Of course bad press like this may eat into their profits and perceptions of the Olympics, or maybe they actually like the buzz it's generating. Let's be honest; would we have watched the luge if the death didn't take place? Heck I may not even watch the luge now since NBC are Nazis with event scheduling, and frankly the event is not too interesting to me. But for "human interest", I am sure they will replay luge on prime time, as well as every Georgian athlete, even if they suck. But man, can you imagine what is going through the other lugers' heads when they run the track?
--------
It was on youtube and has been taken down. It was a 480P Television feed; you hear a hollow metallic thud, then the cry of the coach. To me the guy is dead instantly and the coach knew he was gone but they say he passed at the hospital. F1 has an unwritten rule where no driver dies on the track and I think luge may have the same.
I never considered this sport very dangerous b/c of the lack of deaths. I think it comes down to track design but we'll see what they blame it on.
Expendable meat is right Tim but it's everywhere. In a bid to increase ratings Nascar has changed the rules to allow bump drafting, and larger restrictor-plates for Daytona. Which means more high speed crashes in a sport riddled with deaths.
I'm not surprised when it comes from Nascar but the IOC needs re-evaluate themselves. They have some new downhill ski sport where multiple athletes race together. It sounds and is dangerous, with risk increasing when multiple racers jockey for position. I heard a news report on NPR talking about the dangers of it. While they were conducting an interview at a qualification event a crash occurred and a guy was paralyzed.
If you hang the chance of a gold someone will take on the challenge no matter what the risk. IOC can't wash their hands of this.
---------
Yeah certainly it's not just the Olympics - pro sports are our Roman Coliseum. Even NFL, as the players get bigger and stronger, they are hitting each other so hard that concussions are a big deal now even with better equipment tech. And some big lineman always passes out during summer training camp - especially at the college/HS levels.
Wow that "skiing motocross" sounds ridiculous. Are they trying to one-up the X-Games? But as you said, the fact that deaths are so rare in the Olympics shows they must be doing something right safety-wise. At least no one got gatted during biathalon.
Wow that "skiing motocross" sounds ridiculous. Are they trying to one-up the X-Games? But as you said, the fact that deaths are so rare in the Olympics shows they must be doing something right safety-wise. At least no one got gatted during biathalon.
----------
I hope that the Olympic committee takes this Georgia death and changes things so we do not see this in future Olympic games. Obviously, safety measures must be higher, especially in the fastest track in the world where turns go up to 95 miles per hour and athletes get concussions in practice. Additionally, maybe we should consider trials for countries to get into the Olympic games in the first place. I think it is a nice gesture that every country is represented in the games but if these "athletes" cannot compete with the major countries, why do we even consider them? I understand that a death in the games is a very small percentage. However, we should not be mourning an athlete in the opening ceremonies - Georgia, Ghana, and other small countries without snow that cannot come close to competing to larger countries like the US, Canada, etc. it is a waste of time for them to be in the Olympics. Let them watch the Olympics at the homes, practice, and treat it as a challenge to get into the olympics if their is a trial - there should be expectations.
---------
That's a good suggestion and well put. The "Olympic spirit" of all-inclusiveness, fair play, and such is BS. The elite 10 or so nations win 95% of the medals and world records, and only rich nations can host the Games (which are bad for the environment and maybe even bad financially - look at Greece). As you said, the token Ghana or Jamaica athletes in Vancouver may be heartwarming, but it's kind of a farce. The rich nations spend many times more on training and equipment, plus they scout for the best athletes (or even give immigrants citizenship to get on the team), so really they just bought themselves glory. Where's the sportsmanship in that?
Kind of a funny bitching piece on pro sport from C Hitchens: http://www.newsweek.com/id/
And my original bitching from 2008: http://worldaffairs-
Kind of a funny bitching piece on pro sport from C Hitchens: http://www.newsweek.com/id/
And my original bitching from 2008: http://worldaffairs-
--------
I dunno dude; seems a little cynical to say that the Olympic Spirit is "BS"... All the athletes compete on the same field regardless of how they got there and (short of boxing in Korea) there's no paying for performance once the games begin.
