The Games are no longer about applauding the
best the sporting world can offer, but a competition to see which country can
win the most medals. "My country is better than yours", is the mentality of
many watching, who care little about the abilities of those who are not of
their own nationality. It is no longer about sporting achievement, but in
beating the opposition, and the two are very different things.
The ideal that, "It is not the winning but the taking part", has never been
entirely sound, and it holds hardly a place in the modern Olympics, except when
being used as an excuse when one's own country's athletes have failed to make
the grade.
And in the case of Britain, that's usually the case. We have few truly great
sportsmen or women, and consequently achieve few great sporting achievements,
and especially so as time has moved on. The pitiful state of British sporting
talent is perhaps best reflected by, allegedly rising tennis 'star', Tim Henman;
always being promised to deliver a stunning performance and heading for great
victory, he never does and never has. He is British expectation and British
expected failure exemplified.
The British are often accused of being self-deprecating, and pulling themselves
down in the process, but that can easily be countered by the argument that a
win is a far greater achievement when unexpected, and having hyped-up an
expected win, the loss is all the greater when it fails to materialise. The
British are used to bitter disappointment, and the only time they seem to
expect otherwise is when television sports commentators are telling them that
they have a guaranteed win about to take places. Invariable however, they are
wrong, and once more the Brits realise that they should never have got their
hopes up in the first place.
Monumental failures have dogged the British view of life ever since the
Empire collapse, perhaps even before then, but certainly post World War 2.
Failures are enormous, and many of them are high profile; the
Millennium Bridge,
Beagle 2 and, in recent days, the
Princess Diana Memorial Fountain. That about sums up
Britain's capabilities - can't even build a safe water feature in a public
place. Thank goodness that the national occupation is not in organising visits
to breweries.
British sporting achievements are few and far between, and when they have
occurred they have been determined individuals battling against the odds, and
that is perhaps what makes those achievements so memorable. Expecting an
athlete to do well is invariably the kiss of death.
And so it was with Paula Radcliffe's Marathon run. Tipped as the dead-cert
favourite and proclaimed to be far better than any other runner in the field,
Paula was placed on a pedestal to be unbeatable and unstoppable on the streets
of Athens by British commentators. So, as if on cue, it was no surprise that
Paula was neither unstoppable nor unbeatable, pulling up with just a few miles
to go in the gruelling heat of Greece's sun.
Of course, it wasn't Paula's fault. The extreme temperatures, both ambient and
track temperatures, were to blame, the organisers were to blame for scheduling
the competition for when they did, and in other circumstances, we are told,
Paula would have walked the field and casually cruised to victory without
breaking a sweat.
Maybe, but that's not reality. Reality is being the best athlete on the day, in
the circumstances which exist at that time, not just on some theoretical unlevel
playing-field which favours Paula over others.
I in no way wish to denigrate Paula's talent nor her performance in Athens; had
I even been on the streets there I would most likely have been hospitalised for
heat exhaustion and heat stress without the need to even consider running over
twenty miles, mostly up hill.
It is the alleged 'shame' which Paula now has to face I object to; a shame which
is not really hers, but one which has been forced upon her by those who say she
should have done better and were mislead into expecting her to have done so. As
I said earlier; if you don't get your hopes up, you won't be disappointed.
Paula herself has been devastated by her failure which became front page news
in the UK, and said fans deserved an explanation. No they don't, she did an
excellent job, the best she could, and on the day it just wasn't good enough.
That's a fact of life that all athletes have to face up to at some point in
their careers. She's had amazing victories in the past, and may well do so
in the future if she can overcome her set-back in Athens. Yes, she failed, but
so what ?
Paula is entitled to criticise herself if she thinks she let herself down, or
didn't do as well as she'd expected, as we all are when we get something wrong,
but who are we to tell her that she's let us down ? If anyone thinks they can
do better, then get themselves out there and show us what they are made of.
Normally we don't see such ridiculous complaining because our self-deprecation
keeps us in check. It's sad to see what happens when it isn't kept that way.
It's certainly true that, on the whole, Britain has c--p athletes, and there's
nothing wrong in saying so, and our Olympic performances show it, but it's a
bit unfair to blame the best we have to put forward as being rubbish.
Sports commentators must take much of the blame in leading people to believe
that Britain's sports men and women will do a lot better than they probably
will. They seem to be the worst examples of those who are caught up in this
ridiculous nationalistic venture, as if anyone actually cares in Britain if we
are any better than anyone else. And that seems to extend even to the fans who
have made their way over to Athens, few of whom have any idea at all as to
which way up the Union Jack should be flown or hung.
It is ironic and sadly amusing that those who are most fervently nationalistic
are the ones who are seen frequently flying the Union Flag upside down; perhaps
they really do mean to indicate that Britain is a country in a state of
distress, but I suspect not.
