[Apologies - I meant to post this on April 7th., but got sidetracked.]
Perhaps it's naive to think that there's any such thing as 'pure' sport, untainted by grubbier considerations. After all, Berlin (1936), Munich (1972) and Moscow (1980) all held games in which politics was a significant, if unwelcome factor. In recent decades, the commercial factors (sponsorship, product placement, broadcasting) seem to have increased exponentially - and in 1984, combining the two, Russia boycotted the Los Angeles Olympics, citing their over-commercialisation as its reason for pulling out.
Growing up with the Cold War games, I often had the impression that they were being turned from a contest between individual athletes to one in which competing economic and political ideologies battled it out for the biggest haul of medals. Which could produce the better performance - individualism and free enterprise, or all-pervading devotion to the socialist state? Mary Decker or Nadia Komaneci...?
There must presumably still be some people who cling to the Olympic ideal that sport and politics are best not crammed, willy nilly, into the same bed. They, above all, must have been wndering what the Olympic torch was doing in front of Number 10 Downing Street yesterday. Apparently Gordon Brown wanted to appear with it in the company of prospective British Olympians - a laudable enough aim, in itself. But a little finesse might perhaps have suggested a venue with sporting connotations, rather than purely political ones. After all, the torch was on its way to Stratford, site of the London Games in 2012.
In any case, today's news stories suggest that the Olympic ideal has been rather fatally undermined elsewhere. Apparently officials in Paris twice snuffed out the torch 'for safety reasons'. It was then re-lit from one of the back-up lanterns which accompany it. I thought the whole point was that the flame made the whole journey unextinguished. Otherwise isn't it, well... cheating?
![[RSS Newsfeed]](/themes/sotto/images/valid-rss.png)
![[This is a Roller site]](/themes/sotto/images/roller-logo.gif){kind=logo}
The fact that individual sportsmen represent their countries rather than themselves means that the Olympics is political - a country is a political unit.
Posted by Spongebob Squarepants on April 14, 2008 at 11:58 AM GMT+00:00 #
The Chinese use a form of packet switching - dividing the flame and carrying it in several independent torches to avoid a single point of failure. In the OSI world, this is known as flame relay. Or something.
Posted by Richard Veryard on April 14, 2008 at 03:03 PM GMT+00:00 #
'back up latterns' for relighting sounds far more impressive than 'Some Zippo we found in the glove compartment'
Posted by paul on April 14, 2008 at 03:56 PM GMT+00:00 #
Well... you know Paris. I think people are probably quite wary these days about leaving additional flammable items in their cars.
Posted by Robin Wilton on April 14, 2008 at 04:08 PM GMT+00:00 #
The torch has been extinguished many times over the years for various reasons; the 'backup lantern' is actually the one that is permanently lit.
Posted by SW on April 17, 2008 at 09:30 PM GMT+00:00 #
Thanks, SW; yes, I realise, having looked into it, that there is a layer of cold, grey practicality behind all the ceremony and symbolism. In a way, though, it just highlights the original point of my post: The Torch/The Flame is a symbol, yes; and symbols need to be handled carefully, because they are powerful things. If Olympics and politics don't mix, it was perhaps ill-considered to have the torch make a publicised visit to Downing Street. If Olympics and politics are inextricably entwined, then perhaps a more public position is called for on the Tibet question...
Posted by Robin Wilton on April 18, 2008 at 06:45 PM GMT+00:00 #