Old feet, new problems…

As we age and remain quite active (running, walking, etc) can we say that the soles of our feet have a harder time fully absorbing body weight and impacts, and that it may lead to a variety of foot problems? It’s a very reasonable assumption, and the short answer is yes. 

As we age, the feet absorb impact less effectively, and this can contribute to problems like metatarsalgia, plantar fat‑pad atrophy, and arthritis. Yet, the relationship is indirect, and staying active is still one of the best things we can do for foot health. It’s obvious that with age, the feet lose some of their natural shock‑absorbing ability — mainly because the fat pads thin, the ligaments stiffen, and the tendons lose elasticity. 

This can increase stress on the forefoot and joints, making conditions like metatarsalgia more likely. But activity itself isn’t the problem, moving a lot like I do ends up protecting my joints. For sure, aging isn’t kind on our body and our feet as the thinning cushions under the heel and metatarsal heads reduce shock absorption and increase pressure on bones and nerves.

Our tendons and ligaments don’t fare any better as our collagen stiffens with age and makes our feet less adaptable to uneven surfaces and repetitive impact. The arch can also flatten slightly over time, shifting load toward the forefoot, finally years of walking and running contribute to mild degenerative changes that reflect normal aging but still not a disease. 

These changes don’t mean our feet “fail,” but they now handle load differently. All this new reality is why older runners and walkers often switch to softer shoes with generous cushioning, avoid long downhill itineraries and adopt a shorter stride length. It’s called adaptation, not deterioration! 

Our feet don’t “absorb less weight” because they’re weak but because their biological cushioning system changes. Our muscles may still be strong, our cardiovascular system excellent, but the fat pads and connective tissues don’t seem to care and keep on getting thinner as we age, no matter what we try to do to stop that process...

Are Infantino days at Fifa counted?

I’m not into professional football and as a result don’t know much about that big-money sport. Yet, from the time Gianni Infantino concocted a FIFA Peace Prize for Trump, considered and acted on Trump’s request, during this summer’s World Cup, to utilized Article 27 of its disciplinary code and put the automatic one-match suspension on hold, placing Balogun, that US player that got a red card, on a one-year probation instead and making him immediately eligible to face Belgium. 

Then, there was the controversial, now-shelved proposal to sell a 20% commercial stake in the World Cup to private investors, including Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kuschner. All this series of unprofessional moves make me think that Infantino's days as FIFA president could be considered "numbered" (or counted) due to a severe political and governance crisis triggered by less than transparent moves. 

There’s no question that Infantion job is a cushy one as is total annual compensation package amount to approximately $6 million! 

Infantino’s position is now in jeopardy mostly because of the $20 billion plan called FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) that aimed to create a commercial subsidiary backed by private investors (including Joshua Kushner’s fund). 

This audacious move was reinforced by a 53-day ultimatum he had given FIFA’s 211 member associations to sign up for the plan under a financial incentive structure, which critics and confederations labeled as coercive and a "sell-off" of the game. 

Europe's UEFA and its 55 member nations unanimously rejected the plan, threatening a total boycott of all FIFA tournaments—including the World Cups—if he proceeded. CONCACAF and the AFC also formally opposed the scheme. Key allies of Infantino and senior staff have distanced themselves or resigned, and UEFA lawyers have demanded the preservation of documents while weighing legal action and regulatory complaints. 

Additional damaging reports regarding past governance (such as historic departure payments from his time at UEFA) have compounded the pressure, leading prominent figures and confederations to openly call for an independent review and his resignation ahead of the March 2027 presidential election. I guess time will tell...

Soccer World Cup post-mortem

It’s with increasing pleasure and excitement that we have watched the 2026 Soccer World Cup. Without adding to what all of you have seen, read or thought, I just wanted to share my impression that might shine some new light or show a different view on the whole series of events. 

First, it took us some time to get in the mood and catch a certain rhythm as we are notoriously poor team sport spectators. We hardly see any, whether it’s NFL football, basketball, hockey or baseball. We’d rather do the sport than watch it! 

Next, we were shocked at the players’ rough behavior on the field. It seemed to us that it was perceived by players as worth taking a chance the referee wouldn’t see the fault, which confirmed itself as a fair probability. As spectators, we can see fault very easily and quite clearly because of the 3-D view the camera affords us, while the referee is far from enjoying the same visual luxury! 

Of course, we rooted both for the US and France, and while the former was a victim of Trump’s trickery, the latter disappointed us as the going got tough and the opponents harder to beat. 

As a French exiled from my home country since 1977, I had a tough time squaring up with a national team composed in its vast majority of players of African origin. Both England and Spain had teams that looked more representative of their respective population. 

Maybe it’s a sign that I’m overdue to return to France for a visit… Finally, we were delighted that Spain won. "¡Viva España!"

