For those readers who were relieved that I had not put finger to keyboard button for a long time, and were taking bets that I had disappeared from this mortal plane, let me disappoint you by announcing that I am back on the job. Unfortunately, I contracted a dreadful, exotic respiratory bug from some of the papal pilgrims that otherwise brought much joy to Old Sydney Town recently. During the latter period of my partial recovery, I have been very busy, indeed, ensuring that I do not, even accidentally, watch any of the televised events from the Beijing Olympics. Olympic events just serve to make me an even crankier old Aussie.
I have let my enfeebled mind wander and ponder over the merits and demerits of the Olympics for some time now, and have come to the conclusion that the Olympics died when the rules were changed to allow professional competitors. By “professional,” I do not mean those who have undertaken an intensive course of education, observe a code of ethics, and then practice their chosen calling by the observation of a strict fiduciary relationship with their clients. No, no, no, I simply mean that they perform in their chosen field, which they consider sport, for a monetary reward. In other words, I mean those who do it as a job.
This transformation of sport into jobs is evidenced in most of the interviews with participants when asked about their attitudes to protesting about the treatment by the host nation, China, of Tibet and Tibetans. The typical response is, “We are not involved in that. We are just over here to do a job, and we are going to get on with it. Our job is to bring back medals.”
In fact, it would appear that their “job” is to promote themselves as products; to escalate their value as sporting commodities on the open market. What a perversion this represents of the term, “sporting.”
Let us lament the passing of Olympic “sport,” “sporting,” “sportsmanship” and “being a good sport.” They all died when the strict requirement of amateur status was abandoned.
For all the rhetoric about the phantom of the “level playing field,” how can such a thing ever exist when full-time, often very highly paid competitors from affluent, developed countries compete against those from poor, often war-torn, developing countries whose representatives often consider themselves fortunate if they can afford a pair of shoes of any description for use in their events. Well, I suppose that the argument must go that competitors from under-privileged nations simply lack the initiative and drive necessary for them to succeed in “the job.”
What a pity it is that we cannot bring back to sport the joy of the activity, the helping of others less fortunate, the forging of new friendships, the appreciation of the efforts of others and the recognition of others as having a love and interest in common.
I would like to see a proliferation of jobs for our Olympians. However, I do not mean the occupational sort; I mean good, swift left-hook jobs into the midriffs of any competitors who prattle on about being over there to do a job.
Crankyfella
I have let my enfeebled mind wander and ponder over the merits and demerits of the Olympics for some time now, and have come to the conclusion that the Olympics died when the rules were changed to allow professional competitors. By “professional,” I do not mean those who have undertaken an intensive course of education, observe a code of ethics, and then practice their chosen calling by the observation of a strict fiduciary relationship with their clients. No, no, no, I simply mean that they perform in their chosen field, which they consider sport, for a monetary reward. In other words, I mean those who do it as a job.
This transformation of sport into jobs is evidenced in most of the interviews with participants when asked about their attitudes to protesting about the treatment by the host nation, China, of Tibet and Tibetans. The typical response is, “We are not involved in that. We are just over here to do a job, and we are going to get on with it. Our job is to bring back medals.”
In fact, it would appear that their “job” is to promote themselves as products; to escalate their value as sporting commodities on the open market. What a perversion this represents of the term, “sporting.”
Let us lament the passing of Olympic “sport,” “sporting,” “sportsmanship” and “being a good sport.” They all died when the strict requirement of amateur status was abandoned.
For all the rhetoric about the phantom of the “level playing field,” how can such a thing ever exist when full-time, often very highly paid competitors from affluent, developed countries compete against those from poor, often war-torn, developing countries whose representatives often consider themselves fortunate if they can afford a pair of shoes of any description for use in their events. Well, I suppose that the argument must go that competitors from under-privileged nations simply lack the initiative and drive necessary for them to succeed in “the job.”
What a pity it is that we cannot bring back to sport the joy of the activity, the helping of others less fortunate, the forging of new friendships, the appreciation of the efforts of others and the recognition of others as having a love and interest in common.
I would like to see a proliferation of jobs for our Olympians. However, I do not mean the occupational sort; I mean good, swift left-hook jobs into the midriffs of any competitors who prattle on about being over there to do a job.
Crankyfella
No comments:
Post a Comment