Also, I'm pretty sure there are trials and qualifying rounds well before competition and I have a hard time believing that any nation would send an athlete who is not performing at the same level.
PS: I think the most alarming thing is that NBC showed the video (without sound) on network tv (in prime-time no less!)... I thought real death was a media taboo, like "Faces of Death" or "Blood on the Asphault" or something; frankly, I was shocked and dumbfounded that the incident was shown.
Also, I'm pretty sure there are trials and qualifying rounds well before competition and I have a hard time believing that any nation would send an athlete who is not performing at the same level.
PS: I think the most alarming thing is that NBC showed the video (without sound) on network tv (in prime-time no less!)... I thought real death was a media taboo, like "Faces of Death" or "Blood on the Asphault" or something; frankly, I was shocked and dumbfounded that the incident was shown.
----------
Yeah, NBC probably decided between the ratings spike that the footage would generate, and the possible backlash from their decision that may cost ad dollars. And I guess by their estimate, the former was better for the bottom line? Well, they showed Oscar Grant getting shot by BART cops on the evening news too.
Come on, by no means are the rich nations' athletes of the same caliber as the poor nations (in general). I remember in the Nagano games, North Korean speed skaters were using obsolete skates vs. athletes from G8 nations, and of course got their ass kicked. In Sydney, I saw a female sprinter from Vietnam. She didn't even have a uniform with the national colors (literally, it looked like she was wearing a Dri-Fit top and jogging shorts that you get on sale at Big 5), while the US and UK had the fancy Nikes and spandex low-drag body suits. They put her in the outside lane (for the slowest runner), and finished the race many yards behind the winner. Of course these are just anecdotes, but the medal counts tell the story.
There is indirect pay for performance. The top athletes get the endorsement deals, and their national sports programs get corporate sponsors. No one wants to invest in a loser. I am not sure if the US Olympic Team is publicly funded, but I am sure they also depend on private money, donated equipment, travel grants, etc. And the Olympics are not "amateur" competition anymore if Agassi, LeBron, and Ovechkin participate.
Come on, by no means are the rich nations' athletes of the same caliber as the poor nations (in general). I remember in the Nagano games, North Korean speed skaters were using obsolete skates vs. athletes from G8 nations, and of course got their ass kicked. In Sydney, I saw a female sprinter from Vietnam. She didn't even have a uniform with the national colors (literally, it looked like she was wearing a Dri-Fit top and jogging shorts that you get on sale at Big 5), while the US and UK had the fancy Nikes and spandex low-drag body suits. They put her in the outside lane (for the slowest runner), and finished the race many yards behind the winner. Of course these are just anecdotes, but the medal counts tell the story.
There is indirect pay for performance. The top athletes get the endorsement deals, and their national sports programs get corporate sponsors. No one wants to invest in a loser. I am not sure if the US Olympic Team is publicly funded, but I am sure they also depend on private money, donated equipment, travel grants, etc. And the Olympics are not "amateur" competition anymore if Agassi, LeBron, and Ovechkin participate.
-------
I still think you're buying into something of a fallacy; you've heard the expression "talent is common, discipline is rare", haven't you? You point speaks more to poor nations not having the means to identify and develop talent than it does to any predictive capacity that a correlation between a nation and its level of sponsorship might hold.
BTW, I think the fact that poorer nations still send athletes makes the Olympics what it is in terms of spirit (i.e. heartwarming rather than a farce); you honestly don't find the effort of athletes from said countries inspiring?
BTW, I think the fact that poorer nations still send athletes makes the Olympics what it is in terms of spirit (i.e. heartwarming rather than a farce); you honestly don't find the effort of athletes from said countries inspiring?
--------
I would not call is inspiring, more like a waste of our time as larger nations - i think we should have two Olympics going on at the same time, kind of like NCAA basketball does during March with the good teams that make it into the March madness tourney, and the shit teams that don't make it and have to compete against each other in the NIT
We can have a NIT like Olympics for all these poorer countries so they won't feel left out, and then they can still win some medals...even though they wont really mean anything.
We can have a NIT like Olympics for all these poorer countries so they won't feel left out, and then they can still win some medals...even though they wont really mean anything.
---------
I think discipline and talent are both rare, but at least you can teach discipline (usually).
Well, I think poorer nations have other priorities besides luge and hammer throw. Feed, vaccinate, and educate people first. Of course if a poor nation is blessed with a super athlete like Drogba or Pacquiao (roids allegations and all), then by all means develop and market him or her as an inspirational figure. But the majority of poor nations' Olympians fail miserably, so what did the nation and the athlete get for their investment and trouble? Some cool memories? Though as you said, maybe all nations have a similar chance of producing geniuses, super athletes, etc., but the poorer nations lack the infrastructure to identify, develop, and provide the resources needed for those great ones to realize their potential.
It is a sign that a nation has arrived if it can afford to train athletes to reach the highest levels (like Korea's emergence from the Seoul Games to now). Only rarely do poor nations have great (relatively) athletic programs, like Cuba or Ukraine, and it's probably due to the fact that they invest disproportionately in sport for national pride.
Yeah maybe the NCAA tourney-NIT idea isn't such a bad thing. What is the point of Canada's womens hockey team blowing out Bulgaria 82-0 (it really happened), or the Dream Team killing Angola 90-30? Is that inspirational? Is that the Olympic spirit? Of course the Angolans were just so thrilled and proud to be on the same court as Magic Johnson so it didn't matter to them, but that shows the different expectations. Some athletes are just happy to be there; others want and think they can get a medal.
But for all the money that rich nations invest in Olympic sports, Bahamas and Jamaica have way more medals per capita than the US, China, UK, and Japan. Of course this is because they stick to the sports they are competitive in. They don't just send some Joe Blow with no chance and no experience to do 5000 M speed skating.
Well, I think poorer nations have other priorities besides luge and hammer throw. Feed, vaccinate, and educate people first. Of course if a poor nation is blessed with a super athlete like Drogba or Pacquiao (roids allegations and all), then by all means develop and market him or her as an inspirational figure. But the majority of poor nations' Olympians fail miserably, so what did the nation and the athlete get for their investment and trouble? Some cool memories? Though as you said, maybe all nations have a similar chance of producing geniuses, super athletes, etc., but the poorer nations lack the infrastructure to identify, develop, and provide the resources needed for those great ones to realize their potential.
It is a sign that a nation has arrived if it can afford to train athletes to reach the highest levels (like Korea's emergence from the Seoul Games to now). Only rarely do poor nations have great (relatively) athletic programs, like Cuba or Ukraine, and it's probably due to the fact that they invest disproportionately in sport for national pride.
Yeah maybe the NCAA tourney-NIT idea isn't such a bad thing. What is the point of Canada's womens hockey team blowing out Bulgaria 82-0 (it really happened), or the Dream Team killing Angola 90-30? Is that inspirational? Is that the Olympic spirit? Of course the Angolans were just so thrilled and proud to be on the same court as Magic Johnson so it didn't matter to them, but that shows the different expectations. Some athletes are just happy to be there; others want and think they can get a medal.
But for all the money that rich nations invest in Olympic sports, Bahamas and Jamaica have way more medals per capita than the US, China, UK, and Japan. Of course this is because they stick to the sports they are competitive in. They don't just send some Joe Blow with no chance and no experience to do 5000 M speed skating.
---------
That's all true, but on the other hand, I think it's a bit rich to criticize developing countries from participating in the Olympics as wasteful. Sure the money would better spent on vaccines, etc. than on sports, but think of the U.S. How much money do we blow a year on all sports combined (probably at least in the tens of billions)? If you narrow it down to simple government waste on things not related to our most pressing problems, the size of waste is similarly massive - is it really necessary for the government to sponsor state fairs, street parades, statues, parks, NASA etc when there are people who barely have enough to eat in our country?
It's easy to be judgmental about the poor/developing world and what they "should" spend money on, but the fact of the matter is that they have the same desires for entertainment, distraction, failings, etc that we do. There are plenty of people in our own country that would rather buy a big screen TV than buy healthcare or contribute to their retirement fund.
If all that a little entertainment and national pride costs them is a few thousand k, then I say let them have it. America spends way more than that on penis-waving competitions, so proportion wise it's probably even about the same percent of national expenditure. It sucks that it's true, but America, China, the Soviet Union when it was around, and other major countries have made being part of the Olympics a sign that you've "made it" in the world - that you can be on the international stage as equals. So I don't think it's fair to criticize the poor countries for feeling the need to be part of the game the rich countries set up - that's our bad, not theirs.
And as far as only allowing internationally competitive (like top 20 in the world) to participate in the Olympics, I think, would be an even worse idea. The Olympics are already mostly a rich man's game, what a middle finger to the developing world that would be - saying we have this ultra-cool sporting event that all the best nations participate in but you can only participate in it if you're willing to blow half of your poor country's GDP training your athletes. I definitely agree that it's a bad idea to let athletes that will embarrass themselves at the event (letting those participate is basically noblesse oblige). But as long as they're at least moderately competitive, I don't see why they can't participate. They get knocked out in the first heat or whatever so they don't get in the way of the big countries, and it gives their home nation a cheap bit of national pride and unity. And sometimes it changes the face of a sport - witness the Jamaican bobsled team.
The Olympics, even from the start, have been explicitly political. To not see the political impact and the amount of ill-will that it would generate in the developing world if we limited admission would be short-sided, I think.
It's easy to be judgmental about the poor/developing world and what they "should" spend money on, but the fact of the matter is that they have the same desires for entertainment, distraction, failings, etc that we do. There are plenty of people in our own country that would rather buy a big screen TV than buy healthcare or contribute to their retirement fund.
If all that a little entertainment and national pride costs them is a few thousand k, then I say let them have it. America spends way more than that on penis-waving competitions, so proportion wise it's probably even about the same percent of national expenditure. It sucks that it's true, but America, China, the Soviet Union when it was around, and other major countries have made being part of the Olympics a sign that you've "made it" in the world - that you can be on the international stage as equals. So I don't think it's fair to criticize the poor countries for feeling the need to be part of the game the rich countries set up - that's our bad, not theirs.
And as far as only allowing internationally competitive (like top 20 in the world) to participate in the Olympics, I think, would be an even worse idea. The Olympics are already mostly a rich man's game, what a middle finger to the developing world that would be - saying we have this ultra-cool sporting event that all the best nations participate in but you can only participate in it if you're willing to blow half of your poor country's GDP training your athletes. I definitely agree that it's a bad idea to let athletes that will embarrass themselves at the event (letting those participate is basically noblesse oblige). But as long as they're at least moderately competitive, I don't see why they can't participate. They get knocked out in the first heat or whatever so they don't get in the way of the big countries, and it gives their home nation a cheap bit of national pride and unity. And sometimes it changes the face of a sport - witness the Jamaican bobsled team.
The Olympics, even from the start, have been explicitly political. To not see the political impact and the amount of ill-will that it would generate in the developing world if we limited admission would be short-sided, I think.
---------
Well first of all, the Jamaican bobsled team was all hype played up by Disney, and did next to nothing to advance winter sports interest in the Caribbean (in contrast, Usain Bolt did much more for an already track-crazy nation). Nothing garners interest like a (well marketed) winner. For the record, Cool Runnings (ya mon) crashed in their int'l debut, and failed to qualify for the last 2 Games. Their best result was 14th in Lillehammer though, ahead of the US. It was the equivalent of the US mens soccer team getting to the quarter-finals at the depleted Korea-Japan World Cup: a temporary high that really didn't have a long-term soccer effect on our nation and culture.
Of course it would be terribly undemocratic and undiplomatic to have parallel rich man-poor man Olympics. But that's basically what we have now, except that the IOC charges a fee for poor nations to come to the rich man's table and get humiliated. So why not just cut the crap? For that matter, I wish there was a "second tier" World Cup, where the runner-up nations could get a chance, since a Euro-heavy field of 64 is quite limited (in club soccer, they have the equivalent with the Champions League and lesser UEFA Cup, like the NCAA-NIT).
Sure the Olympians from poor nations are "heroes" back home, and if that is worth the money for "inspiration", heck it's better than buying more AK-47s and government palaces. You know me, I am 100X more critical of anything stupid that rich nations do vs. the poor. But due to their wealth, the rich have a bigger margin for error. We can afford to be more profligate and corrupt (well not really, but we kick the can down the road and pass our problems onto the poor). Bill Gates can waste 80% of his take-home pay on leisure, and still live much more comfortably than I, even if I only spend 10%. But he can, and the onus is on me to manage my lesser resources.
