Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

The fight for flight

SARAH HAMPSON

From Monday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 11:25 AM EDT 14/01/08

Katie Willis has always flown high, but as she battles the IOC for the right to compete in the Olympics, this 16-year-old may be in for a rough landing ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Dieter Schab from Fairmont Hot Springs, Canada writes: It's a shame .Just keep on fighting in what you belive and we all know is right!!!
    Shame to the Olimpic spirit.
  2. The Majordomo of Baie Comeau from Fredericton, Canada writes: I wanted my kids to take up this sport, but couldn't afford to take them to practise (4000 km one way).
  3. Jim Quinn from Richmond ON, Canada writes: A little over the edge with the words Rocky but I agree with the sentiment. Its about me and my kid ... medals, endorsements and all.

    Their use of political correctness and and the gender discrimination in such a context make a mockery of real human rights issues.

    If they are so concerned about human rights then how about real issues such as female circumcision which is no more than mutilation; rights of women to go to school; rights of women to own property etc. etc.
  4. David Guy from Canada writes: I'm surprised they continue to play the gender card. They didn't meet the technical requirements of a sport being in the Olympics - that has nothing to do with gender. I think it's also a case of the parents living vicariously through their children. The parents want this more than their children and are exploiting them.
  5. Jeff Kelly from Kitchener, Canada writes: Agreed, this has nothing to do with discrimination, just that there isn't enough competition out there to justify Olympic standing for this event. If I and 5 buddies started men's synchronized swimming, does it mean we should be allowed to compete in the Olympics? They have a women's event but not a men's... Why? Because there isn't enough competition to justify it. Period.
  6. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: An edited repost of a comment I had earlier asked to be removed: I can see the G&M is making a valiant effort to keep this story alive. Three front page stories, an editorial, a story in the Sports section Friday, and now this one. I don't care one way or the other whether this sport gets into the Olympics. What I do take great exception to is the use of a complaint to the Human Rights Commission. I consider this highly improper, even unethical. In the Toronto Star, we learned that the "four Moms with a cause" are "Calgary quartet – Jan Willis, a public health nurse, Nina Hooper-Reid, a lawyer; Cheryl Deleeuw, a geology professor and Sarah Lynch, an IT consultant." Now, the G&M reveals it was "her mother, along with father Ken, an engineer, [who sought] the intervention of the Canadian Human Rights Commission." If Ken is an engineer in Alberta he would have been required to take an ethics exam to get his engineer status. I'd like to see the whole Willis gang held publicly responsible for using and abusing the human rights complaint process at CHRC, and wasting taxpayer funding for this whole farce. Last I heard, Calgary is doing quite well. Perhaps we can get Ken to review his ethics training when he became a licensed engineer, and dig into his deep pockets to pay for the taxpayer funds he has forced us all to pay so that he can get his daughter into the Olympics.
  7. bethany middleton from Canada writes: David Guy: You mention that they did not meet the technical requirements; this may be true, however, the article also states that other sports have been integrated into the olympics without meeting the so-called technical requirements of having two world championships. If there has been a precedent set in the past, then that precedent must also form the basis for what happens in this case.

    Question to Rocky Zhao: how is this abuse of the Human Rights complaint system? Anybody can file a complaint; the commission does not have to take it on. All complaints are first examined in order to see if they actually fit within the parameters of the commission's mandate. If this one does not fit, it will be weeded out at an early stage.

    did you rant like this about holding individuals like Conrad Black and Karlheinz Schreiber and Brian Mulroney responsible for lengthy court cases, public commissions and inquiries that have cost the taxpayers millions?
  8. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: bethany middleton:

    I first came across this story on CTV/CBC. In the earlier coverage, an individual associated with the cause indicated they were using the CHRC process for political reasons and to gain publicity for their cause.

    To me, this is the same as someone who makes an unfounded refugee claim when they arrive in Canada knowing full well how the system works, and then sticks around for a number of years exhausting all of the numerous appeals before finally being removed.

    This is not the case of some uninformed teenage girls filing a complaint. It consists of one lawyer Mom (who did the work pro bono)and at least one Engineer Dad who knew full well the process and why the case was rejected in the first place.
  9. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: And I might add:

    When everything becomes a human rights issue, eventually nothing is.

