishing it's lead in total medal count. China has already earned more gold medals than Team USA did in the entire 2004 games. As of today, 35% of our gold medals have been earned by a single swimmer.
Several of the USA's traditional power programs have woefully underperformed
It's going to be very interesting to see where the USOC's focus is after these games. I suspect a post game analysis will reveal the reality of an increasingly competitive world athletic scene.
Take your time. Read carefully.
Most countries fund their athletes training to the Olympics. The US is one of the few countries that doesn't. It is really hard for self funded US athletes to compete against "professional" athletes who have all their financial needs, training and living expenses, paid for them.
I agree. It may well be that different countries start developing their niche sports and aiming for cost effective medals. GB has exceled in sailing and cycling this year for example while the US has done well in the pool and on piste.
The UK will be investing a lot in sport in the run up to 2012 and China must now have some seriously good training programs so the competition at the top seems to be hotting up.
It would be hard for the USOC to do anything other than dish out more money to an elite fencing program. Hopefully in the run up to 2012 the USFA will be able to expand it's budget and not go into debt at the end of the quad.
My heart breaks for men's basketball...
You're statement discounts the role of academic institutions and endorsements, both largely unique to US sports. Albeit these are mutually exclusive; i.e. you cannot make endorsements while in college. Nevertheless, our athletes while matriculating on sports scholarships have access to state-of-the-art facilities and top-notch coaching. After college, they have the chance to make a great deal of money through commercial endorsements and celebrity appearences.
You are right, however, in other places in the world the motivating factor is: Train and compete or starve on the street.
I know my share of history
How hard it is to be free
From wearing masks that turn to skin
Hiding what you could have been
It is important to remember, if it means anything, that no country in the world will be able to support its Olympians as have the Chinese. This current Olympics was a test of their multi-billion dollar, singleminded, and autocratic dictatorial political system's control of sports. The results have been spectacular and will only see more Chinese domination in more sports in future Olympics.
Not to mention government assistance in forging documentation to allow ineligible athletes to compete.
I think this is the point where a less tactful person would post a link to the cost of one day in Iraq/Afghanistan. I, however, will merely contribute the following gem.
USA #1.
Take your time. Read carefully.
Do people think China will keep this focus up for other Olympics, elsewhere in the world, or was this a big push to do well at Their Olympics?
Posting Permissions
