Leave Committees to Congress
By Dan H.
2/14/06
So only a few days into the Olympics and we’ve had our surprises – American speed-skater Apolo Anton Ohno (gold medalist in 2002) stumbling in the 1500m semifinal, Bode Miller and Daron Rahlves both failing to medal in downhill, 19-year old Dutch speed-skater Ireen Wust handily besting a world record holder and a defending champion in the 3000m.
Others happened just as expected – Shaun White and Danny Kass going one-two in the half-pipe (although White had to take a second run to even qualify for the finals), Hannah Teter and Gretchen Bleiler going one-two in the women’s half-pipe. Some may even put Miller’s downhill in this category, although that’s another story altogether.
And yet given all that has gone down, the big story this weekend was not who competed, but rather who will not be competing. Early Sunday morning, Michelle Kwan announced that she was withdrawing from the Olympics due to a groin injury that had worsened the day before. The “talk value” in this announcement comes not from the injury itself (after all, sports injuries occur all the time), but from the circumstances that brought Kwan to Torino in the first place and the implication her absence will have on the Games.
Kwan received her berth despite being unable to compete at Nationals. Instead, Kwan skated her long and short programs back-to-back before an Olympic committee to determine whether she would receive the third and final spot on the US team. Of course, with Kwan in, someone had to be left out. That someone happened to be Emily Hughes, younger sister of Sarah Hughes, the American gold medalist in Salt Lake who beat out the favored Kwan. Small world, huh?
So now with the magical power of hindsight (and the desperation to keep Kwan in the Olympic storyline), the sports world has questioned whether Kwan should have made the team in the first place. On one hand, Kwan missed Nationals. On the other hand, she was able to adequately perform before a qualifying panel. Yet, is this the same as performing at a high-pressure Nationals? But even if it’s not, can we really say Michelle Kwan, five-time world champion and nine-time national champion, doesn’t know how to skate under pressure?
You might also argue that being the “face of figure skating” for as long as Michelle Kwan has merits a chance to petition a spot on the team. After all, even the US Olympic Committee Chairman admitted how much Kwan means to the USOC. Yet, is that truly fair to a lesser known, but perhaps equally deserving, athlete who is injured and not awarded a contingency spot on the team?
The case of Michelle Kwan is certainly difficult. Luckily, in this case, alls well that ends well. Michelle kept her end of the bargain to not compete if she did not feel 100 percent. Emily Hughes is back on the team. Granted she will have to mentally prepare herself under a much shorter time frame, but she will still compete. Let’s be honest though, Michelle Kwan is one classy gal. I can certainly imagine other athletes going ahead and competing anyway (or at least waiting until the day of to pull out). In other words, this debate over Kwan is really all just an attempt to keep casual viewers interested. Too much in this case depends on the person. The more relevant question we should be asking is whether any Olympic team should allow any athlete to petition a spot on the team, rather than win it outright.
The answer here, I believe, has to be no. In research we always look to compare the results of two outcomes under conditions that are as similar as possible. In no way does a qualifying routine compare to competing in a national competition or world cup event. To take this particular example, how can you compare Kwan’s routine to Hughes’? Maybe Kwan was disadvantaged because she had to do back-to-back routines. Or maybe she had the advantage because she was in a more comfortable setting. While skaters are technically judged against a set of criteria, there is no way that Hughes’ performance was not compared to her peers when her score was given at Nationals. Who was Kwan compared to? It doesn’t matter. The important point is that the two situations were completely different.
Not only were the situations completely different, so were the judges. One of my favorite posters is a picture with a bunch of hands together in the center of a circle with the caption “Meetings: None of us is as dumb as all of us”. As those of us in the office world know, the more people you add to a meeting the worse it gets (It’s also why I’m glad my article is limited to 1000 words; the more I write, the more stupid things I will inherently say). The point here is that all a petitioning committee does is add more human error to a decision that is already incredibly subjective. Even if the judges were the same, would they be able to adequately compare Kwan’s performance to Hughes’ from a month ago? Probably not.
(Bad analogy alert) I somewhat liken the petitioning committee to the BCS. While I love the controversy, you end up with competitors being picked for the big game without some kind of head-to-head comparison. In this case, without the committee, Kwan would have had no chance at Torino. And while this would have been disappointing, it happens in sports. Injuries happen. Kwan’s legacy will not be lessened without an Olympic gold, just like Dan Marino’s wasn’t without a Super Bowl ring. If Kwan would have ended up leaving Torino with a medal, I would have been happy. Regardless, I still maintain that no athlete should be able to petition a spot for an Olympic team. Just like the gold, the only way you can get it, is to win it.