    The CHRC complaint process is free so that itis open to REAL human rights cases to those disadvantaged. By abusing the system, as they have done, the risk is that the public cost becomes prohibitive, and eventually fees or costs are charged to all, limiting access - not just charges for frivolous cases, as this clearly is.
  10. David Guy from Canada writes: Bethany Middleton, you're right about the International Olympic Committee making mistakes in the past by allowing sports that didn't meet their technical criteria. I completely agree there should be consistency in their decisions. Organizers should make decisions and stick by them. That still doesn't change the fact it doesn't currently meet their criteria. I also think they were justified in making their human rights complaint, regardless if the teens were indeed pushed into it by their overbearing parents. That's what the system is for. But the fact still remains there was a proper investigation and they were turned down.
  11. Rick from Edmonton from Canada writes: J.M. from Realityville....what a stupid comment. The issue has nothing to do with Harper or religeon. There is a reason for international standards. Sure hope there is a tall fence around Realityvill to contain such moronic comments.
  12. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: David Guy: But the fact still remains there was a proper investigation and they were turned down.

    David, those are not the facts. A complaint was filed late Jan early Feb 2007. This required an investigation, and would have resulted in a recommendation by the case officer. If this recommendation is not accepted, then the complainant can force mediation. If mediation is not successful, then the complainant can force a hearing before a Human Rights tribunal.

    It was reported elsewhere in early Jan. 2008 when this story broke that the complaint was HEARD in Sept (ie before a tribunal) and a final decision was expected soon - ie the tribunal had to go to the trouble of writing a final decision.

    Any "mediated" settlement now reported was AFTER the case had gone to a hearing and before a written decision- a complete waste of time and money and abuse of the HR complaint process.
  13. stand up mimi from Canada writes: I don't see why this sport should be kept out of the Olympics, as though women's ski jump is a completely different sport from men's. They already have a championship circuit, but since it's not a "World" championship they don't qualify, according to the IOCC, who have shown themselves to be somewhat arbitrary about these rules in the past. These are elite athletes, and obviously there are plenty of them. What's the big deal about letting them into the Olympics? "After their first year in the Olympics, the number of female ski jumpers will probably double or triple.

    This is not an abuse of the human rights commission. It's what the commission is for, and frankly, the parents have a good case. It's always an uphill battle for female athletes, simply because they don't have much backing. Without support, there are fewer of them, and because there are fewer of them, they don't get to compete in the Olympics. And because they are not in the Olympics, other girls are not exposed to the sport and don't try it.
  14. David Guy from Canada writes: Mimi - I have to agree that women's sports do not have nearly the same backing as men's sports, and this is fundamentally unfair as a broader issue. In this specific case, however, it still doesn't meet the technical requirements. Rocky - even if the complaint was filed early last year, there was still some investigation and due diligence. Again, this is not a gender issue at all.
  15. Bryan Vanderkruk from Canada writes: J M from Realityville, Canada writes: Is this any suprise with Harper in office? They're not happy with her ignoring the right wing religious demands of female subjugation.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    what an ignorant fool. the Canadian government has nothing to do with rulings about what sports should or shouldn't be included. this is about the integrity of the Games and whether or not an event has enough support and participation to qualify. In fact, the article even said the federal government is speaking to the IOC about the issue. What a moron.
    it's as bad as the Liberals accusation that the Harper government was trying to get Dion and Iggy killed in Afghanistan. Grow up
  16. bj sutherland from Victoria, Canada writes: Let these athletes compete in the 2010 Winter Olympics. Anything else is either bureaucratic nonsense or deliberate obstinancy on the part of the IOCC.
  17. c b from Canada writes: Jeff Kelly writes: "If I and 5 buddies started men's synchronized swimming, does it mean we should be allowed to compete in the Olympics? They have a women's event but not a men's... Why? Because there isn't enough competition to justify it. Period."

    If you and 5 buddies trained for 8 years and there were competitive male synchronized swimmers in Germany, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France, Italy, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Japan, Nederlands, USA and Canada and you had held 111 international competitions in the last 5 years (as with women's ski jumping - see fis website) then I will march with you to have men's syncronized swimming included in the Olympics. If you were my son and had dedicated half your life to the sport I would be aghast that women you trained with were going to the Olympics and you weren't.
  18. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: David Guy Again, this is not a gender issue at all.

