Time to Put Figure Skating Competitions on Ice

1 Reply

By Jason Menard

The first item on the agenda for the International Skating Union’s congress in June will be looking at implementing a new scoring system for figure skating, ice dancing, and synchronized skating.

You’ll forgive me if I don’t do a triple Salchow in excitement upon hearing this news.

It amazes me that people get up in arms about the travesties of figure skating judgements and marking. Any system that one puts in place to judge these types of competitions are doomed from the start for one simple reason:

Figure skating is not a sport.

Now before you angrily dismiss me altogether, hear me out. And you may want to gather your friends in the synchronized swimming, competitive diving, and gymnastics fields for moral support, because all of these alleged sports fall under the same category.

We’ll start with this basic statement: having a competition does not a sport make. A true sport should consist of two or more opponents or teams competing against each other with an established set of rules, a clear goal to attain, and defined terms of victory.

A true sport rewards the fastest, or the one who scores the most goals, or the person that lifts the most weight. It’s a clearly defined finish. That’s where figure skating, diving, and other sports of this nature fail the test. In these sports, you don’t win based what you have done, but rather what a set of observers believe you have done. It’s that inclusion of subjectivity that removes these type of events from the world of sport.

And this shouldn’t be seen as a bad thing. While I may dismiss the notion of these endeavours as sport, I don’t dismiss the athleticism, dedication, and hard work that goes into becoming an elite skater, diver, or gymnast. These athletes possess a grace, beauty, and level of physical achievement that many athletes in established sports could only dream of attaining.

That’s what we should appreciate them for. Skating doesn’t need justification as a sport — it should be appreciated for the art form it is. You don’t see ballet enthusiasts sitting around debating who performed the better plier, Mikhail Baryshnikov or Karen Cain? It’s all subjective, and that subjectivity precludes it from becoming a sport.

My intention in making this statement is not to diminish figure skating, diving, gymnastics, etc. by removing their designation as sports, but rather to elevate them to the art forms that they are. Ballet, dancing, painting, sculpture are all valid and appreciated forms of expression in our society, and there’s no reason why people will not go and watch them in that context.

But do they come watch them now? What’s most amusing, in my mind, is that people only truly get interested in these “sports” when the Olympics come about. People tune into the CBC and live and die with the fortunes of these athletes, celebrating their victories, and lamenting their losses. After each competition, the familiar refrain of how we don’t allocate enough resources to become competitive is voiced.

The concept of national pride is often floated as a rationale for the upswing of interest around the Olympics, but we only display national pride when there’s a medal around someone’s neck. We become enraptured with gold medallists in competitions we’ve previously never cared about, but then promptly go on to forget about them. We complain when we don’t win enough gold medals, but we forget to take pride in our athletes competing at this elite level. A seventh-place finish is not something to be lamented during the Olympics, but our nation of instant fans look at is as failure.

Where are these so-called fans during the intervening three years? These elite athletes often ply their trade in front of empty houses or before a select few die-hard enthusiasts. So that’s why this outpouring of support every four years rings so hollow.

Admittedly, figure skating is a different beast in this respect. Touring companies are largely successful. In addition, competitions are well attended for the most part, but what people seem to enjoy most are the final performances by the winners. Under no pressure of competition, the skaters are able to do what they do best – entertain through sheer artistry.

It’s time to appreciate these athletes for what they truly are – artists.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

The Bloom is Off This Rose

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

So the legendary Pete Rose has finally come forth and admitted what most of us already suspected – that he bet on baseball. And now it’s expected that all will be forgiven and let’s roll out the welcome mat to the Hall of Fame for Charlie Hustle.

I’m sorry if I don’t buy it. Charlie Hustle he may have been, but now he’s more Charlie Hustler.

Perhaps I’m just a cynic, but this confession of guilt and the pleading mea culpa would have rang far more true if it didn’t coincide – and feature prominently in – his latest autobiography. Perhaps I’d be more charitable if this ending of this 14-year farce didn’t come as Rose was running out of eligibility for Hall of Fame voting. Oh sure, he would have been voted in by the Veteran’s Committee, but I can’t believe that Rose’s ego would allow him – a sure first-ballot entrant – to enter through the back door.

No matter what he says now. No matter how hard he tries to play the victim, now — more than ever — I firmly believe Pete Rose should not be reinstated and eligible for the Hall of Fame.

Many people will argue that people who have committed far worse transgressions against humanity find themselves enshrined in Cooperstown, to which I’ll wholeheartedly agree. But I also firmly believe that what a person does outside of the game should not be a factor in judging their worthiness for enshrinement.

Despite what many try to make athletes out to be, they are not role models and should not be judged as such. They are humans, subject to the same weaknesses and foibles as the rest of us.

The problem with Rose, ironically, is not so much his gambling but the way he’s chosen to make a mockery of the game he professes to love so much. Gambling on baseball, while a mindnumbingly stupid thing to do would probably have been a forgivable transgression given time. However, telling bold-faced lies and attempting to tarnish the credibility of those who lobbied the initial accusations against him is unforgivable. This farce has done more damage to the game than place a few bets ever would have.