Trump and Infantino’s corruption

Setting aside national pride and bias (after all, I am a U.S. citizen), what can be said about the scandal Trump triggered by involving FIFA? While most Americans felt a sense of national pride and an instinct to defend "our team," the Trump-FIFA affair was fundamentally a matter of political interference in an international sports governing body, FIFA’s willingness to bypass its own rules, and the detrimental consequences for the fairness of the competition.

The central issue was not whether the red card issued to Balogun was harsh; it was simply the fact that a head of state took the liberty of successfully pressuring FIFA to overturn a sanction that, according to the regulations, was not subject to appeal. That is why global football authorities reacted so strongly. For those unaware of the facts or who do not recall them: Trump personally called FIFA President Gianni Infantino to ask him to review Folarin Balogun’s red card. 

He also acted hypocritically, ignoring the fact that Balogun’s case hinged precisely on citizenship by birthright—a practice Trump vehemently denounces. In response, FIFA rescinded the automatic one-match suspension by invoking Article 27—a rarely used clause allowing for the discretionary suspension of disciplinary measures. UEFA, Belgium, former FIFA officials, and numerous players and coaches were furious; they condemned the decision, describing it as "unprecedented," "incomprehensible," and a case of a "red line being crossed." 

Critics argue that this reversal undermined the tournament's integrity and set a dangerous precedent regarding political influence over officiating and disciplinary procedures; I fully share this view. The scandal is not about Balogun (the player), but about the future of sporting fairness. Smaller footballing nations (like Belgium) lack such leverage. 

Trump demonstrated consistently disastrous judgment by following his instincts: he cast the American team in a poor light and provoked such resentment that Belgium won out of sheer anger—even though the Americans were, on paper, highly competitive. 

His intervention highlighted a two-tier system: on one side, powerful nations capable of influencing outcomes, and on the other, the rest of the world forced to accept decisions they cannot challenge. This imbalance is precisely what global sports governance is meant to prevent; this is not a matter of ordinary football politics, but a crisis of governance and a case of blatant hypocrisy. 

Ill-gotten gains never prosper!

FIS Johan Eliash on thin ice?

It’s in 1996 that I met Mr Eliash, in person, for the first and only time. The self-proclaimed billionaire had just acquired Head skis in 1995 and would serve as its active Chief Executive Officer for over 25 years, until 2021. He stepped down as CEO following his election as President of the International Ski Federation (FIS) in June 2021. He has since maintained his role as Head’s Chairman of the Board, and his family remains the company’s majority owner. 

I had flown to New York to interview for the job of President of its US subsidiary. I thought I made an excellent presentation, but Eliash preferred Dynastar’s Carl Helmetag to me, finding me too aggressive for his own style, and saving me a relocation to Maryland. The stodgy Vermont resident barely lasted 3 years on the job probably, because Head’s owner was a little tyrant. 

Today, Johan Eliasch is seeking another term as president of the FIS, but his re-election campaign has triggered a bitter divide. He is facing strong opposition from major Western ski nations over his financial management, centralized control, and unique Georgian nomination. 

Eliasch is aiming to extend his tenure as FIS president, but his campaign has been mired in political drama and pushback from within the sport. Because neither of his home countries (Sweden and Great Britain) were willing to back him, Eliasch acquired Georgian citizenship and was nominated by the Georgian Ski Association.

The most influential national ski associations—including Norway, the United States, Austria, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, and Canada—sent a joint letter strongly opposing his continued leadership. Because of Vion’s cushy job at FIS in Bern, the French have remained silent. Critics and opposing federations cite two main points of tension. 

First, opposing nations claim that the federation's financial reserves and stability have deteriorated significantly since Eliasch took office in 2021. Eliasch has pushed for aggressive centralization of media and marketing rights against traditional European federations’ wishes that want to keep both autonomy and revenue, leading to accusations that he runs the FIS autocratically. 

Eliasch faces a heavily contested field of four other candidates seeking the presidency. The election battle and control of the FIS governing body will be decided in five days at its upcoming Congress in Belgrade, Serbia. Once a little dictator, always turn into a big one!

The extra effort

It is amazing how sometimes, when we’re seemingly tired and are done for the day, a little extra effort can accomplish and for certainty, will add up in what we accomplished. I was reminded of it a few days ago as I was aerating our veggie garden, a yearly chore that I loathe. 

If I were putting my mind to it, I could still find mental and physical resources that would add up to a lot and make a huge difference in the job produced. I disregarded my internal calls for indulging into self-satisfaction and self-praise and leaving the job at a level substantially and quantitatively lower, but somehow mustered the resources to produce that magical extra effort. 

Was it the remnant of a habit I had observed in my family when I was a kid or that I have instinctively maintained throughout my adult life? Quite possibly, but it was still there to give me a head-start the next day when I would return to that job. I was just amazed about it and perhaps that amazement was amply justified. It made me realize that this “extra effort” is rarely about strength. 

