Dow We Need the Olympics - Rowing Perspective

[Mr Epee]

Sometimes it's nice to see that fencing isn't the only one with Olympic issues.

I think that you will see a lot of this looking familiar.

Enjoy,

Do we need the Olympics?
March 2002


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.

[BenTheEMOP]

Mr. Epee, this is an interesting article.

The Olympics is the once chance that a number of lesser sports have the chance to get a show case, though as this article points out, it is gradually degenerating into an extension of pro-sports seasons.

Sports like fencing and rowing might do better if their governing bodies created their own Olympics and stepped out from under the current structure. It wouldn't be easy, but if enough of them got together, they might be able to creat a new sort of federation that would be something other than a competition to build the fanciest stadiums and best marketing venues.

The current problem is that even though the Olympics are corrupted, they are still seen as the highest pinnacle of achievement for a lot of the small sports. Having that gives the sport something to focus on, which I think can only help.

But it might be time for the sport governing bodies to begin to look at other options before they are required to compete for space with 'sports' like ballroom dance and chess. Both are great, but they aren't sports.

[haroldbuck]

Originally Posted by BenTheEMOP

But it might be time for the sport governing bodies to begin to look at other options before they are required to compete for space with 'sports' like ballroom dance and chess. Both are great, but they aren't sports.

The IOC has stated that "mind sports" like bridge and chess have no chance in China--or any other host nation--of ever making it into the Olympics.

And ballroom dancing: well, that's every bit as much a sport as figure skating! :-)

[Inquartata]

I have often said that I think fencing would easily survive losing Olympic status, and might actually be the better for it. I am usually pilloried for the statement, by those who have bought in to the consensus position ( OH MY GOD NO OLYMPICS! THE HORROR! WE'RE DOOMED! ) that has been inculcated into them by decades of official boosterism and fear-mongering. But I did not take up fencing because of the Olympics, or because I was aiming for the Olympics. Nor do I continue fencing for either of those reasons. Does anyone else? So why fear the end of the growth of the sport simply due to the lack of one event every four years?

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by BenTheEMOP

The current problem is that even though the Olympics are corrupted, they are still seen as the highest pinnacle of achievement for a lot of the small sports.

This, of course, is the crux of the "Olympic" problem. The only real asset of the IOC is the Olympic brand. They know that and are aggressive at protecting and enhancing that brand. And the reality is that if "lesser" sports were to start sniping at that brand, it would hurt those sports at least as much as would hurt the IOC. Suppose fencing boycotted the Olympics and set up a alternative championship, it might get a little press the first Olympics it was gone, but then nobody would remember. And fencing would lose what is probably its most prestigious event.

Were I to propose a strategy, it would probably look more like this: I would directly challenge the IOC's ownership of the Olympic brand. European courts are very sympathetic to the idea of protecting regional names from being exploited internationally. Greece feels that they have been robbed, but probably can't do anything about it by themselves because if they grabbed the name back without the support of the international sporting community, any games that they put on wouldn't have the same impact. As I said above, the non-revenue sports really can't do it without the Olympic brand. But if Greece were to work in conjunction with dissatisfied sports committees, having already great facilities and a legitimate claim to the brand, if they could get a number of sports federations to recognize those claims, they could probably at least get the IOC to the bargaining table.

I suspect that there are a lot of federations that might be willing to support the idea that the Olympics should also be in Greece in exchange for being able to practice their sport as a sport rather than entertainment.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

I suspect that there are a lot of federations that might be willing to support the idea that the Olympics should also be in Greece in exchange for being able to practice their sport as a sport rather than entertainment.

I would challange the assumption that the people of Greece want the Olympics back.

...since the olympics left town

In fact, if you believe this , I am not sure why anyone would actually want the olympics in town.

[PalmFrond]

Just what benefit does fencing derive from the Olympics, anyway? Since fencing is hardly ever televised when the Olympics is taking place (in my part of the world a grand total of 120 seconds of fencing was shown this summer), who is inspired to take it up by seeing it on the telly? In my opinion, dropping the Olympics would be no great loss. After all, fencing already has world championship tournaments, and a world cup circuit - it's not as if the Olympics is the only competitive outlet for the best fencers.

[dcmdale]

I think that this is the experience of several of the more recent hosts. You spend $10 Billion on facilities that will be used for 2 weeks. That is an incredible waste that few countries can afford. Greece will be paying the bills for 2004 for a generation. We are already approaching an era where the Olympics will be limited to a very few countries capable of hosting it.

However, if Athens was the fixed location of the Olympics the economics change significantly. It would be profitable.

As to whether Greece would want this, I think that whatever the economics of it are, as a matter of national pride, I think that any Greek would tell you that the Olympics belong in Greece.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by PalmFrond

Just what benefit does fencing derive from the Olympics, anyway?

Among other things, in this country, being an Olympic sport goes a large way towards keeping fencing an NCAA sport. Otherwise fencing is periously close to the minimum number of sponsored teams before the NCAA would drop the national championships. While there is now extensive fencing outside of the collegiate scene (and considerably more collegiate fencing than NCAA fencing), this loss would likely have a very noticible impact on fencing in the US.

-B :)

[DHCJr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Does anyone else? So why fear the end of the growth of the sport simply due to the lack of one event every four years?

