USA: Destined to Win?

The 2010 Winter Olympic Games came to a close this past Sunday with a final hockey game (U.S. lost to Canada in overtime) and Closing Ceremonies.  The final medal count revealed the United States on top with a seven medal lead over Germany in second place.  It's no surprise to many Americans that we came home with more medals than any other country this year.  In fact, year after year we rack up more medals than most other countries.  Though I swell with pride for our athletes, I often wonder how the Olympic results would differ if the playing field were even among every competing country.

These are the top five countries in terms of medal standings: United States (37), Germany (30), Canada (26), Norway (23), Austria (16).  Now, I'm not suggesting that the United States necessarily has a huge advantage over Austria in terms of its winter training facilities.  In fact, Germany, Norway and Austria have traditionally been Winter Olympic powerhouses.  These countries have plenty of funding to support their athletes - they are provided with top-notch equipment, facilities, food, lodging, etc.  The life of an Olympian is not a stroll in the park, but for these economically strong countries, they are afforded the best training that, well, money can buy.

What I'm comparing the United States to are countries like Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Croatia, etc.  Some may argue that this is not a fair comparison.  Why not?  The Olympics bring athletes from all over the world and have them compete in the same sport.  The uniforms are constructed similarly, the slopes are equally steep regardless of the skier, and the bobsled track is not faster or slower depending on the nationality of the team.  The recurring difference in the results has to do with the training each athlete receives on his/her journey to the Olympics.

American snowboarders and skiers, for instance, train at the top ski resorts in the country.  Which, coincidentally, are some of the top ski resorts in the world.  They live at the base of these mountains and get private slope time wherever they go.  And, according to an article in the New York Times, "The United States is one of the few nations that do not publicly finance its Olympic athletes."  This means that huge, wealthy corporations can fund any athlete it wants.  Red Bull and Burton sponsored Shaun White in these past games, resulting in huge paychecks and the best equipment money could buy (literally).  Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report sponsored the US Speed Skating team, which produced lots of laughs but also a huge pool of money to fund the best training possible.

Countries like Estonia and Croatia do not have these opportunities.  In fact, many countries (if they can afford to) send athletes to the United States to train.  Even playing field, right?  Wrong.  While these athletes get a few weeks at some of the best training facilities in the world, American athletes have access to these facilities whenever their hearts desire.  Simply put, more advanced training more often = better athletes.  Not because there is some physiological advantage American athletes have over other competitors, but because of the financial advantage our country and private sponsors wield.

Anyone care to challenge this idea?