It’s about intention. It’s about that quiet decision to lean in rather than step back, even when no one is watching and no one will praise us for it. And perhaps that is why it feels so strangely satisfying: because it reconnects us with a part of ourselves that refuses to settle for the minimum. Is it also a form of guilt? Quite possibly. A part of us that still believes in doing things well, not for recognition, but because it shapes who we are and want to stay. 

As I grow older, I’m increasingly aware that these small choices accumulate. They become a kind of personal signature — the way we show up in the world, even in the most mundane tasks. Maybe that’s why the moment struck me as it reminded me that I’m still capable of that little surge of purpose, that quiet insistence on doing things properly. 

And that, in itself, felt like a gift. In the end, the extra effort wasn’t about the veggie garden at all. It was about remembering that there is always a little more inside us than we think — a reserve we only discover when we choose to reach for it.

Olympic introspection… (Part Five)

It’s often strange how highly important decisions are made. France secured the 2030 Winter Olympics because it offered the IOC a low‑risk, politically supported, geographically coherent, and legacy‑focused plan across the French Alps. In truth, after Sweden’s withdrawal, it became on November 29, 2023, the IOC’s sole (it then said “preferred”) candidate. 

With a blatant shortage of candidates, the so-called IOC’s “new system” emphasized stability, feasibility, and political guarantees rather than competitive bidding. The French delegation was led by President Emmanuel Macron, who personally expressed France’s full commitment to delivering the Games and the IOC said it placed enormous weight on government guarantees, especially for the Winter Games that require complex infrastructure and climate‑resilient planning. 

France met these conditions within the IOC’s timeline. What made the IOC accept a Games spread across the entire French Alps was a concern to use existing venues and established winter‑sport regions to fit its new strategy, in spite of its highly publicized “sustainability” focus versus huge transportation needs. The IOC also liked the appealing narrative that the French Alps combined historic Olympic sites with modern facilities, creating a blend of heritage and future‑oriented planning. 

This was seen as reducing risk and enhancing the Games’ narrative appeal. France also had to offer explicit financial commitments to the IOC.in order to address its concerns about cost overruns and political uncertainty. 

Unlike other recent bids that stretched across multiple countries or distant cities, the French Alps were seen as forming a continuous, well‑connected winter‑sports corridor (more than 160 miles as the crow flies). Finally, France’s recent success with the Paris 2024 Summer Olympics clinched the deal. Should I repeat that the IOC had no other option?

Edgar Grospiron was chosen to lead the 2030 Winter Olympics Organizing Committee through a formal vote of the General Assembly of the newly created committee. on February 18, 2025. I’ve seen him when he was a toddler, as his parents moved to work for Vuarnet Sports, at Avoriaz, in the early 70s. 

The General Assembly justified its choice based on Grospiron’s deep Olympic and sports‑movement experience, which included, among others, Olympic champion in mogul skiing at Albertville 1992, Leader of the Annecy 2018 Winter Olympics bid and longstanding involvement in French winter‑sports governance. These credentials were explicitly cited as reasons for his appointment. 

Grospiron, who will turn 57 in March, is remarkably extroverted and might have lacked the diplomatic skills and managerial experience need for the job. That happened to me too. Still, the position is highly visible and well remunerated (probably around $25,000 to $35,000 a month), something kept secret in the French tradition of keeping a tight lid on transparency. 

It’s worth noting that Giovanni Malagò who ran the Milan 26 took no salary. More recently, the committee has experienced significant internal tensions, including the resignation of the CEO, COO, communications director, and head of the remuneration committee. These events do not affect how he was selected but help explain why his leadership has been under scrutiny. 

Time will tell us how this complex project develops in the less than four years that are left prior to the games…

Olympic introspection… (Part Four)

Without worrying about transparency, Alberville 1992, Lillehammer 1994, Nagano 1998 and even Salt Lake City 2002, never provided a detailed final budget, or profit and loss statement, or even cost‑overrun figures.

However, it’s pretty obvious that the Games required major infrastructure investments, with extensive venue constructions, major regional transport upgrades and development across multiple venues. Each likes to infer that its Games broke even, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Torino 2006 and Sochi 2014 are totally different stories though, with Torino ending with a financial outcome clearly negative, and the Games leaving a long‑term burden on the city and its region. The clearest source states that the 2006 Turin Games “left a legacy of large debts and unused infrastructure”, describing the event as a cautionary tale for future hosts. The Games did not break even, the city and region were left holding a significant debt, The financial legacy was negative, period. 

Sochi was clearly engineered by Putin and with his oligarch friends and his subjects’ money he treated himself to the most expensive Olympics in history, and the financial outcome is unusually well‑documented. The available sources paint a consistent picture of massive cost overruns, extremely high total spending, and a long‑term economic burden, with only limited offsetting benefits. Independent analyses show that the total cost reached $55 billion, up from an original bid estimate of $12 billion. 