    If you and so many others recognize the frivolous nature of the complaint, then surely those who filed it also recognized this.

    The CHRC complaint process - from receiving a complaint, through to the end is set up to err on the side of caution for REAL human rights cases. The complainants recognized this and exploited it to their full benefit, taking the complaint as far as they could FORCE it at significant taxpayer expense.

    Anyone who thinks this is a legitimate human rights case, by any stretch of the imagination, needs to get out more.
  19. stand up mimi from Canada writes: David, while I understand that the sport doesn't meet the specific criteria for inclusion, I believe the rules are being stringently applied in this case and not in others. That could certainly imply a gender bias, if the IOC was shown to be more lenient in cases where men's sports were applying for inclusion. I don't believe there is intentional bias in this case. However, bias is never a black and white issue, as much as Rocky Zhao would like it to be. Maybe there really is a lower priority placed on this sport because of an unspoken belief that fewer people watch women's events. It seems to me a vicious circle, and one in which the Olympics has participated in the past. At any rate, it may not be a gender issue, but since there is evidence to suggest it may be, I think it's fair to bring it to the human rights commission.
  20. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Mimi, This is part of what the IOC released last week, as reported in the National Post Jan 9th: "'In November 2006 the IOC Executive Board reviewed the proposal of its Olympic Programme Commission (OPC - the commission responsible for proposing which sports and events should make up the Olympic Games) with regard to the possible inclusion of seven events proposed by their respective International Sport Federation." "Having judged all seven events against a set of criteria -- which includes the number of athletes participating in the sport, details of World Championships held to date - the Commission recommended that only one of the events put forward should be included. Those not included for 2010 were the events of Biathlon Mixed Relay, Bobsleigh and Skeleton Team Competition, Luge Team Competition, Alpine Skiing Nation Team Event, Curling Mixed Doubles, and Women's Ski Jumping. The IOC Executive Board endorsed the proposal of the OPC. If the IOC were to reverse their decision, would it not follow that the other five events would have to be also included? It appears to me that many of the other rejected sports include female participation. In which case, why bother having rules and criteria for inclusion in the Olympics - you apply, you're in.
  21. Cameron Reid from Toronto, Canada writes: Nice to see my tax dollars are being well spent.

    Can I launch a human rights complaint becasue garbage like this is cutting into any tax break I conceivably might get?
  22. David Guy from Canada writes: Mimi, I see your point that this one could be due to discrimination. There's no solid proof of that, though, and Rocky found a list of other men's sports that were not included. I agree that there is also a Catch .22 situation - the sport doesn't get enough attention because it's not in the Olympics, but the Olympics says it's not big enough. The IOC needs to apply clear criteria across the board with everyone in the future.
  23. Stewart Mawdsley from Canada writes: The best compromise seems to be the inclusion of women's ski jumping as a demonstration sport - this would enable the ladies to compete in front of a home town crowd on a natural progression toward Olympic inclusion in 2014 (just like curling and freestyle skiing before in the 90's). Plus, you can hardly say the venue will be overused - just men's ski jump and nordic combined, shouldn't be any scheduling reason to not include them.
  24. Albin Forone from Toronto, Canada writes: Through 1992 (Barcelona, featuring Tae Kwon Do and the inimitable Basque Pelota) it was common for aspiring sports to go through a couple of Olympics as a "demonstration sport" with exposure possibly to generate a critical mass of international support and a qualifying competition structure to separate . I don't see that the IOC has come up with a coherent path to replace it's discontinued practice - may not be sexism but a bureaucratic black hole - as Mr. Zhao's interesting quote suggests.
  25. James Gill from Vancouver, Canada writes: This was no waste of resources--this was a case of the CHRC cutting through buck-passing, and forcing parties that it bring to the table to work out an issue.

    VANOC were prepared (and continue to be prepared) to include women's ski jump (and nordic combined). But they will not unilaterally do so, because the agreement with the IOC prevents this.

    Meanwhile the heavy hitters--COC and Sport Canada pass the buck--shrugging their shoulders and saying, "this is an IOC decision, and it's out of our hands." By forcing COC and Sport Canada to the table, they have agreed to take up the issue, and there is now an interlocutor who can sit down with the IOC and seek a solution.