While the fans can be forgiven for getting caught up in the heat of the moment
prior to seeing their promised dream come crashing down, professional sports
commentators have no excuse. It is ridiculous to witness how many times they are
unable to see the reality that is unfolding before their very own eyes and will
still continue to believe, and tell us, that a British entrant is still in with
a chance.
In the Cycling Team Pursuit Final we were being frequently told that the British
team were pulling back when the on-screen split-times showed they were slowly
but surely letting the lead slip away from them. In the end, the Australians
took Gold some three seconds ahead of Britain.
As a British swimmer dropped further and further back in their lane, and
looked to be danger of going under and down for good, it was implausible that
they were, "still in with a chance", as we were being told.
Going into halftime in the Men's Hockey heats, Germany were proclaimed to have,
"thrown it all away with a missed penalty", despite being one-nil up and
eventually beating England four-one.
Such fanciful dreams that there is light at the end of the tunnel, a straw to
clutch, and still a chance to be had, is simply hoping against all odds. The
audience knows it and are well aware of what the situation really is, and only
the gullible and stupid would believe what a commentator tells them when they
can see the truth with their own eyes. Perhaps the commentators think they are
doing their audience a favour, but what their often jingoistic fervour is meant
to really achieve in the face of losing is hard to determine. I always feel
that most are not far off mentioning the 1966 World Cup and two world wars
whenever Germany beats Britain, which always gives the impression that they are
more interested in some propagandist vision of British greatness rather than
the sporting achievement they are meant to be telling us about.
Worse still is when our athletes fail and the commentators turn on the
winners and dismiss or trivialise their efforts, claiming that in better
circumstances the British would have won. It happened with Paula's defeat ( with
hardly a mention of the stunning performance of the American Bronze medal
winner ) and in many other events in Athens.
The Olympics is not a 'British event', and it does not surprise that there are
few who want to see Britain host the Games in the near future. The ethos does
not fit the British view of what the Games are about any more, and many are
truly dreading the artificial hyping of the possibility of achievement we
could have were we to host it, when they know full well that our entrants will
do the best they can, but we'll put on some mediocre performances and may score
a few successes. Few Britons see any gain or glory in hosting the events, and
have been turned off by the professionalism of entrants and commercialism which
has changed the Olympics into a medal grab.
The rot set in as countries started to field professionals who are unlikely
to fail in their events. Many see this as creating an unlevel playing field,
although the argument in return is that if other countries invested as much in
sporting development then it would be level again, but that is not seen to be
in the spirit of good, clean competition; anyone can build a faster athlete,
a higher jumper and a swifter swimmer, and many see it as little different to
performance enhancing drug taking. Sure, it's not illegal, but it has the same
aim; giving "our athletes" some sort of advantage over the rest of the field,
which is why their victories are frequently dismissed as nothing impressive,
while runners from the third world who achieve their wins through sheer
personal capabilities are highly applauded. Anyone who can put in a spectacular
effort without any help and little guidance, without any sport academy
manipulation or enhancement is someone who has a unique talent, and deserves to
see their skills rewarded.
Britons don't despise those who win medals on the country's behalf - they are
as pleased to see victory and achievement as others are - but they also have a
fond spot for the under-dog and the so-called failures. Eddie "the Eagle"
Edwards became one of Britain's most celebrated and loved sportsmen, despite
'heroic failure' over multiple performances. The same cannot however be said
of the British public's opinion of Tim Henman, who most think perhaps should
just gracefully give it up, no longer a sportsman, but a figure of ridicule who
has highlighted British failings for far too long.
Many would simply say that the sport has been taken out of sport. Instead of
competition wrapped in camaraderie, it has all turned into a clinical test of
technique and scientific analysis, and it's dog-eat-dog out there.
In the new Olympic world of professional teams and full-time athletes, honed
and perfected by the state, the only real sport is watching the mighty fall.
When the professionals take a tumble, as the great American Basketball 'Dream
Team' have, it is something to celebrate. It shows the true spirit of the Games
and is a round of applause for integrity over industrialised sport.
The most ridiculous thing is that the athletes who compete in the name of a
particular country do not have their intrinsic abilities because they are
residents of that country, but because of their heritage. As Britain showed
in the past when it expediently gave Zola Bud British Citizenship to have her
compete on the nation's behalf, sporting prowess is not a matter of where one
lives, but who one is. The very same slight-of-hand trickery is used in many
countries who will grant citizenship to a world-class athlete simply to bolster
assertions that their country has 'produced' the best in the world. It is as
much about politics as it is about performance, with competitors often being
relegated to being pawns in a global game of one-upmanship.
A national tally of medal winners in Olympic sports is as meaningless, as any
claim that the athletic skills of those who have won medals portrays a
greatness or standing of the nation whose flag they perform under.
People are who they are; where they may live is a matter of chance and
coincidence.
