Kiwi bid to buy Olympic gold

By GEOFF CUMMING

Two different classes of athlete will wear New Zealand's silver fern at next month's Olympic Games in Sydney.

A small elite will be there backed by millions of taxpayer dollars. The rest will be there on a few scraps which have fallen from the Government's table plus whatever they have scraped up themselves.

The chosen few will be under pressure to grab the lion's share of our medals to vindicate the Sports Foundation's high-risk policy of "picking winners."

A handful of teams and 23 individuals have had an estimated $5 million lavished on their Games preparation over the past four years.

But the bulk of our squad, expected to be around 145, have this year been given just $3000 each to help them to peak for the Games.

As virtual amateurs at a largely professional Olympics, they will be at a huge disadvantage.

Australia, for example, has spent around $200 million on its athletes since "winning" the Games in 1993.

In contrast, the Sports Foundation has spent between $8 million and $10 million since the last Olympics, in Atlanta, on priming our competitors.

With the Games on our doorstep this time, it decided early to focus on athletes whose world rankings suggest they are most likely to bring home medals and satisfy a demanding public.

Three teams - women's softball, women's hockey and men's track pursuit cycling - are in the elite performance unit. The men's coxless rowing four were added to the list after top performances at the world championships.

The foundation refuses to identify individuals but its elite list would include world-ranked performers such as rowers Rob and Sonia Waddell, discus thrower Beatrice Faumuina, equestrians Mark Todd and Blyth Tait, boardsailors Barbara Kendall and Aaron McIntosh, cyclist Sarah Ulmer and triathlete Hamish Carter.

The foundation is even supporting former Olympian Bruce Kendall and future prospect Jon-Paul Tobin as training partners to boardsailor McIntosh.

Most of its money comes from the Hillary Commission, which draws mainly on lotteries proceeds. The rest comes from the Government and the private sector.

Apart from financing elite units, its annual allocations are dominated by sports which are proven medal winners.

Yachting, rowing, equestrian, triathlon and cycling are consistently favoured.

But the policy of picking winners is coming under increasing fire.

Critics say the approach is short-sighted and could backfire if the chosen ones don't make the dais.

There is resentment over the way some athletes have money to burn on training partners and high-altitude camps while others have been door-knocking to raise money.

Coaches and administrators urging a rethink want the cash spread more evenly, so "second tier" performers and promising newcomers have a better chance of taking the next step up.

Most vocal publicly is women's basketball coach Carl Dickel, who compares the Tall Ferns' financial sacrifices with the money spent on our women's hockey team.

The hockey women have had a well-financed buildup after improving their world ranking in recent years.

But basketball's backers say their sport is much more competitive internationally than hockey, and a place among the world's top dozen is an achievement worthy of more public money.

Dickel says each Tall Fern has had to find $4950 to go to the Games while training, working IN a job and "having a life."

Unless more money is found, he predicts, many of the squad will drop out after the Games.

"The experience and everything we have learned over the last three years will be lost."

Dickel questions the foundation's view of basketball as a low-priority developing sport.

"They should look at each sport in its own right, rather than just at medal prospects and world championship results."

A recent victory over Slovakia, ranked fifth in the world, showed the progress and potential of the Tall Ferns.

"It would have been nice this year if they could have given us a little bit more so we could prepare and maybe over-achieve."

Foundation chief executive Chris Ineson says the funding approach is based on research showing that the public are interested in results rather than participation.

With limited money to spend, the foundation indicated its approach early on.

"With the Olympics in our backyard, we realised we had a number of athletes who, with the right backing, had as good a chance as ever of winning medals," he says.

If New Zealanders want to see our athletes finishing in the top five and on the podium, the athletes need support.

Ineson says basketball has been given considerable sums in the past to help its development, and has not been singled out this year.

Men's hockey is getting much less than women's hockey after failing to qualify for the Games. Our track cyclists got much more than the road cycling team.

The row over how the foundation carves up its kitty points to a deeper problem, says Ineson.

He believes that elite-level sport should be getting about $10 million more a year.

The country's top track and field athletes are heading for Sydney largely at their own expense this week to hone their performance at the Australian selection trials.

Attendance at the trials is compulsory and is a last chance for some to qualify. But Athletics New Zealand has no money to help.

It is so short of money that it has "disestablished" the post of high performance director Steve Hollings after the Sports Foundation cut off the cash for it.

Two squad members, sprinter Chris Donaldson and 400m hurdler Zion Armstrong, have already spent about $7000 competing in Europe over the winter.

"I wouldn't swap it for anything but it would be nice to have some support," says Armstrong, who hopes to qualify in Sydney.

He understands the foundation's approach, based on giving potential medallists every chance to win.

"Where it falls down is that the ones at the next level are left in the lurch.

"It means you could get a big letdown in standards a few years down the track because the next tier coming through hasn't had the opportunities to compete."

Herald Online Olympic News