I don’t deny that Rose had – or may still have – a serious gambling problem. And yes, it is an addiction. But Rose has yet to take the biggest step in beating his demons – accepting full responsibility for his actions. As he has for much of the past decade and a half, he’s looking for scapegoats upon which to pin the blame for his current troubles.

He says things like gambling was a way to replace the high that he missed from competition. And while that may be true, thousands of players, all of whom shared a competitive drive, found other outlets to satisfy their thirst for “the rush.”

Had Rose admitted he made a mistake at the time, it’s true he probably would have been suspended for life. But had he fessed up, accepted his punishment, and got on with his life, he would have eventually become a sympathetic character is this sad drama. Our society is very forgiving when it comes to its idols, and it only would have been a matter of time before fan pressures would have built up to the point where the baseball establishment wouldn’t have had any choice to let him back in.

As it stands now, his 14-year history of lying has made a mockery of the game and should be the factor that stands between continued exile and reinstatement.

There are those who will say that baseball commissioner Bud Selig insinuating that all will be forgiven should Rose simply fess up obligates him to reinstating Rose are wrong. All Selig has to do is turn around and say, “Sorry Pete, I lied.”

After 14 years, that’s a concept that Rose is sure to understand.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Right or Left?

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

What’s this country coming to? Lately our country’s political map displays all the form and reason of an Escher print! Like an ambidextrous drunkard, we’re having trouble differentiating our rights from our lefts.

On the one hand we’ve got Belinda Stronach throwing support behind gay marriage, while our Liberal party continues to waffle on the subject. Who knows what phoenix will arise from the ashes of Sir John A. MacDonald’s PC party, and is that really Ed Broadbent back on the radar?

Buckle up Canada – with an expected election just around the corner, we could be in for a wild ride.

Whatever happened to the days when you could define people by the colour of the electoral signs on their yard? Blue meant right, Red meant left, and Yellow meant you were probably out hugging a tree! But now, we’ve encouraged and fostered a hyphen-obsessed political landscape that can leave your head speaking.

We’ve got Liberals jumping to the right, Tories dancing to the left, and other parties desperately singing their own tunes trying desperately to be heard over the din of the allegedly different, but vaguely similar song played by the big two. Candidates no longer define themselves by party focus – because most parties don’t have a defined focus. You have your social-conservative candidates on one side mingling with the fiscal-liberal hopefuls – their party colours only separated by the slightest shades of gray.

On the other hand, you’ve got those on the other end of the spectrum, either proclaiming themselves true blue and longing for a return to a more conservative past, or lamenting the loss of social concern and caring that was the hallmark of Liberal parties of days of yore.

So where does that leave the voter? More and more we’re finding our electorate swinging faster than Benny Goodman on uppers. And for a country that has long identified its political leanings based on party politics, this new dynamic can be frightening. But, believe it or not, this new reality can – and will – work out in our favour.

Perhaps we are now entering a time when political upheavals won’t be the grand tidal waves of the past, washing one party out of power just to return that party to prominence years down the road when that initial tide ebbs. While the party system is too strong at this time to do away with, we seem to be now entering a time when our elected Members of Parliament will have to be accountable to their own ridings – a shocking concept!

What politics should be about is electing the person who most effective combines the wants and needs of his or her constituents with the greater good of the country as a whole. I once was a party voter, believing that my ideals meshed with the philosophy espoused by one or another federal party. But due to the changing dynamic of our political landscape, that type of thinking is outdated – and adjusting to the new reality requires effort on all our parts.

No longer should we ignore the election process and simply vote for our traditional party. Now it behooves us to go out and learn about each candidate in our riding, and vote for the one who best fits our needs. On a macro level, the party differences are so insignificant for the most part that it’s at the micro level – the constituency – where the greater variance takes place. And it’s on that variance from which we should determine our vote.

Now, obviously it would help encourage this new voting dynamic if we had a strong alternative party – either from the left or the right – to provide a legitimate alternative to the Liberal juggernaut and to combat voter apathy. Many choose not to vote if the conclusion seems foregone.

Yet this upcoming could be the most exciting yet! In addition to the new faces in new places, we’ve got a chance to truly effect change on our own level. We’re arriving at the dawn of a new era in Canadian politics — but just don’t try to follow the traditional maps to get there!

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Trick or Treat?

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

My children are going trick-or-treating this year – apparently I should ask all of you to pray for their mortal souls. It’s happening more and more these days. In our misplaced desire to be non-offensive, we’re sucking the fun out of being a kid.

My son, who attends a local public school, is not allowed to dress up in costume this year, apparently because in doing so he would offend those who believe that dressing up for Halloween is a direct ticket to whichever version of hell they believe in.

Oddly enough, I don’t remember one of Dante’s rings including a section for sugar-crazed youth, but I digress.

My wife, who teaches at an area youth centre, is severely restricted as to what Halloween-themed activities she can introduce. No goblins, ghosts, witches, nothing that may be even construed as controversial. My two-year-old daughter will be dressing up as an elephant Oct. 31, 2003 – what kind of father am I?

Let me start by saying that my wife and I have fundamentally different views on religion and Christianity – in short, she believes, I don’t. But we both agree on one thing – this is ridiculous.

I had countless Halloween parties during my school years. Amazingly I’ve never felt the urge to hurt anybody or make ritual sacrifices. In fact, I try to lead a pretty good life, help others where I can, and teach my kids to respect others and appreciate everyone’s differences. And, other than a tendency to throw mushrooms in everything she cooks, my more religious wife — who also been known to trick-or-treat – displays no evil tendencies.

In fact, all I – and my Buddhist, Muslim, Catholic, Jewish and Atheist friends – remember of that time was that we got to dress up, pretend we were our favourite superheroes, and get an obscene amount of candy!

So where’s the harm?

We’ve swung the pendulum way to far. In our goal to be all-inclusive, we’ve done the exact opposite. I may not agree with my wife on religion, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want my kids to go through life with blinders on and not learn about it.

I want my kids to learn about all the world’s belief systems so that they can make their own minds up and make decisions based on what will make them happy. If they believe in a god – any god – then good for them. If they choose to not believe, as long as it makes them happy, I say go for it.

What we need to do – and at an early age, I may add – is to expose our children to more religion, not less as we’ve been doing. If a child is observing Yom Kippur, why not have them or their parents discuss the meaning of the day? If a teacher is fasting during Ramadan, let them explain what they’re doing and why.

We’re not indoctrinating our children or trying to convert them – what we’re doing is teaching them the precious lesson of tolerance.

The fact is that we live in an increasingly smaller world where we’re being exposed to a wide variety of cultures, religions, and belief systems on a more regular basis. Instead of insulating our children from the ebb and flow of the world, we should be encouraging them to learn from and appreciate people for who they are.

For a secular society, we’re still heavily influenced by religion. If people start playing the game of claiming offence for innocuous events like Halloween – which really has no religious connotation for any child I know – then what are we to say about enforced statutory holidays based on one religion?

Maybe if Halloween goes, then Christmas and Easter break should be scrapped as we’re not granting equal weight to everyone’s belief system. Or maybe, just maybe, we should all relax, teach our children well, and hope that they grow up to be well-rounded, compassionate, and understanding adults to whom the god you pray to means less than the person you are.

The irony of all this? My son chose to dress as a devil this year. Happy Halloween to all!

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Volun-told Policy Short-Sighted

1 Reply

By Jason Menard

Does anyone else find it somewhat curious that the very institutions that have been charged with educating our youth are the same ones that seem to need a refresher course on what the term volunteer actually means?

Forcing our high school students to perform a requisite number of volunteer hours as a compulsory component of graduation is just wrong and sends a terrible message to our society’s youth.

By very nature, compelling students to partake of this program in order to graduate goes against the very concept of volunteerism, and it stands as an insult to the intellect of our society’s youth to use euphemisms like volunteer, when compulsory societal assistance is the true name of the game.

And, in the long run, what we’re going to do is drive many of these students away from ever volunteering again.

The things I have become passionate about in my adult life are things that I drifted into on my own volition. In large part, the things I was forced to do were the things towards which I developed the most resistance – and I don’t think I was an atypical teenager.

Admittedly, when I was in high school, I was not the most socially conscious member of my graduating class. However, as the years go by and I learn more about the world around me, I’ve come to include volunteering in my life. I consider myself and enthusiastic and hard-working volunteer when I choose to commit my time to a cause.

But it’s always my choice – no adult would expect any less, but then we don’t extend the same courtesy to our children.

My participation has brought me in contact with our conscripted volunteer staff of high school students. Needless to say, my experiences have been mixed. I’ve run into kids who are more interested in socializing with each other and show no desire in actually being where they are. For them it’s a matter of doing their time – much like a prison sentence – until they’re allowed to go.

Then there’s the other group who actually takes an interest in what they’re doing and display a passion and work ethic, which shows that they are participating for the right reason. The kicker is that these are the kids who would be volunteering anyway. I’m not so naïve to think that volunteers aren’t needed in our society, but what we need are more of the latter and less of the former.

The school board desperately needs to get more creative in their attempts to encourage volunteerism. Let’s encourage behaviours and work ethics that will actually serve them later in life. Instead of making volunteer participation compulsory, let’s investigate ways to offer it as an extra-credit opportunity. Working with teachers, allow kids time away from class on occasion to help worthy causes and learn more about the world around them.

For the people who will complain that offering extra credit is unfair, look at the work force. If you want to impress your boss, you go above and beyond the call of duty. You put in the extra time – so why not promote and reward this work ethic at a young age?

Kids are under a tremendous amount of pressure. Between the demands of school, social pressures, and – for many – part-time jobs, we need to be understanding of their needs as well and not paint them all with the same brush.

There are a number of kids out there who would love to donate their time and energy to volunteer programs. But there are ways to channel their energies to these worthwhile cause other than through administrative force.

Think back to the things you remember from your own youth. Chances are your best memories are of your friends, sporting accomplishments, or experiences gained through participation in clubs. But the key in all of this is that these are all activities you chose to do.

Our high school-aged children are on the cusp of being adults. Part of their development during this time is to learn how to make their own choices and to do the right thing. So let’s trust our children and treat them as the adults we want them to be.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved