EDITORIAL

Prev    Next Editorial: It seems the Caribbean cannot win for losing Published on Monday, August 25, 2008 Email To Friend    Print Version “Faster, higher, stronger” is the motto of the Olympic Games. An event that ought to provide a platform for unity and peace, where countries come together for a couple of weeks of competition and sportsmanship, putting their differences aside A place where power players in the world of sports should exhibit behaviour that exemplifies the spirit of the games, and where the “underdog” can shine in their moment. With sporting superpowers like the United States, China, and Russia holding the top three medal counts, it would be reasonable to think pride and honour would be in full play and, with the media footage showcasing their top contenders, it’s easy to overlook the lesser known athletes competing alongside them. Such is the case of Churandy Martina, an Olympic competitor from the tiny Caribbean territory of the Netherlands Antilles. With a total population of 225,369, and only one Olympic medal in its history, the territory had a lot riding on Mr Martina. Mr Martina was born on the island of Curacao, the main island in the grouping, and is so revered in his country that he served as their flag bearer in the ceremonies of the previous two Olympics. Just moments after finishing second behind Jamaica’s Usain Bolt in the men’s 200 meters final, Mr Martina said, “Today I really feel like a champion,” and added the invitation, “Everybody in the whole world is welcome to enjoy and celebrate my silver medal.” Finishing second, and placing his country on the Olympic map for the second time in their history, Mr Martina was set to receive his silver medal with all the pride and glory of a gold medallist. However, American athlete Wallace Spearmon, also a competitor in the men’s 200 meters, was disqualified for running out of his lane, thus losing his bronze medal. Though this would be a blow to any contender, it was not a devastating hit to the US medal standing. We get the point that rules are rules, and the judges immediately noticed Mr Spearmon’s error, but what we don’t understand is why, after combing the tapes and discovering that Mr Martina had also committed a similar but apparently barely perceptible error, the US felt the need to retaliate against him, seeking some sort of vindication. With the disqualification of Mr Martina, the United States placed two of their runners, Shawn Crawford and Walter Dix, on the podium for silver and bronze. Not only did the United States take away the small Caribbean country’s glory and national hero, for whom that country would have celebrated a silver medal with the enthusiasm and triumph of the prized gold; they also handed two US runners medals who did not “earn” them – as the athletes themselves are the first to acknowledge. Did the coaches who pored over the video of the event give the US, or the athletes for that matter, more pride to be “given” medals in lieu of “winning” them? How can a nation as large and powerful as the United States take any pride in this double tragedy? Mr Crawford, who was bumped to second as a result of US protest, told reporters he felt uneasy accepting the silver medal, stating, “It feels kind of weird, like a charity case,” and adding. “I'm always going to know that I finished fourth.” Doug Logan, track and field’s new CEO, obviously did not see the error by Mr Martina, so was the US innocently verifying the mistake on the part of the contender and the judges, or did they make a calculated move to advance in the medal standings? At the time of press, the United States holds 110 medals, more than any other country, so when a country of 300 million people denies a single medal to a country with less than 226,000 people, it most likely will not sit well with the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which will, hopefully, include representation from other small Caribbean countries with long memories when the time comes for Chicago to be considered as a venue for the 2016 Olympic Games. Maybe the US coaches should consider that just because they had the right or power to do something, does not mean they should have exercised it. In another apparent “sour grapes” moment, IOC president Jacques Rogge spoke out against Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt for celebrating his world record wins in the 100- and 200-meter races, saying he should show more respect for his rivals, and accused him of showboating. As an athlete, Mr Bolt had trained for these games for many years, and not only won, but won his races in world record times. Is he not entitled to some chest slapping and arm waving? And for the record, his “I’m number one” production for the TV cameras was a fact, so how was that being disrespectful? Since the beginning of the Olympic Games, and any other sport for that matter, victors have celebrated their wins in flamboyant displays, so maybe Mr Rogge should go back and study the history of the “win”. With all the rules, regulations, and rigidness in the world of sports, it is a breath of fresh air to see some individuality and exhibition of pride. Let’s bring “good sportsmanship” back to the largest sporting event in the world, one with an international arena viewed by millions, where the athlete's spirit, mind, and body endeavour to excel and achieve higher standards than the presently existing ones. Pierre de Coubertin, who founded the IOC on June 23, 1894, got an idea for a phrase from a speech given by Bishop Ethelbert Talbot at a service for Olympic champions during the 1908 Olympic Games. That phrase became the Olympic Creed, and it reads: "The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well." The Olympic creed and motto are both meant to spur the athletes to embrace the Olympic spirit and perform to the best of their abilities. Perhaps others should embrace this message.   Reads : 1718   Prev    Next