The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Fair go Olympics? > Comments

Fair go Olympics? : Comments

By Dennis Hemphill, published 20/8/2008

Is such a sophisticated approach to sport by Australia and other nations fair for the 'have-nots'?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Bill Mitchell's alternative medal tally gives another view of Olympic medal outcomes. You can see it here...
http://www.billmitchell.org/sport/medal_tally_2008.html
Posted by wease, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 9:31:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fair go Olympics? The Olympics are certainly not fair to taxpayers, since government funds are diverted from worthwhile areas such as education and health in support of this meaningless chauvinistic nonsense."Bread and circuses" is still the succesful formula, more bread please.
Posted by mac, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 9:58:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I concur with the posters thus far. Also I find the hype.

• Degrading to sports legends of the past when their performances compared to those with all the science. Who’s to tell what Dawn, Betty, Rose, Gould would have achieved if given the same ‘scientific’ help. Comparisons are silly therefore world records come with logical qualifications.

• The Olympics of the day simply a sponsors Bonanza/Spectacular. Why is business taking preference over people? We are being conditioned for more and more “special events brought to you by….” And less simple entertainment/relaxation. Consumerism operates on emotions/excitement and goods associated with them than need. Why else would sponsors spend so much money to sponsor?

• OG has little to do with sport or fostering understanding. List the peace treaties that were signed as a direct response of the games?

• An excuse for fostering national Pride. I ask in what?
1. To lose perspective of what is really important perhaps?
2. To divert needed money to pointless entertainment?
3. Name medical cures to the real blighting diseases that the OG has created.
4. We really need to make Corporations more powerful less responsible? (Exploitive, self serving).
5. Our national identity is so paper thin we see ourselves as a nation of sports supporters.(you choose the meaning)

• To create a diversion that allows politicians to distract us and reinforce their control through nationalism?

• If they encourage fitness why then are most of the main nations amongst the most obese?

I love a spectacle too but let’s keep it in PERSPECTIVE. As rightly said before “more bread less circus”.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 10:58:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Firstly, I have argued since listening to self righteous Aussie athletes crying foul at the last Olympics that the athlete from a poor nation with no government support who takes drugs to be more competitive is not greatly dissimilar to our highly subsidized athlete. Don’t get me wrong, I am in no way advocating use of performance enhancing drugs, not that we should limit our efforts to stretch the bounds of science, but there simply is not a level playing field and I hate seeing our athletes or officials carrying on like they are in any way disadvantaged – indeed the opposite is true as this article points out.

Secondly, I would take mac’s comment a little further and going back to the article raise the question; who pays back their higher education fees. You can bet the scientist behind the technology and many other professions propping the athlete up have. There was quite a considerable debate about 2 years ago concerning the likes of Ricky Ponting and other high profile and highly paid sportspersons / athletes who have benefited from higher education through the AIS and other government funded institutions. The answer at the time was a resounding NO. A level playing field would demand that they do on the same basis as any other Aussie student – to the extent they can, which means if they do not make a lot of money from their sports prowess, then they don’t pay it back – but if they do, then they should.

Finally, this is really not about individual excellence – at least in the reasoning behind government funding. It is all about bragging rights and one-upmanship. Just look at the attention on “medal count” and on a more personal level, look at the wager between John Coates and his opposite in England.
Posted by aussiexp, Thursday, 21 August 2008 4:54:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maybe we should use a handycap system.

In the 100 metres, You get 5 cm for every base point you countries per Capita GDP falls below that of USA or in discus, a 5 gram lightening of the discus.

Stupid article
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 21 August 2008 7:42:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When even to question sport, let alone Australian performances at the Olympics, might be seen as "un-Australian," it is good to see critical questions being asked.

Criticism can come from an "inside" perspective when we take sport to task when rhetoric doesn't match practice. Sport officials often make claims about sport's ties with health, yet there are many injuries in sport; or sport's link to character-building, yet there are numerous cases of cheating, violence and harassment. We point out the claimed ideals and benefits as a way of cajoling sport officials to revise their practices. This is the approach I took in "Fair Go Olympics?" when I suggested resource distribution if sport officials were really serious about the "level playing field."

Yet, criticism can also come from an "outside" perspective as when critics rightly question expenditures for sport over other programs such as education and health care. This is where the debate over resource distribution can be seen in a different light. Here, we weigh up the value of sport over other priorities.

I am the first to put my hand up to say that sport is often exploited for commercial and political (nationalistic) purposes. Yet, to say that sport is nothing but entertainment or an opiate for the masses, misses other, more commendable, features of sport. Producing or reading a compelling, well-written novel, for example, is more than mere entertainment. Similarly, the demonstration of skilled play and tactical ingenuity, close contests, and its appreciation by knowledgeable spectators, creates a way of life for many, and careers for some. Even the most chauvinistic barrackers can begrudgingly recognise great sporting achievement by opponents when they see it.

My main concern is that in our zeal to criticise, and sport can be easy pickings at times, we do not throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater.
Posted by DHemphill, Friday, 22 August 2008 8:44:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I certainly agree that there is no such thing a a 'level playing field' in international sport, but I do have a few thoughts on the issue . . .

Obviously, we can't ban technology. Where would we start? Short of returning to the ancient nude competitions, we can't get rid of technology altogether. And even in the raw, our athletes would benefit from dietary advances.

Rather than using GDP as a measure for adjusting national performance, we should also consider the money poured into each athlete by each country and by private sponsors. While Ethiopia is by no means a wealthy country, I am sure Haile Gebrselassie (sp?) doesn't have to fight his neighbours for a slice of bread each day. similarly, North Korea takes great pride in its sport and rewards individual achievers with privileges not offered to the rest of its population. Many athletes represent countries in which they no longer live, and train with the high-tech facilities offered in wealthier countries. Some of our own athletes are included in this category.

One solution (which I don't pretend is practical) is to take the nation out of the Olympics. Ditch the medal tally and celebrate individual performance. This would offer a more compelling 'coming together' of the world's greatest athletes. Of course, this would make team sports problematic, and remove the incentive for governments to support their elite sportsmen and women. Why would Australia send people to the Olympics if they had nothing to brag about in return? Thus the Olympics would become the playground of those who are wealthy enough to fund their own endeavours.

Perhaps IOC-funded 'Olympic Academies' around the world, drawing in promising athletes from all over the world to train in world-class facilities regardless of personal background? This would not create a wholly level playing field, but would open up more opportunities for the less lucky. Probably a very 'pie in the sky' suggestion.
Posted by Otokonoko, Thursday, 28 August 2008 11:51:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy