A recent op-ed in the New York Times by former Olympic rower Charles Banks-Altekruse raises some interesting questions.  Banks Altekruse suggests that there be a single site for the Olympics.  He cites cost overruns and political issues as primary reasons.

From personal experience, it has been amazing to see the amount of resources that a poured into a single two-week period.  And the data available do not show much hope of lasting positive impact of the Games on the host city – though every two years, the rhetoric of lasting economic growth is loudly bandied about.

Having now attended three Olympics, I find it hard to see the justification for the excess of the infrastructure needed to host the Games – much of which is then only operated with the help of continuing government subsidies.

Banks-Altekruse mentions a proposal that called for five permanent Olympic sites.  The Games would rotate between them.  I could see five for both the summer and winter Olympics.

Read the article here.

Four years ago the US brought 17 athletes to the Olympics.  Realistically only one of those skiers, Kris Freeman, had any shot at a medal.  And that was a long sot – Kris only started six World Cup races that year and his top finish was 18th.

This year, the US will have three cross-country Olympians with World Cup podiums, and none of them is Freeman, who once again, in my opinion, has the best chance for a medal.

Will the US win that elusive cross-country medal, and give Bill Koch some company?  Probably not – the odds are certainly against it.  It is very very hard to win an Olympic medal – as it should be.  And perhaps especially so in cross-country skiing where the field is extremely deep, and there are so many variables in play.

But the good news is that the US has a shot at a medal.  And not too shabby a one.  With Freeman, Andy Newell, Torin Koos, and Kikkan Randall, there will be four American skiers, who, on the right day, can ski as fast as anyone in the world.

Will it be disappointing if there is no medal?  Perhaps for some.  Will the Olympics be a failure?  I would say no.

While there needs to be focus and goals in order to achieve, great expectations can lead to great disappointment.  Regardless of what happens over the next two weeks, it is worth remembering that fours years ago a US ski fan was hard pressed to find much to cheer about.  Now we talk of medals, and what it means if we don’t win any.  Now we have four world class athletes competing, and several others who have proven capable of competing for top-30 results.  In fact, every member of the US team has scored World Cup points.

“2006 was about trying to improve, and get better,” USST Head Coach Pete Vordenberg told me.  “And that was the right thing to do for that time.”

“But this year we have been more focused on this one event then ever before.”

There is still plenty of work to do.  We definitely haven’t made it – we aren’t even close.  But regardless of who does what at US Nationals or North American World Cups, we need to remember how much better things are right now.  As a country, the level of skiing is higher.  The top skiers, are faster than any group of skiers since Koch’s era, and I would argue, that as a team, are as good as any in the history of US skiing.  And while we might not have as many up-and-coming talents as we would like, there is a good group of young skiers who show great potential.  And the second tier, below the World Cup team, is closing the gap.  And while many of the skiers in this group will never compete for a medal or even race a World Cup outside of Canada, they have worked to raise the level of skiing and close the gap with the best.

I hope Kris wins a medal.  Or Andy.  Or Kikkan or Torin.  I hope they all race well and come away with top results.  I also hope that the rest of the team races fast and shows the ski world, that the US should not be counted out.

But regardless of what actually happens, I am excited that we are entering the Olympics with fast skiers to root for, and the excitement of knowing, that in every race, someone will have a chance to be near, if not at the top of the results.  That is a far cry from 2006.

While one might think that international ski journalists generally enjoy the finest luxuries when traveling, that is not always the case.  Two FasterSkier personnel are looking for lodging in Canmore between the World Cup races and Olympics in Whistler – specifically the nights of the 7th, 8th and 9th.

If you have any ideas, a spare couch, or suite in a five star hotel, please let us know – info@fasterskier.com.

In all seriousness, any help would be greatly appreciated!

The US Olympic Cross-Country Ski Team was named yesterday, and as expected, consisted of the top four men and women on the USSA points list.

The process played out with a minimum of drama and controversy.  The process for qualifying for the team was laid out well over a year ago and the criteria clearly published.

There was nothing ambiguous about the process.  This is in strong contrast to some other countries where selection seems to be based entirely on coaches discretion.  Norway is one such country, Russia another.

Germany, on the other hand, has a very clear standard – and a darn tough one.  To make the Olympic team, a skier must have either a single top-8 World Cup result, or two top-15 finishes.  Either way, this is a high standard.  In fact, Germany won’t come anywhere near their Olympic quota of 18.  In fact, at this point, the team can be at most 13 strong.  It is not implausible, that after reallocation, The US and Germany could have very similar sized teams.

The US has both a clear system and attainable standards.  It seems many people have been confused by the coaches discretion clause in the qualification criteria.  I have received numerous emails and read many comments stating that skier A or skier B should have been named to the team using the discretionary clause.

This clause is in there for extraordinary circumstances, where an athlete who would have a significant impact on the team would not qualify based on the other criteria.

It is NOT there to put an athlete racing marginally better on the team.  The US Ski Team is interested in winning medals, and the system has resulted in all athletes with medal potential being on the team.

Every system of qualification will have issues.  There is no way to be 100% fair, and at some point there will be a situation where a less-deserving athlete qualifies.

But that is not the case this year.  The team that deserves to go to Vancouver is going.  Because ultimately it is not about who works the hardest or makes the most sacrifices.  It is about who skis the fastest during the qualification period – as measured by FIS points.  That is what the qualification critera state. Should this criteria be changed?  That is a discussion for another time, and one worth having, as it is always worthwhile to review and rethink.

We all have our personal favorites we were  rooting for, but emotions aside, I don’t believe anyone can make the argument that our medal chances are compromised by any one individual not making the team.

Hopefully the US will gain additional spots in reallocation, and several more athletes will get the chance of a lifetime – to compete in the Olympics.

Congratulations to everyone who made the team.  And congratulations to everyone who gave it their all, but came up short.

With the final quota number in (for now) and the first round of the team named tomorrow, I thought I would weigh in on the possible selections.

In my mind it isn’t complicated.  I believe that the team will be picked off of straight points resulting in the following:

Men
Kris Freeman
Andy Newell
Torin Koos
James Southam

Women
Kikkan Randall
Liz Stephen
Morgan Arritola
Caitlin Compton

There doesn’t seem to be any reason for discretionary picks.  None of the skiers on the bubble will be competing for a medal, and none just off the team have been skiing at a level significantly higher than their points ranking.

The one place where I could be wrong is the break down between men and women.  There is no reason the team has to have equal numbers.

On the one hand, you can definitely make the argument that Garrott Kuzzy has more potential for a strong result than Caitlin Compton.  On the flip side, if you don’t take Compton, you don’t have a relay, and at this point, a women’s relay team actually has a better chance of a decent result than a men’s.

But it is very possible that in the quest for medals, no relay teams will be entered.

I’m going with four and four, but wouldn’t be surprised to see five men and three women.

Earlier this fall, USSA announced a Masters division of the US SuperTour – the premier elite race series in the US.  The announcement on FasterSkier generated some comments, and a more complete article from the Anchorage Daily News provided us with view points from both sides of the issue.

What issue you may ask?  And I wonder the same thing.  In my mind, this is an unequivocally good thing.  It isn’t going to revolutionize the xc skiing in the US, but nor is it goign to cause any harm.

I don’t believe that the Masters SuperTour is an effort to generate revenue – thought long-running perception of USSA is one of money-grabbing – always asking, never giving.  Whether this image is fair is a different subject altogether, and not one I will address here. This is about generating interest in the sport, and showing an oft-neglected group of skiers that they are noticed and are a valuable part of the ski racing community – for more than just their bank accounts.

Those interviewed in the ADN article don’t get this.  Of course most Masters are not going to fly all over the country to participate in the whole series, but most elite skiers don’t race the whole SuperTour either.

The cost is negligible, so the risk is low.  If a half-dozen people do enough races to qualify for the overall title, that is great.  It shows that Masters deserve their own race series, and are fast enough to warrant it, and it shows that USSA cares about more than your membership check.

Several years ago in West Yellowstone, I was watching the Masters Heat in the SuperTour sprint (a great addition in my mind).  As the racers came by a collegiate skier said, with obvous scorn, “here some the master-blasters.”  And the blasters in the race?  Included Factory Team skier and Olympian Justin Freeman, Fischer/Craft racer and marathon stand-out Adam Swank.  Colin Mahood (XC Oregon/Rossignol) was supposed to start but didn’t know he qualified.  Being a Master is about age, not ability.

The negative stereotypes of master skiers are a staple in this country, and are often good-natured and amusing.  But they too-frequently cross a line to a level of vitriol that borders on malice.

Phil Bowen made the point in a comment on FasterSkier that such a series would better fall under the auspices of AXCS, and technically he is right.  But given the low cost of this venture, we should just be happy it is happening.

And I think Dave Knoop nails it when he write:

“Hate and fear of a secret diabolical agenda vs. providing a venue to the larger portion of the skiing pryamid those so called ‘Masters Blasters’ who absolutely refuse to go quietly into the night. Many of us are the infamous “Baby Boomers” no introduction to that generation needed here.

“It may start small as you say yet if the message is consistent over time (year to year) then what is the problem with this.”

Not everything is a nefarious money-grabbing ploy.

Does this suddenly make USSA the organization of the masses, looking out for the needs of all? Hardly.  But credit where credit is due, and this is a small but worthwhile step.

I just re-watched the men’s finals from both the Dusseldorf races last weekend, and to be honest, I was bored – nearly to the point of stopping.

