March 2002
Do we need the Olympics?
Another set of Olympics are over. Yes, it is just the Winter incarnation, but it is the same beast. The question remains: do we really need these things?
Let me start with drugs. We saw the usual “doping” scandals (as I explained on these pages a year and a half ago, during the last Olympics, “doping” is not a word I am comfortable with). These scandals tarnish all sorts of images. FISA, the rowing governing body, is especially harsh on drug abuse, for which the International Olympic Committee pours on the praise. But where does it get us? In more prominent sports, there is more willingness to forget, or bury, these scandals. They blow up when they can no longer keep hidden, and then shove it back under the carpet as soon as possible. The Olympics, which are all about image, are not going to let the glamour sports and athletes tarnish that image. If need be, the Olympic Movement will use its image to shine up the glamour sports. Why do we bother being squeaky-clean just to help out the good-for-nothings? It is akin to paying taxes to corrupt politicians who not only line their own pockets with our tax money but also dodge taxes themselves.
Of course, the biggest drug scandal involved some cross-country skiers who were caught taking a drug which was not on the banned list but which the Olympic folks decided should have been. As a result, they got to keep the medals they won before they were caught, but were stripped of the ones they won after they were caught. Now, I am perfectly willing to accept arguments for why these drugs should have been banned, but the fact was they were not. These athletes were done in for fuzzy rule interpretations. There were suspicions that they had taken drugs on the banned list, and hence their remarkable performances, but they were not caught with those. And if they are on drugs which are worth banning, then take away all of their medals. Consistency, folks!
It is all very fuzzy and very opaque. As I said here after the last Summer Games, maybe it is time to reconsider whether to ban anything. Medicine will constantly make breakthroughs. In fact, all sorts of science will – scientific research does not only produce drugs, but also tells us what foods to eat and how to train effectively. Maybe we should proscribe diets for all would-be Olympic athletes, or go even further and ban people from training altogether, because it might give someone an advantage.
The second major scandal involved bribery of judges in figure skating. I do not really care what the facts were, nor do I see a need to discuss them here. One thing is clear, however. There is something inherently wrong with a so-called “sport” which is determined entirely by judges. Who is faster, higher, stronger, scores more points, or whatever, is determinative. Umpires keep things fair (yes, umpires’ decisions do impact even pure sports, but there remains something empirical about them), but umpires are not – or should not be - the sole determining factor. This is not to show disrespect to the talent and athleticism of, for example, figure skaters. But it is hardly a sport. As one commentator said, ballet involves athleticism, discipline, years of training, but at the end of a ballet we show our appreciation by clapping. No one wins a ballet (someone may get better reviews in the newspaper, though).
This whole operation is more about marketing than it is about sports. If they do not abolish all events decided solely by judges, then maybe it is time for real sports to let them get on with their staged shenanigans. Maybe pro wrestling can replace rowing at the next Olympics, too.
Speaking of marketing, it is worth noting the increasing prominence of professional athletes at the Games. Once upon a time, an American track and field star named Jim Thorpe was deprived of his stash of medals because it was discovered that he had once accepted money to play semi-professional baseball. The somewhat naïve Thorpe had no idea that getting paid a few bucks at some point in his life for doing one thing would mean he was no longer considered an amateur when he did something else for free.
Of course, it is silly to think that athletes today can achieve what they are doing without support. The Soviet-bloc countries long put forward “amateur” athletes who all happened to be serving in the army where they were also, by chance of course, assigned to practice their sport all day. And today, with athletes receiving funding and sponsorship, they have probably all crossed the line that would have once disqualified them.
But then the line needs a rethink. How many more “dream teams” do we need or want? Does this create more of a spectacle? If so, then go the distance with it and focus on the glamour, and stop messing with everyone else. If not, then go back to amateur-only Olympics, with very clear definitions.
They say the Olympics are about participation. Of course, they do not really mean that. They like a few stories, but other than that its about money. One story which got airtime this Winter involved a middle-aged professor at Drexel University in Philadelphia. He happened to be Thai and realized that no one in Thailand knew how to ski, apparently. So he represented Thailand. Cross country skiing has a rule that if anyone gets lapped they have to withdraw from the race so as not to clog the front of the field (space on the rails being limited). He made it one lap. Similarly, in the 2000 Summer Games, some swimmer from Africa who had never swum more than 25 meters in one go before and had never even seen an Olympic-sized swimming pool, entered some event and set a new record for slowness. Everyone cheered.
Now it was great that these folks had a chance to compete, but let us step back a moment here. In 1992, some eighteen-year-old from Lebanon, who had learned to row that year while studying at the University of Vienna, decided to represent Lebanon in the single scull. He finished dead last in the F-level final, a good two minutes behind the second-to-last place. The announcer proclaimed that it was the first time Lebanon had ever entered a boat in any international rowing regatta. He got a standing ovation. After those Games, the IOC issued an ultimatum to FISA to limit the number of athletes who could compete in 1996. That number was further reduced in 2000. Rowing is obviously not that interesting to the Olympic gurus.
But rowing is one of the original (modern) Olympic sports. That there was no rowing at the 1896 Games, the first of the modern era, has to do with weather conditions in Athens. Rowing had been on the schedule. IOC dignitaries will proclaim over an over how rowing embodies everything good about the Olympic ideal. But then they will elbow the sport off the stage.
FISA has made strides in the last decade or so to make rowing more appealing to the Olympic movement. Concession after concession is made. Spares are banned from the Olympic village, while places for political appointees mount upwards. Events are reduced, while the program gets crowded with non-sports. When FISA discusses rule changes and the future of the sport of rowing, it does not do so in the context of what may or may not be good for rowing, but instead does so in the context of what will or will not be pleasing to the IOC.
And who is the IOC? Well, we did not need these Winter Olympics to even take place to remind us of scandal. The Salt Lake City Games were tarnished with corruption before they even began. And what is the IOC doing about it? Well, it made some changes to the window dressing. But even Juan Antonio Samaranch came out squeaky-clean.
Samaranch, a fascist tool who rebranded himself as pro-Soviet when the time suited him. Samaranch, a Catalan who spat on his origins until the Olympics were held in his hometown and he discovered that his given name was really Joan Antoni and the “ch” at the end of his surname was pronounced “k,” and he remembered a few words of what should have been his native language if he had not been too busy castigating people who dared speak it. Samaranch, who went out with every conceivable honor and even managed to get his son in on the perks before he left the building.
Even the use of word “Olympic” has taken the movement to new depths. I am not even sure this website can be viewed legally in Britain, as the Olympic Movement there has taken on the interpretation that only it may use the word “Olympics” and related words, or license the words to official sponsors. This has become quite clear as various rowing suppliers have been threatened for stating out loud that their equipment was used by gold-medal-winning crews (or any crews, for that matter). In some cases, they also provided services to the Olympic squad at reduced rates – or no charge at all. All they tried to do was to say the truth: “the boat used by X crew at the Sydney Olympics” or some such. Not the “official equipment,” mind you, just a statement of fact that someone actually used their equipment. Considering that not too many rowing-supply firms are official sponsors of the Olympics movement, it is not even like they caused a conflict (I remember a conflict with the US basketball Dream Team once, where some of the members had sneaker contracts with firms which were not the official sponsor, and there was a huge debate over what sneakers they would or could wear, and what logo would or could appear on their uniform). If Vespoli wants to say it built the British eight, and Carl Douglas wants to say he made the riggers and other fittings, and Croker wants to say it manufactured the oars, then good on them. Apparently the lawyers do not think so. I suppose they want us to believe that Coke built the boat, Visa made the riggers, and IBM manufactured the blades. Hogwash.
The Olympic movement has far too many problems and is best left to solve them on its own. In the meantime, we should worry about our own sport. If that does not coincide with the goals of the Olympic Movement as it has evolved today, then maybe it is time for rowing to leave.