This represents a 4.5 times cost overrun, one of the largest ever recorded for any Olympic Games. Of that, $16 billion were sports‑related costs (venues, operations) while the remaining $39 billion went to non‑sports infrastructure such as roads, rail, power, and hotels. It’s evidently breaking records for cost overrun at $51 billion!

The jury is still out on the Milano–Cortina 2026 Games that just happened, but budget, overruns, and likely financial outcome are already well‑documented. 

The initial operating budget began at $1.77 billion and officially was revised to $2 billion. But its initial infrastructure budget at $4.5 billion might end up at $4.75 billion. 

Broader estimates place the overall cost at $6 to $7 billion when combining operations, venues, and legacy projects. Some analyses include all related works (roads, transport, regional upgrades) and reach $9.15 billion total, of which only $1.9 billion is strictly “Games-related”. 

Let’s wait and see a little to see at which level the final cost settles in. Some reports suggest that thee Organizing Committee Milano Cortina 2026 is on track to show a surplus between $59 million to $95 million. 

This would largely be due to record-breaking domestic sponsorship revenue, which surpassed $825 million. We’ll see! Tomorrow, we’ll plunge into the ambitious and highly complicated next Olympics, Alps 2030!

Olympic introspection… (Part Three)

If we examine the most recent Winter Olympics from 1992 to this day, we also see different tales and from best to worst, we may be surprised, but won’t be shocked. Across the board, full transparency is not the order of the day and may reflect the IOC’s secretive culture. 

Among the well-behaved and more responsible Olympic winter sites there is a remarkable trio. It’s Vancouver 2010, PyeongChang (South Korea) 2018 and Beijing 2022 that, just like the cream, rise to the top in behavior and performance.

PyeongChang is arguably the best and one of the very few Games that ended with a confirmed financial surplus, backed by crystal-clear numbers. The picture becomes even more interesting when we look at operational budget, infrastructure spending, and economic results side by side. Operationally, it yielded a confirmed $55 million surplus based on revenue of $2.245 billion and expenditure of $2.190 billion. 

If we can believe the Chinese, Beijing 2022 follows with one of the clearest and most unusual financial profiles of any recent Winter Olympics. Another surplus posted by the organizing committee, while the overall cost of the Games was far higher than originally planned. The available sources give us solid numbers on both sides, with a $52 million surplus on $2.3 billion revenue. 

The IOC also stated it would contribute US $10.4 million of its share of the surplus to the Chinese Olympic Committee. Vancouver too, ended up with a clean, documented financial outcome and a very clear picture. The Games are widely regarded as well‑managed financially, though the story differs depending on whether we look at operational costs or infrastructure spending. 

While the operating budget broke even, the infrastructure budget—which included venues, roads, transit, and city improvements—was a separate matter. Two major figures stand out, $603 million for venue development, delivered on budget, but $554.3 million were spent by the City of Vancouver alone for capital infrastructure and Games‑related operations. 

But like most Olympics, the public sector absorbed the infrastructure costs, which are not counted in the break‑even result. Tomorrow we’ll take a look at the other Games, including a preview of Milan 2026.

Olympic introspection… (Part Two)

Today, we’ll explore how financially successful the Olympics (mostly summer) were. We’ll begin with the single Olympic Games that really made money, Los Angeles in 1984, a standout example. These were operated without public funds and still delivered a surplus of over $200 million. Unsurprisingly, they became the model for how to run a lean, privately financed Games. Obviously the example didn’t translate into further success. 

Other Games have occasionally broken even or come close, but 1984 remained the only universally acknowledged major profit-maker. Then there are the many losers. Most Games since the 1960s have run massive deficits. Here are a few notorious examples, starting with Montreal 1976 that was so over budget that it took the city 30 years to pay off the debt. 

That should have been a cautionary tale for future hosts, but Athens also fell in the trap with billions in overruns and many venues abandoned afterward. In the case of Greece these costs overrun were the brick that broke the camel’s back in exacerbating that country’s later financial strain. In Brazil, Rio 2016 also had some severe cost overruns with many venues falling into disuse within months after the Games and long-term economic benefits failed to materialize. 

Even the careful Japanese and Tokyo 2020 (held in 2021) saw the Games’ costs ballooning due to COVID-19 delays, not to mention the fact that the expected tourism benefits evaporated as spectators were banned. As far as Paris 2024 was concerned the outcomes are still being evaluated, but early analysis shows that hosting the Games was “anything but cheap,” with costs around $8.7 billion. This rather negative outcome explains why fewer and fewer cities want to bid for the Olympics. 

The massive cost overruns are the main reason as Olympics routinely exceed their budgets by huge margins. As a result, cities know they’re taking on a huge financial risk with little chance of profit. Then there are the long-term debt and infrastructure maintenance costs. After the Games end, cities must maintain stadiums, arenas, transportation expansions, athlete villages and special infrastructures like bobsleigh runs that often become “white elephants.” 

There’s also growing public resistance as residents increasingly vote against hosting in referendums because they don’t want higher taxes, displacement, construction disruption and long-term debt. The Colorado population stands as an example for vehemently rejecting the 1976 Winter Games in Denver. 

Finally the IOC has gained a really bad reputation with its high demands for expensive new venues, costly adherence to new specifications, strict branding rules, heavy security, thin financial contribution and its nasty habit of grabbing most of the revenue generated. Next, we’ll focus on some of the most successful Winter Olympic venues in recent history and how each one performed in its own ways…

Olympic introspection… (Part One)

Now that the Winter Olympics are behind us, time for some introspection. As I said many times in this blog, the Olympic Games have morphed into a big business that’s not necessarily making money for everyone. 

As we all suspect, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and major corporate sponsors profit most from the Games, with the IOC generating billions from broadcasting (61%) and marketing (30%). Conversely, host cities and national taxpayers bear the majority of the financial burden, often covering massive, frequently over-budget construction, security, and operational costs. 

Talk about an expensive form of entertainment even if you don’t care to watch it, you’ll be guaranteed to pay for it! Yet, the whole enterprise is pushed – as usual - by our dear politicians. Cities or now, regions still bid despite these huge financial risks for a few simple reasons. It represents a super easy political job as it brings prestige and is seen as a global status symbol. In addition, local developers push hard because they profit regardless of the outcome. 

It’s easy to formulate optimistic economic projections and affordable costs, long before the event and bid committees never hesitate to use inflated forecasts in selling the idea to the public. Consider this, every Olympics since 1960 has gone over budget (except for Los Angeles in 1984), often massively with an average cost overrun at 172%. Montreal took 30 years to pay off its Olympic debt while Rio and Athens were left with abandoned venues and long‑term economic strain.

Did I mention that the jumps in Prelegato for Torino 2006 have become white elephants while Milan rebuilt new jumps in Val di Fieme even further away. Finally, there’s the “legacy” narrative as cities and host venues are promised long‑term benefits that rarely materialize. In the next episode we’ll dig deeper into the Olympics’ financial roller-coaster...

Dialing down to last longer… (Part Two)

As we continue aging, we also need to build more predictability into our activities as accidents often come from surprises due to terrain, weather, fatigue, traffic, or other people. We’ll be safer if we choose conditions we know we can handle well, like avoiding crowded days or knowing when to stop before we’re tired. It’s not fear, it’s simply strategy. 

Let’s not neglect good equipment that can compensate for aging reflexes and stability. For instance, better helmets, goggles, bindings, and skis well tuned. Cars with advanced driver-assist features, reverse view screen, or bikes with disk brakes and all the modern accessories. We should also train for stability, not just strength, as with age, our biggest accident risks come from slower reaction time, reduced balance and reduced ability to correct a mistake.

These measures don’t just make us safer, they make you feel younger. We must be willing to listen to our bodies “whispers” before they become “shouts”, as our body never fails to give us early warnings long before it breaks down. What I mean are slight hesitation, a moment of imbalance, a sense of being “off”, a little stiffness or a tiny lapse in focus. 

When we were young, we could ignore these, older we shouldn’t. We also need to redefine what “risk” means. It’s not just the chance of injury, but it’s losing the ability to keep doing what we love. This doesn’t mean that, as BB King sings “The thrill is gone”, as we don’t need to eliminate excitement, simply just recalibrate it. 

Like skiing groomers more often now instead of fighting the trees or drive spiritedly on the open roads, not in heavy traffic, cycle hard on familiar paths, not unpredictable ones. Reframe aging as an evolution, not a decline. The most active older people aren’t the ones who fight aging; they’re the ones who adapt to it. Let’s stay curious, disciplined, and self-aware. 

We don’t stop moving, we just adapt the way we move. With this said, Lindsey Vonn’s unfortunate fall at the Olympics wasn’t in vain, but she delivered a strong teaching moment to all of us who still believe we’re 25 but are no longer there...

Dialing down to last longer… (Part One)

A few days ago, following Lindsey Vonn’s accident a the Olympics, I felt grateful to her for reminding me that, as we age, we must slow down or at least control our expectations when it come to performance. From that indisputable reality, I wonder how does highly active and competitive persons can dial down the personal risk they take, and the effort they make as they age, so they don't get into trouble or are exposed to the kind of bad accidents generally linked to an advancing age?

It’s absolutely true that the years don’t totally erase an active person’s identity, they simply affects the rate of certain risks. The real challenge is psychological. Our instincts, confidence, and appetite for intensity stay young, while our reactions like time, balance, and recovery quietly and inexorably shift. 

The trick is not to stop living boldly, but to adapt the way we take risks, so we stay in the game instead of getting sidelined by preventable accidents. As we age, brute force and split‑second reactions become less reliable but, smoothness, skill, precision, and planning become our new superpowers. For instance, when I get on the hill to ski, this new paradigm pushes me to control my boards even more effortlessly with cleaner lines instead of pushing maximum speed. 

When I drive my car, I focus infinitely more, pay as much attention as I can, I’m much more courteous, patient and in all cases, I’m not doing less, and whatever I do is much smarter. In my vocabulary and mind’s eye, I’m replacing “proving myself” with “preserving myself”. 

Younger people often push limits to test themselves. Older folks push limits to stay alive and active for decades. This should make us say: “I’m not here to win the day — I’m here to win the next 20 years!” Such a mindset naturally reduces unnecessary risk-taking. Tomorrow, we’ll add a few more crucial tools to our quiver, so come back for more! 

Who originated paragliding? (Part Two)

In 1985, As Jean-Claude Bétemps, along with Gérard Bosson and André Bohn were busy developing their new sport, came Laurent de Kalbermatten. A Swiss pilot, he made the jump from modified parachutes to "La Randonneuse," the very first wing designed solely for paragliding (using non-porous fabric and rigid lines).

This is when paragliding ceased to be a variant of skydiving and became a free-flight sport in its own right. This model was at the beginning of mass production. Other manufacturers and designs soon followed. With more models available, the number of practitioners increased along with marketing and competition between companies, all this resulted in the technical development of paragliding in terms of ease of use, performance, and safety. 

The first recorded record in free flight distance is 69.15 km and was set by Hans Jörg Bachmair on 10 June 1989, which has been officially recorded by the International Aeronautical Federation (FAI). Soon paragliding was organized as a legitimate sport. The first European championship was held in 1988 in St Hilaire, France. The following year, the first world championship was held in Koosen, Austria. Much later, in 2004, the Asian championship in Handong, South Korea and in 2008, the Pan-American in Castelo, Brazil. 

My friend Anselme Baud who was a faculty member at the ENSA, the Chamonix-based school for mountain guides and ski instructors, in addition to being one of the pioneers of extreme (steep) skiing, played a role in adding the use of skis to the practice. In the early winter 79/80, on Plan Praz, at the Brevent’s gondola mid-station, in Chamonix, as Jean-Claude Bétemps was conducting tests with his "paraplane" (the name for the early paraglider). 

Instead of taking off on foot, Anselme Baud ​​ket his skis on to gain speed. He launched himself down the slope, took off for a few hundred meters before touching down on the snow again and skiing away. Anselme saw in the paraglider not just a flying machine, but a "mountain tool" allowing him to descend faster or overcome obstacles impassable on skis.  

In conclusion, Jean-Claude Bétemps, along with partners André Bohn and Gérard Bosson, while an instrumental trio in inventing the sport, were more focused on the technical development and the promotion of paragliding as a new, accessible sport, rather than aggressively marketing and monetizing it like a Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg would have done. 

The sheer popularity of their innovation created a massive boom in the 1980s. Independent manufacturers quickly stepped in to improve the equipment, leading to a booming industry that they paved the way for, without enjoying the fruit of their invention. 

Now, just like me, you know the whole story...

Who originated paragliding? (Part One)

Paragliding has always amazed and interested me, even though I knew nothing about its origins. It was preceded by the delta-wing, hang-glider, a key precursor to foot-launched aviation, invented in 1963 by John Dickenson, an Australian engineer for water-ski towing. 

It’s Bill Bennett and Bill Moyes that further developed Dickenson's design in the early 1970s, turning the water-ski kite into a foot-launchable hang glider which hooked many of my French countrymen. Hang-gliding led to paragliding which history is quite fascinating because it’s not based on one single invention, but on a series of pioneers who transformed a survival device (the parachute) into a fun implement. In searching for those "truly" at the origin of the sport as we know it today, we find a group of technical precursors. 

Before paragliding became a sport, it was necessary to invent the double-surface wing that would allows it to work. In 1964 an American, Domina Jalbert, the real inventor, Domina Jalbert, patented the Parafoil. Consider it as the birth certificate of the cell wing. Before him, parachutes were round; after, they became rectangular and capable of generating real lift. 

One year later David Barish, a consultant for NASA, developed the Sailwing (a single-surface wing). He was the first to practice what he called "Slope Soaring" on a ski slope at Hunter Mountain, near New York, dropping 200 feet. 

Although Barish was technically the first "paraglider," the activity did not catch on and fell into oblivion for more than a decade. 

