Soooo..... since we last chatted, athletes representing Canada have been on a nice little run, to say the least. Going off of the previously mentioned SI predictions, Canada "should be" at 1 gold and 6 bronzes. Those same 7 athletes/teams in fact won 2 golds, 3 silvers, and 1 bronze, with 4 of them outperforming their anticpated results, and but one failing to win a medal (the women's 8, who finished 4th). On top of that, a couple of lightweight rowing crews and Ryan Cochrane won bronze when no medal was predicted.

So it would appear that the Why Can't Canada Come Through When It Matters? folks have been silenced, presumably for about 18 months but not longer. Now, the principal remaining discussion topic for call-in shows and the like is We Need To Do More To Support Our Athletes, where "We" = "your tax money, like it or not". I know where I stand on this, but rather than lay out a complete (and coherent) manifesto against the Government of Canada Happy Funding Firehose, I'd rather just pass on some semi-disjointed thoughts on the matter.

**Anything that makes being an Olympic athlete more like a government job is a bad idea, I think. If someone wants to make sacrifices as they get older to hang on to their medal dreams, or just because they love the life of being an internationally competitive athlete, then good for them. But it would be a shame if we had Olympians forestalling retirement because "the money's decent and it beats getting a job", or thereabouts.

**Heard Rob Kerr on the radio last week saying, roughly, "I think it's sad that our athletes have to spend time going cap in hand to get sponsorships etc.". I could not disagree more. There are probably 3 reasons for the Government of Canada to support Canadian athletes:

1) To bring glory to the homeland.
2) To identify, encourage, and develop people who can (a) (broadly speaking) be role models and inspirations for Canadians, and (b) go on to lead successful and exemplary lives in their own right.
3) The athletes aren't allowed to go and compete for Team Visa, so even insofar as one might be indifferent to item 1), it only seems fair to compensate athletes to at least some degree.

It's my contention that item (2) would be compromised by four-year-round full government funding, and is actually advanced by the current system, such as it is. Taking two hypothetical Olympians who retire at age 32, certainly the one who has simply cashed a government cheque every month will be at a disadvantage going forward to the one who has "marketed himself", developed extra-government relationships, and participated in voluntary exchanges of values. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but that's the way I see it.

**Shutting assholes like this up

I'm sorry but when we are paying for them to be there, we have the right to complain about the performance.

seems like a desirable outcome.

**No Olympic athlete wants to hear this, and indeed, I'd probably have trouble saying it to one's face, but their struggles and sacrifices are a big part of what makes them admirable and inspirational in the first place. And when I say sacrifices, I don't mean chocolate bars, or vodka paralyzers at 1130 on a Friday night. (Also: I'm intending to minimize the snark factor of this comment, but honestly, having to get a job and/or borrow money from your parents doesn't exactly make you part of the exploited underclass.)

Anyway, nuts to all that for now. Tonight is Despatie and Ross in the 3m springboard semis, and Simon Whitfield in the triathlon. Giv'em shit, SQW. This is a blog about hockey (usually!), but I'm quite happy to have its 2000th post devoted (eventually) to wishing you well.