American women on skis are revving for Sochi

Several American women, all on skis, hope to make their marks, and even take medals, at the Sochi Games. Let's meet these Olympians.

3. Women ski jumpers: Will they steal the Sochi spotlight?

Matthias Schrader/AP
Sarah Hendrickson is trying to recover from an injury in time to compete for the US.

If NBC finds itself searching for story lines in Sochi, "the one narrative they can really go for is women's ski jump," says David Wallechinsky, an Olympics historian.

For an Olympic movement desperately seeking to expand women's sports, the resistance to adding women's ski jumping has long been a bit peculiar. Officials said there weren't enough women doing it, and then Gian Franco Kasper, president of the International Ski Federation, came out with this astounding statement in an interview with National Public Radio in 2005:

"Don't forget, it's like jumping down from, let's say, about two meters on the ground about a thousand times a year, which seems not to be appropriate for ladies from a medical point of view."

Physicians might take issue with the general concept of flinging oneself 300 feet down a hill, but in Sochi, the women are at last set to prove that they can do it with as much panache as the men.

From an American perspective, the event holds the potential for both heartbreak and triumph. The woman at the forefront of the campaign to get women's ski jumping into the Olympics, Lindsey Van, has now been surpassed by other skiers. A medal looks unlikely but would be a thrilling achievement.

Meanwhile, one of the women who has taken Van's place at the top of the sport, Sarah Hendrickson of Salt Lake City, badly injured her knee in August and is now trying to recover in time to go to Sochi.

– Mark Sappenfield, Staff writer

3 of 3

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.