But you are totally right; it's an outrage that we spend billions on F-35s, partially-publicly-financed stadiums, and subsidies for Goldman Sachs' new corporate HQ in NYC while our social safety net and infrastructure crumble, and infant mortality is at Second World rates. This is especially shameful because we supposedly have a "functional democracy" where the people have the power to rectify social injustices and improper appropriations. In countries like Georgia, the people have no idea or say on how their taxes are spent - whether it be on sports or not.
In a perfect world, the Olympics and climate change policy would be similar. The rich nations would subsidize the participation of the poor nations, to make a more equal playing field where everyone benefits. Maybe there could even be a training budget cap or proportional participation based on population size (since I am so tired of nations sweeping medals in some events). The current Olympics are MLB when they should be NFL. Sport is like the casino for the poor. A losing proposition economically, but is romanticized because it gives people a shred of hope that they can defy the daunting statistics and beat the house. Though despite all that, I do not think that the poor nations are adversarial towards the rich, and the Olympics are way more political for the rich nations, as you said. You don't hear about Mexico and Kazakhstan bitching about figure stating judges and other foul play (and just today, the Koreans are mad at the Chinese for pulling a Bellichick: http://sports.yahoo.com/
For that matter, don't you think it's also a slap in the face to the Third World that the vast majority of Olympic judges and IOC officials come from the G20? And looking past the Olympics, there is much worse economic apartheid and condescension in the WTO and such.
Of course it would be terribly undemocratic and undiplomatic to have parallel rich man-poor man Olympics. But that's basically what we have now, except that the IOC charges a fee for poor nations to come to the rich man's table and get humiliated. So why not just cut the crap? For that matter, I wish there was a "second tier" World Cup, where the runner-up nations could get a chance, since a Euro-heavy field of 64 is quite limited (in club soccer, they have the equivalent with the Champions League and lesser UEFA Cup, like the NCAA-NIT).
Sure the Olympians from poor nations are "heroes" back home, and if that is worth the money for "inspiration", heck it's better than buying more AK-47s and government palaces. You know me, I am 100X more critical of anything stupid that rich nations do vs. the poor. But due to their wealth, the rich have a bigger margin for error. We can afford to be more profligate and corrupt (well not really, but we kick the can down the road and pass our problems onto the poor). Bill Gates can waste 80% of his take-home pay on leisure, and still live much more comfortably than I, even if I only spend 10%. But he can, and the onus is on me to manage my lesser resources.
But you are totally right; it's an outrage that we spend billions on F-35s, partially-publicly-financed stadiums, and subsidies for Goldman Sachs' new corporate HQ in NYC while our social safety net and infrastructure crumble, and infant mortality is at Second World rates. This is especially shameful because we supposedly have a "functional democracy" where the people have the power to rectify social injustices and improper appropriations. In countries like Georgia, the people have no idea or say on how their taxes are spent - whether it be on sports or not.
In a perfect world, the Olympics and climate change policy would be similar. The rich nations would subsidize the participation of the poor nations, to make a more equal playing field where everyone benefits. Maybe there could even be a training budget cap or proportional participation based on population size (since I am so tired of nations sweeping medals in some events). The current Olympics are MLB when they should be NFL. Sport is like the casino for the poor. A losing proposition economically, but is romanticized because it gives people a shred of hope that they can defy the daunting statistics and beat the house. Though despite all that, I do not think that the poor nations are adversarial towards the rich, and the Olympics are way more political for the rich nations, as you said. You don't hear about Mexico and Kazakhstan bitching about figure stating judges and other foul play (and just today, the Koreans are mad at the Chinese for pulling a Bellichick: http://sports.yahoo.com/
For that matter, don't you think it's also a slap in the face to the Third World that the vast majority of Olympic judges and IOC officials come from the G20? And looking past the Olympics, there is much worse economic apartheid and condescension in the WTO and such.
No comments:
Post a Comment