    Is the IOC position discriminatory? Most certainly. Is the discrimination justified? Possibly. But the IOC cannot proceed in splendid isolation--Olympic viewers in Europe and North America are large drivers of the financial sustainability of the games. If the IOC fails to accomodate aspirations of women they will feel the effects in their pockets.

    Meanwhile, the organizing committee of London 2012 and the IOC oversight team need to be watching. Where the CHRC has gone, the ECHR will just as readily go.
  26. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Clarification - for some reason , the italics stays on and paragraph spacing doesn't always work for me.

    This was my comment - not a quote from the IOC in the National Post story:

    "If the IOC were to reverse their decision, would it not follow that the other five events would have to be also included? It appears to me that many of the other rejected sports include female participation. In which case, why bother having rules and criteria for inclusion in the Olympics - you apply, you're in. "
  27. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: "James Gill from Vancouver, Canada writes: This was no waste of resources--this was a case of the CHRC cutting through buck-passing, and forcing parties that it bring to the table to work out an issue."

    No matter how you cut it James, the CHRC has no jurisdiction over the IOC. All that has happened is that through media coverage of this fake hr case, the Fed Gov't will discuss the case before the IOC committee touring Vancouver facilties next month.

    There is no h.r. finding - basically the female ski jumper's parents are back at where they started Nov 2006 when the application was rejected by the IOC- the only difference is that they have wasted 13 months and lots of taxpayer money.
  28. James Gill from Vancouver, Canada writes: On the contrary Rocky--female ski jumpers are not back where they were two years ago.

    Now their cause will be presented to the IOC by Sport Canada, which, as the relevant agency of the Government of Canada, is a significantly heavier hitter.

    While it is unarguable that the IOC are not subject to local jurisdiction, their organizing committees certainly are--and the IOC is subject to commercial pressure.

    The landscape of organizing multinational, multisport events has changed--and the IOC, while still monolithic, needs to take a step back and evaluate whether they want the Olympics to be held in western Europe and North America after 2012.
  29. David Guy from Canada writes: James Gill, the CHRC did not uphold the complaint because there was no merit to it. I still don't see this as the IOC failing to uphold the aspirations of women everywhere. If a men's sport does not get accepted for technical reasons, can you see fathers and their sons complaining about discrimination? There isn't a strong enough case.
  30. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: "James Gill from Vancouver, Canada writes: Now their cause will be presented to the IOC by Sport Canada, which, as the relevant agency of the Government of Canada, is a significantly heavier hitter."

    Well, I'm all for the female ski jumpers utilizing whatever advocates they can to put their case forward - The Feds, VANOC or Sport Canada - just not through the CHRC.

    The ends does not justify the means.
  31. Martyn Whitt from toronto, Canada writes: Rocky is 100% correct without a doubt. And I will add those at the HRC who are responsible for hearing this case should also be investigated. One inquiry I would support would be a multi-million dollar investigation into this agency and what methodology was used to hear cases at taxpayers expense with an eye on criminal charges for those responsible. And interesting note about her father being a prof Engineer, I see your reasoning, he should definately know better, and have a sense of ethics and morals that is not binding to any particular project he's working on, but to the community at large. The whole thing stinks
  32. Dan L from Canada writes: J M from Realityville, Canada wrote: "Is this any suprise with Harper in office? They're not happy with her ignoring the right wing religious demands of female subjugation." Gee, as previously expressed, I hope the walls around "Realityville" are nice and high since your version of reality seems to be more than slightly askew with everyone else's! Did you even bother reading the article? So where did you see anything that remotely supports your verbal diarhea?? While I'm not 100% comfortable with the whole gender discrimination complaint idea, from some of the stats presented by posters it's not like only a handfull of athletes compete in this, and when one considers the IOC's usual "law unto itself" way of operating, what other options do they have to force change?
  33. Mia Culpa from Togo writes: </i>

    I agree that this is an abuse of the CHRC, and most likely for personal financial gain.

    I also think it'd be a good idea to drop all these psuedo-sports from the Olympics, for both men and women.
     