You might still fence, if there was no Olympics. Would you fence, if there was no USFA? Where do you think the USFA gets their offices, where do you think they get a large percentage of their money? The get it because of one event every four years!

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by DHCJr

Would you fence, if there was no USFA?

Yes. There WERE people fencing long before they revived the Olympics, you know...

True, competition might be less streamlined. But I would still fence, yes.

Where do you think the USFA gets their offices, where do you think they get a large percentage of their money? The get it because of one event every four years!

Then they could get it somewhere else, or make do with less, like any organization that loses a revenue stream. Is this really such an iconoclastic idea?

[DHCJr]

What little money they get would be hard pressed to be used for an office, considering the office they have is paid for by USOC, considering they have other financial commitments. Let us say, for example, we expect each competitor pay their own way to go to the World Championships. They do for the World Cups. Does that mean the USFA would have no expenses for these competitions? NO! There are financial obligations to the National body for these competitions in addition to the expense of getting the fencers there. For example, for each so many fencers, we are required to send and pay for a referee to go to the competition, whether it was a World Cup or Championship. There are dues to the FIE.

In other words are you willing to at least double the amount of dues to make up for the loss of the Olympic money to pay for a office, continue our obligations on the international scene. Or are you saying we drop our association to the FIE?

Also as said before, the moment the Olympics drops Fencing, the NCAA will drop it. Maybe you will stay, but having the colleges helps. That one competition helps in many ways. We may not like what the Olympics have become, I don't, but they do keep us going.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by DHCJr

What little money they get would be hard pressed to be used for an office, considering the office they have is paid for by USOC, considering they have other financial commitments.

Actually, this isn't true any more. The USFA purchased a portion of a building along with several other NGB's because the USOC wanted to phase out supporting offices for NGB's without resident athlete programs at the OTC. The USOC gave the NGB's a lump sum payment to get out of the on-going commitment to maintaining offices.

For reference, the USOC grants account for ~1/4 of the USFA income. (Roughly $1/2 mil out of $2 mil). With the growth of the national events and the membership this might be shifting down towards ~20%. I don't have the figures here with me, so take the above as extremely rough estimates.

-B :)

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

even if the USFA and FIE disbanded, we'd still fence. You can take the organization out of fencing, but you cant take the fencing away from the fencer. In this aspect, fencing will always survive, and no matter how much or how little support we have as a sport, you will always hear the ring of steel on steel if you just know where to look.

[DHCJr]

I hope there is never a chance to prove me right. Because if there is, I don't see how we could recover.

Yes, we did get the office, but that didn't end our use of the Olympic Training Center. Anyone going to Coaches or Armorers College? Yes, you are probably right about the 25% directly from the USOC, but that is not all the money we get from the Olympics. Does anyone remember the '84 games. We are still getting money from that. If New York gets the games, will they be another Los Angeles? Could there be money there.

I personally hate, what the Olympics have become, the professionals, the scandals, etc. But, that one time every 4 years helps. When people find out that I am involved with fencing, every so often I hear about those 2 girls and their medals.

I hope, if we ever loose the Olympics, I am proved wrong. But I also hope, I never have to find out.

[esskreemr]

The current system seems to pit all the sports against each other as each one scrambles to maintain or gain its position. I think the "smaller" sports should band together. This may add another level of Bureaucracy, but perhaps the smaller sports combined into a coherent organization would be able to also combine power.

As for the Olympics. They are like the glittering gold facade over a rotting wood exterior. The ideals of the Olympics have been tarnished. Anytime big money is involved, big corruption follows closely behind.

Fencing would survive without them. Fencing sustained growth (at least in America), however, may not. Still, I really hope fencing doesn't sell it's soul to the Olympics, because it may need it some day (forget who said that)...

[mlr2fence]

I think that fencing would suffer, at least in the short term, and probably in the long term, if it was dropped from the Olympics. Since it is an Olympic sport, even with little publicity, it gives fencing a sort of 'legitimacy' in the eyes of the public. How many times have we referred to it as 'an Olympic sport' when searching for venues to rent, sponsors, the local media when trying to garner publicity, school officials, prospective students/parents, etc? Without being able to throw in 'an Olympic sport' I think more doors would be closed to us.

[sabreur]

Originally Posted by mlr2fence

I think that fencing would suffer, at least in the short term, and probably in the long term, if it was dropped from the Olympics. Since it is an Olympic sport, even with little publicity, it gives fencing a sort of 'legitimacy' in the eyes of the public. How many times have we referred to it as 'an Olympic sport' when searching for venues to rent, sponsors, the local media when trying to garner publicity, school officials, prospective students/parents, etc? Without being able to throw in 'an Olympic sport' I think more doors would be closed to us.

Maybe not being an "Olympic" sport would force us to find ways to market the sport based on what it really is (whatever that is), instead of riding the Olympic coattails.

I'm not sure what I think about fencing in the Olympics. I think "the Olympics" are no longer what they used to be, and I find the idea of constantly adjusting the sport to try to increase its appeal offensive--especially because it is utterly unclear to me that any of the changes actually work to increase fencing's appeal--they are simply weird-*** ideas (see-through masks) that various twits (Samaranch being a primary example) who happened to have a lot of power tossed out. At the same time, I still like the Olympic ideal. This is another one of those subjects where everyone can have an opinion, and no one knows what the truth is, because no one has done the necessary marketing research.

MR