The International Olympic Committee has denied women's ski jumping a spot in the 2010 Winter Olympics; that's not new news. But the fact that people are giving grief to the women's ski jumpers of the world for fighting this decision on principle is unfathomable. So what, living in Backwardland is OK?
No, and that's why democratic countries offer its citizens a political process - such as the courts - to stand up against those people who have forgotten that women, especially in the United States and Canada, actually have equal rights. To hear that women aren't getting equal opportunities in sports is like learning that Billie Jean King is still playing Bobby Riggs in "The Battle of the Sexes" almost four decades later.
Haven't people changed their views about women in sports already? Guess not, and that's why women's ski jumping has had enough with the International Olympic Committee and has decided to bring a lawsuit against the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee.
In late May, nine plaintiffs (including jumpers from all corners of the world) filed the suit against VANOC for discriminating against women's ski jumpers under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The women are asking the court for an injunction requiring VANOC to include women's ski jumping in the Games, or, alternatively, to exclude men's ski jumping if it decides to exclude women. Ski jumping will be the only sport in the 2010 Olympic Winter Games that will not include competition for both genders.
The truth is this lawsuit is a long shot for women ski jumpers' hopes of competing in the Olympics even though they have met the IOC's "prerequisites" for inclusion. At this point, it's more about principle.
These women, including U.S. jumpers Jessica Jerome and Lindsey Van, have taken a figurative jump to speak out against those stodgy, behind-the-times, Backwardland men running the show at the IOC and now VANOC. They fear losing their positions on the U.S. Ski Team, but have gone forward anyway on principle. They say the sport will die if girls don't have the opportunity to compete at the highest level.
"I'm here because I've dedicated my life to ski jumping," said Van at the press conference announcing the lawsuit. "I want to make this right for future girls of the sport. This is not right any more. It has to change. I don't want to have to tell girls coming up that I will be coaching that, 'There really is no future for you.'"
Recently a columnist wrote, "While one has to question the IOC's thinking and logic about not sanctioning women's ski jumping, the organization is not known for its enlightenment . . . the IOC does what it wants when it wants."
Just because the IOC "does what it wants" is not a good reason to sit back and take the punches and do nothing. "A lot of people don't understand that we have 'played by the rules' and done everything the IOC has asked," Jerome said.
Instead of dealing with that antiquated organization, the plaintiffs are asking the British Columbia court to rule on principle, on modern law, for the love of gawd, and let the women jump in just one event (men have three). The facilities are already built, after all.
This whole debacle is so infuriating because it's turned into a political show of pandering and blackmail instead of the Olympic spirit. As of now, that flame has been pissed away. It's out. Case in point: VANOC claims it has nothing to do with the IOC decision, that it supported the inclusion of women's ski jumping in 2010, and that this lawsuit is futile.
Not so fast. An IOC official has shared with a confidential source that Canada did not want more than the minimum done for jumping in the Games. This shadiness is a shame being that the Beijing Games are coming up, but people need to know what has become of the Olympic spirit.
---
* VANESSA PIERCE is the features editor at Ski Racing magazine and a former Division 1 soccer player at the University of Washington. She can be reached at vpierce@skiracing.com.