  34. m mac from Canada writes: She is Canadian, therefore must be allowed to compete. She is Canadian, and therefore not subject to any rules or requirements that may be applicable to the rest of the world. As a Canadian, she is one of the chosen, the keepers of all that is moral and good. As Canadians, we should be demanding that the 2010 Olympics be canceled and our athletes banned from any international competition until all the World bows down and acknowledges our superiority.
  35. Building an Ark from Eastern Slopes, Canada writes: Hello Dave Guy, having stood on the hills in Calgary and in Salt-lake City I can tell you this is a sport for well trained atheletes. And Katie and some other notables are best in class, unlike some other kids in the Toronto Star area code who couldn't lift a shovel might they lose their breath. No this is about politics as usual under the guise of the almighty IOC, and the fact that Canada might have one maybe two(Tanaka) podium finishes at Whistler. Should we wait for the Jamaican girls or perhaps Edwina the Eagle before these dedicated jumpers get their due?You Sir have no idea how envious the Euros are of a small country like Canada with limited resources and a crumbling facility like Canada Olympic Park has - to produce girls capable and ready to compete. This is the sham and it is about fundamental rights, they aren't incompitant - they compete and the IOC doesn't like that fact why are girls allowed to compete in Moguls???
  36. David Black from Vancouver, Canada writes: So, the IOC says that it is excluding women from participating because the sport doesn't meet the "technical merits" including the number of competitors and the number of countries with programs. Men's ski jumping was first included in the Olympics with six competitors representing a total of three countries. There are currently more than 100 women competing from around the world according to the FIS.

    I can't help but think that the decision of the IOC has got to do more with ignorance of some:

    "It's like jumping down from, let's say, about two meters on the ground about a thousand times a year, which seems not to be appropriate for ladies from a medical point of view," the Internaionl Ski Federation's president Gian Franco Kasper said on National Public Radio.

    Besides, how do threats of keeping the sport out of the 2014 games if the women lobby "too aggressively" form part of "technical merit"?

    David
  37. Building an Ark from Eastern Slopes, Canada writes: Mia Culpa from Togo writes:

    I agree that this is an abuse of the CHRC, and most likely for personal financial gain.

    I also think it'd be a good idea to drop all these psuedo-sports from the Olympics, for both men and women.
    Hello Mia have a drag on your bong because no-one in ski jumpimg makes money. It is about a sport that was brough to our shores by hard woking miners, who loved the outdoors and who loved the mountains. I think you love money because that's all what you bring to this board. Spend the time taking the kids on trips, spend the time realising they are good and then spend your energies removing womens curling - now watch the reaction...
  38. David Guy from Canada writes: Re: Building an Ark from Eastern. Hey Build, I don't think anyone here is trying to debate how talented these young athletes are. The issue is whether or not their sport should be in the Olympics and if not including them is discrimination against women. Let's stay on topic, okay?
  39. Building an Ark from Eastern Slopes, Canada writes: ave Guy - right with you, on topic why shouldn't 150-200 girls on this planet compete on the same jumps that your tax dollars payed for? Any issues with that or don't you like girls using the same hockey arena/ curling rink/ ski hill/ cross country trails. This is an IOC snow job - please stay on topic or are you related to Dick Pound (which I've always thought should be a giggle - unless of course you are a Pounder)
  40. c b from Canada writes: Mia Culpa from Togo writes:
    "I also think it'd be a good idea to drop all these psuedo-sports from the Olympics, for both men and women."

    What makes a sport a psuedo-sport? The Olympics is about watching human potential - not many of us do super heavy weight-lifting but isn't it astounding to see what a human can lift? How many people throw shot-puts or javelins, race bobsleds, luge or skelton, cross-country race and slow their hearts down to shoot a gun as they do in biathlon? Not many but they stretch what humans can do and they are glorious to watch. Ski Jumping has people flying football feilds in distance with no parachutes - just remarkable focus and training. Though little known here, ski jumping is a traditional and very popular sport in Europe where 20,000 fans can turn out for competitions and millions follow it on TV.
  41. Building an Ark from Eastern Slopes, Canada writes: This thread reminds me of how sad it was to hear that the kids in Thunder Bay lost a jewel of a spot to jump on. Like all things though video games and DVD's replace what's best for young people. Only now children participate playing on-line tennis and on-line bowling - if you want to make money invest in on-line life like skiing, hockey and football, your kids will thank-you as they go to weight watchers, oh and yes that will cost your tax dollars enormously. Although I guess it will include girls as well...
  42. David Guy from Canada writes: Build- nope, not related to Dick (not even a quarter-Pounder). I also have no problem with 150, 200 or even several thousand young women use taxpayer-built ski facilities. The issue is, should their sport be included in the Olympics? It doesn't meet the technical criteria and I suspect the IOC are trying to be vigilant in applying their rules, which is the right thing to do. I feel bad for these young girls, but rules are rules.
  43. Building an Ark from Eastern Slopes, Canada writes: Dave-Guy Fair enough, however you place too much trust in the Euro-Elite, they will stonewall as they always do untill someone from their bloodline will win - that is (Politically) the only test here. Canadians can kick butt right now, they will wait untill the Finns or others catch up. So sad to see that the Girls are held hostage for being so good...
  44. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Why are all the comments here in italics ? ANYWAY . . . there is no basis for excluding women from this event. As a matter of fact, there is no basis for segregating Olympic athletes by gender . . . NO basis at all. Segregation of Olympic athletes by gender is sexist, period.
  45. Hal West from Kelowna, BC, Canada writes: As a former Ski Jumper, I have no problem at all with women competing separately or with men.

    Ironic as it maybe to all the Naysayers, Katie actually out jumped all of the men in the recent Canadian Nationals held in Whistler, B.C.

    The simple solution, if they won't allow the women to have a competition during 2010, let the top 3 to 5 women in the world be the fore runners in each event.

    Being light and a small build, is a distinction advantage with the new Ski Hill Design.
  46. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Hal West from Kelowna, BC, Canada writes: Ironic as it maybe to all the Naysayers, Katie actually out jumped all of the men in the recent Canadian Nationals held in Whistler, B.C.

    How so? Here's the results which don't appear to me to support your claim, notwithstanding the small number of competitors limited to the US and Canada:
    http://www.boldtracks.com/jan2/
  47. Marian Olson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Of course they are going to play the gender card, because it is one of the complaints that works with our ridiculous HRCs time and again. And just think, we the taxpayers get to pay for this charade. Yes, as noted previously, this young woman's whine pales in comparison to genuine gender issues in human society - genital mutilation, child marriages, lack of access to education to name just a few. Dick Pound, whose views are no doubt dismissed because of his gender, said it very well. The sport as practiced by women does not meet the IOC criteria for inclusion. That ought to be the end of it. Alas no - just this once let's not cave in to this special interest group.
  48. Josie Waters from Canada writes: FEMALE SKI-JUMPING IS HOT!!! CAN'T THE IOC SEE THAT THIS WOULD BRING IN MUCH MORE VIEWERS THAN SOMETHING LIKE CURLING???
  49. stand up mimi from Canada writes: Marian Olson from Vancouver, Canada writes: "...this young woman's whine pales in comparison to genuine gender issues in human society - genital mutilation, child marriages, lack of access to education to name just a few."

    The Canadian Human Rights Commission was set up to deal with issues in Canada, not third world ones. I can never understand the position of those who feel, for example, that because our daughters are not being mutilated, we should all just shut up and thank our lucky stars, and not pester those who might help in making a slightly better world. This is not a black and white issue - the past behaviour of the IOC makes it pretty clear they are not the fair and just beings some of you think they are, and I for one see nothing wrong in asking for an investigation. The fact remains that they have applied the rules loosely in the past, and there is good reason to ask them to make an exception here. I can only see the Olympics benefiting from having them. It's an exciting sport to watch already. There ought to be more of it.
  50. Nic Bernier from Regina, Canada writes: Considering that there seems to be only one female member on the Executive Board of the IOC at the moment, it wouldn't be a stretch for a sexual discrimination case to be made.
  51. Archie 1954 from Vancouver, Canada writes: Asking the Human Rights Commission to intervene is absolutely ludicrous and you would think her parents would have enough brains to realize that. This is not under the jurisdiction of Canada, it is the IOC that decides such things. What a waste of time, energy and money. Why don't they use their energy to do something worthwhile?

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top