The "Not Worth Protecting" Experiment:
Unlike U.S. Speedskating, I don't need to use "post hoc analysis" in analyzing the data I collect. I'm not going to wait until the results come in, AND THEN once I know who finished where, tell you what selection criteria I'm using. No, I'm going to lay everything out in The Protocol before the last experiment even starts.
Since the most important criteria by which U.S. Speedskating measures how it's doing is its team's performance at the Olympic Games, then these results are also the criteria I'm going to use. What I would like to determine from this study is whether certain athletes who have been the recipients of favoritism were worth protecting. If I were to use a 3-letter acronym (similar to DSQ, DNS, or DNF for Disqualified, Did Not Skate, or Did Not Finish) I might use NWP, or "Not Worth Protecting."
In this experiment, I'm not trying to make comparisons between athletes. All I'm doing is determining how well a particular athlete's results at the Games met U.S. Speedskating's mission statement, in consideration of the favors that person received.
Because "winning Olympic medals" is the most important goal in the mission statement of U.S. Speedskating, I would say that the only way that a recipient of favoritism would be definitely worth protecting would be if that person won an Olympic medal. This doesn't mean that it was right, fair, or ethical to give that person special treatment, only that it helped USS meet their goals.
If that person finished without a medal but still in the Top 10, then there is a gray area; maybe that person deserved protection and maybe they didn't. At least they proved they were at the level where they had a shot at a medal.
If an athlete who has been the recipient of undeserved favors from U.S. Speedskating and either did not finish in the Top 10 or performed worse in these Olympics than they did in the previous Olympics, then The Protocol concludes that the athlete is NWP, or "Not Worth Protecting."
These are my criteria, clearly laid out in black and white. Though they may sound cruel and harsh, at least I won't be changing them once the results come in.
Unlike U.S. Speedskating, I don't need to use "post hoc analysis" in analyzing the data I collect. I'm not going to wait until the results come in, AND THEN once I know who finished where, tell you what selection criteria I'm using. No, I'm going to lay everything out in The Protocol before the last experiment even starts.
Since the most important criteria by which U.S. Speedskating measures how it's doing is its team's performance at the Olympic Games, then these results are also the criteria I'm going to use. What I would like to determine from this study is whether certain athletes who have been the recipients of favoritism were worth protecting. If I were to use a 3-letter acronym (similar to DSQ, DNS, or DNF for Disqualified, Did Not Skate, or Did Not Finish) I might use NWP, or "Not Worth Protecting."
In this experiment, I'm not trying to make comparisons between athletes. All I'm doing is determining how well a particular athlete's results at the Games met U.S. Speedskating's mission statement, in consideration of the favors that person received.
Because "winning Olympic medals" is the most important goal in the mission statement of U.S. Speedskating, I would say that the only way that a recipient of favoritism would be definitely worth protecting would be if that person won an Olympic medal. This doesn't mean that it was right, fair, or ethical to give that person special treatment, only that it helped USS meet their goals.
If that person finished without a medal but still in the Top 10, then there is a gray area; maybe that person deserved protection and maybe they didn't. At least they proved they were at the level where they had a shot at a medal.
If an athlete who has been the recipient of undeserved favors from U.S. Speedskating and either did not finish in the Top 10 or performed worse in these Olympics than they did in the previous Olympics, then The Protocol concludes that the athlete is NWP, or "Not Worth Protecting."
These are my criteria, clearly laid out in black and white. Though they may sound cruel and harsh, at least I won't be changing them once the results come in.
posted by Eva at 11:43 AM
<< Home