On June 25, 1978, in Mieussy (17 miles from my hometown of Montriond, in Haute-Savoie) three parachutists from the Annemasse aero-club decided to take off from a Mieussy slope instead of jumping from a plane to save on flying costs. 

Their idea came from reading an article in the 1972 Parachute manual that referenced David Barish's Sloape Soaring. Jean-Claude Bétemps, who will turn 77 this year, often called the father of paragliding, was the one who performed the very first test (a small jump down the slope).

André Bohn: a high-level Swiss skydiver followed and made the first true sustained flight later that year, taking off from a slope on Mont Pethuiset and landing 1000 meters lower in the valley, on the Mieussy football field. 

Gérard Bosson structured the activity and in 1979, founded, with Michel Didriche and Georges Perret, the world's first paragliding club and school: "Les Choucas" in Mieussy. He was instrumental in promoting the sport internationally. 

Tomorrow, will see how further improvements and adaptations have molded the practice of paragliding...

Age and risk-taking

The accident just sustained by Lindsey Vonn at the Olympics reminds me of another ski comeback, that of Bill Johnson, former downhill Olympic champion at the 1984 Sarajevo Games. At age 40, weighed down by personal struggles and chasing a sense of former glory, he attempted an improbable return for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. 

The bid ended abruptly on March 22, 2001, when Johnson crashed during a training run before the downhill race at the US Alpine Championships in Montana. The injuries were catastrophic — severe brain trauma, a nearly severed tongue, and a three‑week coma. His body simply couldn’t cash the checks his competitive instinct kept writing.

I’m not in Lindsey’s head, but watching her come in fast, catch air, catch the gate and lose control, we can almost feel the split-second where instinct and physiology parted ways. That’s the paradox of aging: the mind stays young, hungry, convinced it can still summon the same reactions, while the body quietly rewrites the limits. 

The gap between intention and execution becomes just wide enough for disaster to slip through. I half-jokingly call this the “Biden syndrome” — not political commentary, but a shorthand for that universal human illusion that we’re still 25 on the inside. It’s a reminder that experience doesn’t always compensate for the slow erosion of reaction time, balance, and resilience. 

More than ever, I’ll try to learn from this when I ski or drive. Respecting one’s limits isn’t cowardice; it’s wisdom earned the hard way by others who pushed past theirs.

Olympics opening ceremony

Yesterday afternoon, skiing wasn’t good enough to go out and try to have fun, so, instead my wife and I watched the entire Olympic ceremony. Something we hadn’t done in a very long time. We liked some of the acts, like as always the athletes' presentation and fashion show in which the best outfit is the enemy of the good.

Some acts were a bit over the top, but that’s a question of personal taste. We found the event far too long. Almost 3 hours could have been done in two. I liked it when J.D. Vance and Israel got jeered. 

Still, we liked the speech by Zimbabwe’s Kirsty Coventry, the new President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) as of June 2025. 

We felt bad that people still die in Sudan, Gaza and Ukraine, while thousands have fun in Italy, but I guess humanity can still walk and watch their smartphones at the same time…

Sketchers’ preliminary results…

It’s been over two weeks since I’ve experienced walking with my new pair of max cushion shoes. Again the name of these walking or running shoes refers to their thick, soft mid-soles designed for shock absorption and comfort offered by Hoka and Sketchers, but also by brands like New Balance (Fresh Foam More), ASICS (Gel-Nimbus), and Brooks (Ghost Max). 

This footwear offers significant comfort and impact absorption but can lead to drawbacks such as reduced stability and potentially altered running mechanics. 

As far as I was concerned, I saw them as the solution for the metarsallagia I have suffered since last April, mostly for wearing running shoes with a toe box far too narrow. If that were not the case and what I suffer from is actually more a form of arthritis, as I initially assumed it was, so much the better! 

Their thick mid-soles absorb a large amount of road impact, even when walking, making the shoe feel soft underfoot. This makes a huge difference with my former shoes and their ultra-thin front sole that makes you feel any pebble or irregularities in the pavement. This obviously leads to a more comfortable experience, especially on hard surfaces like concrete or asphalt which sums up what I’m walking on. 

The shoes seem to reduce the load transmitted through the sole of the foot and its interior bones and offer a good balance of cushioning and energy return, which might theoretically improve efficiency over long distances. 

I was warned about getting less lateral stability, a risk of ankle rolls or sprains, particularly during quick changes in direction or on uneven surfaces but I didn’t find anything noticeable there and my foot pains has been largely reduced, which so far is a good step in the right direction. 

The next marker in my evaluation will be their durability, so please stay tuned for that. 

Olympic “Crisis” in France (Part Two)

The situation surrounding the 2030 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games in the French Alps is beginning to simmer and appears rooted in the reasons that led to the Scandinavian story we just evoked that both perfectly parallel. These 2030 Games have recently become a source of palpable tension. Here's what I was able to gather, what’s happening and what are the main issues at stake in the dispute. 

The 2030 Winter Games were officially awarded to the French Alps by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) at its 142nd session in July 2024. The award was conditional, but the French government provided the necessary financial guarantees. The project was for the competitions to be organized around an oversize geographical area and four main zones: Haute-Savoie, Savoie, Briançon (Hautes-Alpes), and Nice (Alpes-Maritimes), pretty much the entire French Alps from North to South! 

Just like for the 2034 Utah Games, there was a strong commitment to making maximum use of existing facilities that were a legacy of the 1992 Albertville Games. In dispute today are in fact three issues: Climate, Costs, and buying from the population. The dispute surrounding these Games is not about the principle of sport itself, but about the project's suitability in light of current climate, economics, and social realities in France. 

If we begin with the climate issue it’s directly related to planetary warming and environmental challenge, chief among them the risk of not having snow (something Utah doesn’t seem to worry about). In the context of climate change, holding the Winter Games in the Alps, even in 2030, is considered unrealistic and irresponsible by citizen groups and environmentalists. Their concerns is that it requires a heavy reliance on man-made snow that requires enormous quantities of water and energy, as well as the construction of infrastructure (roads, reservoirs, etc.) that could become obsolete after the events. 

Then there’s the official promise that these Games will be "sustainable" and will "respect the ecological balance". This wasn’t lost on the critics that argue that none of the "sustainability" promises are achievable given the current plan. Follows the precipitated decision or what’s been called the "Democratic Deficit". 

The bid was put together in a hurry at the end of 2023, following the withdrawal of other contenders. Critics denounce a rushed decision-making process conducted by a very small group (French National Olympic and Sports Committee, regional authorities, and the State) without prior public consultation of the affected populations. 

A citizens' group has even taken legal action to obtain a public debate. Finally there’s the issue of money and cost. Residents and local elected officials are questioning the transparency of the actual costs and who will truly benefit from the jobs and infrastructure. They fear that the long-term maintenance costs of the new structures will fall on local communities. 

More recently the dispute took a major institutional turn with the recent announcement (early December 2025) of the Savoie Departmental Council's withdrawal from the current organizational structure of the Organizing Committee. Savoie, where several key events are planned (La Plagne and Courchevel among others), is an essential partner. 

Its withdrawal, even partial, sends a very strong signal that could jeopardize the project in its current form and reflects political, budgetary, and climate-related doubts, even among those who traditionally support the Games. In short, the dispute revolves around the question of whether France can and should host the 2030 Winter Games, given the climate emergency and the need for democratic consultation and financial transparency, especially if it involves heavy investments in climate-vulnerable areas. 

Something we’ll have to watch closely.

Less appetite for the Winter Olympics? (Part One)

In recent years, Norway and Sweden, both historical powerhouses in winter sports that possess the needed expertise and infrastructure, have repeatedly withdrawn from bidding for the Winter Olympic Games. Their successive withdrawals (notably Stockholm for 2022 and 2026, and Oslo for 2022) are explained by a combination of political, financial, and cultural factors that reflect growing distrust of the modern Olympic Games’ economic model. 

First and foremost are the budgetary pressure and the taxpayer role, the most direct reason for the withdrawal of several bids, including those of Stockholm and Oslo (both for 2022). These Nordic countries have robust social systems and a strong tradition of prudent management of public funds. Citizens and politicians are very skeptical about promises of long-term economic benefits. They fear that the Games would only drain resources for a fleeting event.

There was also a widespread rejection of "White Elephants”, these specific facilities like bobsleigh and luge tracks that have no use after the Games and which maintenance would fall on taxpayers, especially in view of the Games historical cost overruns. Unlike countries like Austria or France, the Scandinavian countries have a strong culture of citizen consultation for major public projects like the Olympic Games, where bids are typically met with weak popular support, or even outright rejection in key referendums or polls. Residents do not see any direct benefits on their quality of life. 

There’s also a rejection of elitism in an egalitarian country like Norway. The opulence, lavish spending, and "elitist" nature of the IOC's (International Olympic Committee) demands are poorly received by a population that values ​​simplicity and equality. Furthermore the demands of the IOC have been criticized in Scandinavian countries as they’re perceived as excessive and sometimes disconnected from local realities, an arrogance that I have always deplored. 

This explains why these withdrawals of Scandinavian countries are not due to a lack of capacity to host the Games, but to a political and ethical choice. They simply refuse to spend billions of euros of public money on an event whose benefits they believe do not justify the cost, the environmental impact, and the demands of the IOC, which they consider too elitist. 

All this Scandinavian story to match a similar developing situation in France, where I recently learned that there was a lot of discontent broiling about the 2030 Winter Olympic Games planned for the entire French Alps. Tomorrow, I’ll try to explain what it’s all about.