Before the 16-strong New Zealand team for the Winter Olympics was named, the national Olympic Committee made it clear that performances would have to improve if the present selection policy was to continue. On that basis, there must be change. This country's performances in Vancouver have been disappointing. While fewexpected a medal to accompany the silver won by Annelise Coberger 18 years ago, there were high hopes for top-10 performances. These have failed to materialise, and performances have ranged from fair to dismal.
Under the current policy, qualification for the Winter Olympics is not as exacting as for the summer Games. Few of the New Zealand competitors at Vancouver had met the difficult A qualifying standard. Most were there because they had met a discretionary mark, which took account of potential as well as results. To a small degree, this lenience is understandable, given the difficulties of competing against the Europeans and North Americans. But the results in Vancouver suggest the policy has become too liberal.
The money allotted to sending away our biggest Winter Games team is funding unavailable to summer Olympians. The latter are not sent away as a sort of warm-up for the Games four years hence. They are expected to perform. In fairness to them, more discretion must be brought to the selection of future Winter Games teams. A realistic policy would see a team numbering four or five athletes, who have either shown on the international circuit that they can compete at the highest level in their discipline or who have provided evidence of outstanding potential.
New Zealanders are accustomed to Olympic success. They do not, of course, expect results similar to those achieved at the summer Games. But nor do they wish to endure performances that take the shine off an otherwise outstanding spectacle.
