|
July 29, 2008
Are the Olympic Games really worth the trouble any more? Is there anyone left anywhere who still believes it's genuinely everything it's cracked up to be - a testament to the human spirit, an ode to healthy sportsmanship, an exercise in international peace and goodwill, a politics- corporate- and drug-free zone?
We've been through the torch relay which doubled as a celebration of happiness in Tibet. We know that 'tightened security' will protect those attending from terrorists, and those watching from adverse impressions of China, even if it means limiting the ability of networks to broadcast anything at all. Tonight's Foreign Correspondent is going to tell us about a crackdown on dissidents. Amnesty says human rights abuses have increased, not decreased, since Chinese authorities agreed to back off the citizenry as part of the deal granting them the games in the first place.
Is any of this drastically different from the systematic removal of the homeless, poor, sick, untidy or otherwise unphotogenic people all cities undertake in preparation for hosting the games? Don't all host cities go to absurd lengths to make out they've been Disneyland clones all along? Half of this country went berserk when Cathy Freeman politicised the whole show with her Aboriginal flag. Politics-free indeed.
The only corporate logos flaunted by athletes are the various national insignia and the occasional stuffed animal, but McDonalds and Coke are not the only sustenance providers allowed in the stadium simply because that's the way the crowds like it. All moments are Kodak moments and all transactions are Visa transactions. Some corporate sponsorship deals are pretty much permanent, so the ad breaks during the games coverage is more tedious than usual. There is no such thing as sport without sponsorship any more, and the Olympic Games is no exception.
There's also no such thing as sport without drugs any more, regardless of John Fahey's best efforts (assuming even those efforts are genuine, which could be a misguided assumption). As Ben Pobjie cruelly points out, they're fooling nobody. Luke Davies suggested in The Monthly that "all athletes should be rigorously tested, only so that we might know which pharmaceutical companies to send the medals to".
Maybe the problem of performance-enhancing drugs would be more easily dealt with if we just called it a form of sponsorship?
After 140-odd years of modern Olympic Games it's a bit of a stretch to believe that records are still being routinely broken when the human body hasn't evolved. It's been a while since Thomas J Hicks was done for taking strychnine and brandy to improve his performance in the 1904 marathon and all sorts of things have improved since then. Sure we're more healthy, taller, stronger, better equipped and have more sophisticated training regimes and probably better stop watches, but we've also got better drugs. We're also better informed. That swimmers all have enormous jaws and car park-size gaps between their teeth is not just a coincidence.
So what's the point of this four yearly charade? It's essentially a highly politicised promotion of sponsor products and illegal drugs. When do we get to the point where we can quit pretending it's anything else?
|
Lyn,
I think they should all go back to competing in the nude.
I am looking forward to it though. Last year my cousin was in the rowing and that was very exciting. I enjoy the athletics the most.
Don't think I will be watching the advert competition.