Normally sprint races make for extremely exciting spectating – in person and on TV, but Dusseldorf is an excpetion.  And given the amount of resources that go into putting on this event – including blwoing snow in an inddor areana and trucking it out to cover the streets – is this really a good event to have on the schedule.

FIS makes a huge effort to cater to TV, and to make course spectator friendly.  But unlike most World Cup sprint courses, a fan at the race is not going to see much at all.  Take both Whistler and Canmore – there are numerous vantage points that will allow a spectator to see nearly the entire race.

And the flat, narrow, twisty course did not make for more excitement.  Flat and fast means it is hard for anyone to break away.  Narrow and twisty leaves few opportunities for passing.  The men’s sprint final was basically a long single file chain up to the final sprint.  The only interesting move was when Petukhov took the lead.

There were plenty of crashes in the Team Sprint, but I personally don’t find crashes an exciting part of the sport – they can be entertaining occasionally, but I want to see is the best skiers in the world making aggressive moves, strategic decisions, and basically going for it.  I can see broken equipment and people stepping on each others skis at the local high school races.

I am not one of the sprinting naysayers – it is a great format – extremely challenging for the athletes and great to watch.  But FIS needs to be careful about going to “X-Games.”

And in all fairness, seeing the thousands of fans packed along the German streets is cool.  But keep the quality of the racing high, and shoot for a fair course, where luck is not usually the deciding factor.

You can watch the both finals here, as well as a montage of all the crashes.

Congratulations to Tim Burke for his podium performance today at the Biathlon World Cup opener in Sweden.  Tim has been knocking on the podium door for the last three years – it is great to see him breakthrough.

The US can now be considered a prime-time player in the Nordic sports.  Not at the level – or at least not the depth – of Norway or the like, but there is the ability to compete for the podium nearly across the board.

Last season we saw Kikkan Randall’s World Championship silver, Kris Freeman’s 4th, multiple World Champ medals from Billy Demong and Todd Lodwick, top-10s from Andy Newell and Torin Koos, Lindsey Van’s gold in women’s ski jumping, and Jeremy Teela’s 3rd place in World Cup biathlon.

This year we already have a 4th by Freeman, a top-20 distance result from Randall, and now Burke’s historic 2nd.

At this point, the US lacks a podium threat in only men’s ski jumping and women’s biathlon.  It is an exciting time for US skiing.  Congratulations to all the athletes, coaches, and support crew.  Hopefully this is just the beginning.

Over the last months much has been made about the issue of doping in Russia – from Ian Harvey’s list of Russians caught since 2001, to the meeting called by USST Coach Justin Wadsworth in Norway to discuss how to catch dopers.  Then we find out the World Cup podium finishers are not tested every race.

As much as we would like the doping issue to go away, it keeps coming back.  Earlier this year, Zach Caldwell wrote a piece describing the US Doping Problem – referring to a seemingly American obsession with who is doping and who isn’t – an exercise that doesn’t get us anywhere.

And while I agree with Zach that focusing on what others may or may not be doing in terms of illegal performance enhancement, is a waste of time and energy, as a ski fan, it can be hard to ignore.

Last weekend Russian women finished 2nd, 5th, and 8th in the women’s 10km classic.  In the men’s 15km?  2nd, 3rd, 6th and 12th.  Add to that a 3rd in the men’s sprint and a 5th in the women’s and you have quite a weekend of racing.

With an average of nearly two Russian Cross-Country skiers and Biathletes caught every year since 2001, coupled with allegations of continuing issues (including systematic doping programs), it is impossible to feel good about thos results, and that is a shame – bad for fans and bad for the sport as a whole.

The idea of “innocent until proven guilty” is one of the foundations of our country, yet it is difficult to apply emotionally in this case.  I see Russia packing the top of the result list, and while none of those individuals have been caught, their ski program, and their nation have been found guilty over and over.

Strong results should not be cause for suspicion, but strong results coupled with an extraordinary history of doping is a different story. Norway has been a dominant force on the World Cup, but no Norwegian that I know of has ever been caught cheating.

The issue is not simple – the need to avoid false positives and draconian testing protocols must be balanced with the goal of a clean sport.  And the technology is constantly changing, creating an arms race of new methods of cheating, and new methods to catch the offenders.

The FIS and WADA need to address this issue.  The Tour de France was faced with a crisis in 1998, and responded with a strong effort to clean up the sport, including punishing a rider’s team if he is caught.  Is cycling clean?  By no means, but the strong and consistent effort has restored a degree of credibility.  While the cross-country World Cup is not in a state of crisis in regards to doping, there is a growing sense that it is still too easy to get away with cheating.  And one could argue that the 2001 World Championships in Lahti, Finland, when the hometeam was caught blatantly cheating, was similar to the ‘98 Tour de France debacle.  But nine years later we are still left wondering if today’s winner reached the top by breaking the rules.