Winning an Olympic event and earning the gold medal establishes an athlete as one of the best competitors in that event, if not the best. In some events, a gold medal means that supposedly impartial and qualified judges decided that one athlete was better than the others. Olympic sports that are decided by judging do not present a clear victor, because they are based on opinion.

The athletes who compete in figure skating train for four years with the dream of representing their country and winning the gold medal. All their demanding practice and long hours come down to a few minutes. In those few minutes, they must impress a panel of judges. The idea that after all the grueling preparation, the winner is decided based on scores, is nonsensical. Obviously there is no other way that figure skating could declare a winner, but it is unfortunate for the sport.

All the judges are chosen carefully, and for the most part, they are unbiased and careful in their decisions. However, we have all heard about the judges who have cheated. In another event, such as speed skating or skiing, there can be no dispute over the winner. These events are timed, and a clock cannot be paid off.

For example, Bode Miller can't argue that he should have been a medalist in the four events he was favored to win, because his times were not the fastest. In contrast, figure skating, and other judged sports, leave room for dissension and argument, because there is always the possibility of human error.

In team sports like football or basketball, referees have an effect on the game, and they can make mistakes, but they are only a part of the game. In figure skating, the judges are the only determining factor.

While I have no solution to the problem of judged sports, I can say that aspiring athletes might want to consider seeking to participate in a sport which relies on factual material to determine the winner.