There is an old medical adage that states the benefits of a medical action
must be compared to its hazards, risks, and complications in order to make a
wise decision.
So it is with other real life actions. A case in point is the current
national uproar regarding the alleged under age Chinese gymnasts receiving
gold medals. Should we really protest to the International Olympic Committee
and the Gymnastic Federation and ask these girls to return their medals?
By many accounts the Chinese gymnasts are victims also. They were doing what
they were trained to do — often at great bodily sacrifice. But 14 old girls
deserve their medals too.
Lets state right up front that cheating is wrong. The Olympic gymnastic age
rule is an attempt to avoid serious injury in athletes under 16 whose long
bones are not yet fused (un-fused epiphyses). But at best this is
disingenuous rule as gymnasts may practice for years — sometimes 10 or more
— often daily for long hours under harsher conditions than the few minutes
spent in Olympic routines. The rule does not prevent practice injuries.
Americans are also culpable in this obsessive drive for gold and fame. Do
we always have to win all of the events, be first and take home most of the
gold and the glory? Should not 110 medals be enough?
The 2008 Olympics were, by all accounts, a tremendously successful athletic,
artistic, cultural, socio-economic and political 21st century pageant. But
they are not, haven't been for a long time, and won't be again amateur
athletics in any meaningful sense of the word. So if we're going to enjoy
and value them, let's not be hypocrites.
The original Greek sense of athletics involved both the high value they
placed on physical strength and beauty and their belief that to compete was
to strive for the favor of the gods. There was the winner of the event and
there was everybody else. Second place did not get 2/3 of the favor of the
gods. And there was no serious record keeping, stats, records or
"personal-bests," not least of all because they lacked the technology to
measure and keep such records.
When the games were revived in the late 19th century and into the 20th, it
was the revival of the Victorian sense of amateur athletics. As athletics
evolved in the 20th century, rules were put into place to keep it amateur
and to protect the athletes. Since WWII, and certainly since the 1960s,
these rules have become basically meaningless. Athletes may be highly paid
professionals to begin with, or "amateurs" who are so heavily subsidized
that they amount to professionals.
Many expect to make big bucks from their successes and in this sense may be
professionals who just ³havenıt gotten paid yet². Further, rules protecting
athletes have long been flouted or ignored. Drugs, age limits, blood doping,
political pressures, outright criminality, whatever.
So when we fret about drug tests or 14-year-old gymnasts, we're really
saying, either big time sports are destructive of their participants or
we're hypocrites. Perhaps we should accept the games and big-time athletics
as what they are, realizing that the vast majority of the athletes are there
by choice and either receive or expect very considerable material benefits
from their work. They seek endorsements, not laurel wreaths. The favor of
the gods now counts for less than the favor of Nike or Toyota.
To undo all the international good this Olympics accomplished by protesting
over age seems foolish. First it is unlikely years of investigations will
change the documents the Chinese government can produce at will. Second, in
this case of home country advantage, to vilify the host will make more
enemies than friends. The opening of China should offer many future benefits
to the world and a vision for new and rewarding relationships with 1.3
billion people.
Lets not penalize a few young girls and a host country in order to protect
ourselves from ourselves. We started the whole rich and famous spectacle and
should take much of the culpability.
So let it be.
