The Ugly Side of the Olympics: Usain Bolt and Jacques Rogge

The dialogue surrounding the recent Olympics has involved everything from human rights abuses to international politics. These are all legitimate issues, but if it is blame we are looking to levy, such claims obscure the real problems with the Olympics. After all, World War Two-era Germany, Japan, and Italy could have all applied to host the Olympics and it would have been a perfectly acceptable and legitimate action.

If we're looking for who to blame, it ultimately comes down to a single organization to grant a host city and nation the privelege of hosting the Olympics: International Olympic Committee (IOC). And the power of the IOC largely rests in the hands of its lead representative: IOC President.

The IOC President has historically been a controversial post with its most infamous holder being Avery Brundage, an outspoken Nazi-sympathizer and self-proclaimed white supremicist.



Enter Jacques Rogge.

If you're looking for somebody on which to blame Olympic crimes, look no further.

He's the man defers questions about human rights and why the IOC sits silent as 70 year old women are being carted off to re-education camps because they attempted to register a legal protest. He's the man who sat silent while Beijing citizens were removed forcefully from their homes and arrested if they did not comply.



Rogge's legacy will be one of silence, of complicity, and of utter ignorance. He is a man who too easily fits into the social and political inanity and irresponsibility of upper-class white European man. And merely propogates a history of cultural ignorance and oppression.

The real reason we are here, however, is because of Rogge's recent comments pertaining to Jamaican track star and triple gold medalist Usain Bolt.



Below are some excerpts of Rogge's comments:

"I think [Bolt] should show more respect for his competitors and shake hands, give a tap on the shoulder to the other ones immediately after the finish and not make gestures like the one he made in the 100 metres."

"I understand the joy. He might have interpreted that in another way, but the way it was perceived was 'catch me if you can'. You don't do that. But he'll learn. He's still a young man."
-Jacques Rogge

First and foremost, Rogge is entitled to his opinion and there has been a consistently negative response from IOC presidents to showboating sprinters in the past. They simply have no taste for celebrating athletes. If this issue was limited to Bolt, Rogge would come off as an up-tight crotchety old man with a slight racist complex. But, this issue runs a lot deeper than merely one amazing sprinter.

There are more than a few problems with these statements, and there is no way that we'll be able to get into all of them. But it is absolutely essential that this conversation is featured more prominently in the blogosphere.

Here is our first concern, a picture of an event that took place later in the week.



What is wrong with this picture? Well, this is British 4x400m relay anchor leg Martyn Rooney, mocking a Bahamian and Jamaican runner in the 4x400m relay semifinals after he finished first. Yes, mocking in the semifinals. Bolt won one of the most difficult individual events in the Olympics and Rooney is celebrating because of a qualification (NOTE: The British team finished fourth place in the final)

But, more importantly, Rogge has been silent on the issue. In fact, he might as well not care at all. This is important for a couple of reasons:

1. Rooney is white; Bolt is black. Bolt is criticized for being a showboater; Rogge is silent on Rooney's actions. Are stereotypes your thing, Mr. Rogge? Is a showboating black man more offensive than a showboating white European, Mr. Rogge?

2. There is an historical subtext to this issue. Jamaica was a colony of imperial Great Britain (as were the Bahamian islands). It was also a slave society. Historically, this fact makes Rooney's actions all the more deplorable and offensive. If we're to read into the symbolism of Rooney's actions, it is a white British man, the essential image of oppressive colonialism, excessively celebrating the defeat over colonized citizens.

Of course, even without the exaggerated symbolism, Rooney's actions are in the exact same celebratory genre as Bolt's.

The racial dynamic, however, greatly complicates Rogge's anger over one action and his ambivalence over another. As witnessed in most questionable comments made by rich, old, white men, Rogge's comments drip of jealousy that a young, black man proved himself vastly superior to the rest of the field of competition. And, instead of acting gracious, celebrated his accomplishment. To Rogge, there is no doubt that Bolt is a bit too uppity for his refined European taste. To Rogge, the mere concept of Bolt celebrating must seem offensive. How else do you get so upset over celebration.


Is there a problem with this picture? Should we are about Rogge's double standard? After all, it's nothing new. Nobody is expecting Rogge to care about the less-fortunate in the rest of the world. The world of the IOC is notorious in its willingness to be bought, sold, and pandered to as long as it sees benefits. Rogge, in particular, has, with his silence, supported racist acts and propogated negative legislation and opinions.

But, this situation takes the double standard to the next level. Rooney gets off free of charge? What about the Estonian athlete who replicated Bolt's celebration? Are they not deserving of similar spite and disdain? How is mainstream media (outside of Dan Wetzel's transcendent column on Yahoo)?

The difference between past IOC moral ambiguities and Rogge's statement is that Rogge has never made a personal attack such as the aforementioned comment that has been so reliant on racial prejudice and deliberate, unadulterated hate.

For Rogge to give a young, white, and arrogant British male (who, like Bolt, was also featured prominently on primetime NBC coverage) a free-pass is despicable, but predictable. The Estonian athlete's display was not nearly as high profile, but the same judgement extends to Rogge's response to his actions.

Jacques Rogge is a deplorable personality and a human being that is in need of significant education and understanding. We know this. We know this about most "leaders" in government and society.

The real question is, however: "Why is Rogge exempt from criticism?"

Why he receives a free pass in Olympic controversy is beyond us and is one of the more interesting questions that has been absent from mainstream media.

The Olympics are now over, but there is no doubt that we'll experience more gaffes courtesy of Rogge and his cronies. It's just that he really ought to apologize to Usain Bolt over his latest.

Point Guard President

We all know Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama is a force off of the court. But, who could have guessed that he is just as good on it, too?



Barack Obama on the basketball trail in Iowa (from SI)

Paradigm Shift

There is something going on in Portland’s premier basketball venue: The Rose Garden. It’s something that Blazer fans haven’t experienced in years and I don’t just mean the fact that Bill Walton is back, rolling through occasionally with the ESPN network: he’s far less productive on the microphone as he was on the court. The oft-maligned Trailblazers are doing the impossible. By the impossible, I don’t mean winning. By the impossible, I mean, they’re having fun while winning. They look like a team while winning. In the NBA, such a thought is usually oxymoronic with a stress on the third, fourth, and fifth syllables. We’re talking, after all, about professional basketball, the league where players question the necessity of practice more often then actually practice and a league where underachieving is just as valued as overachieving.

However, the youthful Blazers are heralding in a new age in professional basketball, or merely returning the sport to its rightful place. Currently riding a remarkable 11 game winning streak, Rip City finally has a reason to celebrate. But what is so remarkable about this streak and their 57% winning percentage is how the team is handling the success. While most of the team is young (Joel Przybilla at the robust age of 28 is the oldest rotation player), some of the teammates are veterans. Supposed draft busts Martell Webster, Channing Frye, and Travis Outlaw are finally coming into their own as players: neither of the three is over 24 years old. Looking at the bench, sprinkled with young talent, international and domestic, there is a sense that this team is forming a chemistry that many college powerhouses yearn to possess, let alone the me-first NBA.

Watching the Trailblazers beat their division rival, the Denver Nuggets, for their tenth consecutive win was telling. As they finished the game, the bench was jumping up and down and cheering uncontrollably as Martell Webster and rookie Josh McRoberts celebrated with Travis Outlaw and Brandon Roy. Coach Nate McMillan looked on approvingly from the sideline as confetti rained down from the ceiling onto the court. The crowd was going wild and the Portland color-commentators said one key sentence: “It looks like these guys are having fun.”

This success is celebrated, even encouraged, and the Blazers, if anything have proven that the culture of mediocrity and spoiled-rotten superstars might be on its way out. Watching Dwayne Wade try to break the foul shooting record or Vince Carter pout his way to 25 points no longer has the appeal that a team playing in-sync now holds for basketball fans. Survivors of the Dark Ages, an epoch which climaxed with the Bronze medal debacle in Athens have had basketball fans scratching their heads whether or not to abandon the NBA entirely.

Now, however, there are teams again. The San Antonio Spurs have consistently been a well-oiled machine during the Popovich-era and the Pistons are one of the most boring, yet efficient rosters in all of basketball. However, youthful upstarts like the Portland Trailblazers or the New Orleans Hornets are making the team concept attractive because fans are catching the correlation between team play, positive chemistry, and results. However, more than results, fans and spectators are able to find a sense of joy in the game again. Even while disgruntled New York and New Jersey fans are grumbling on the sidelines, they’re demanding greater team chemistry instead of another superstar. They’ve had Franchise, Starbury, McCurry, and Z-Bo: they’re ready to become the Knicks again.

This me-first concept was a radical shift in sports when it first appeared in the form of Nike advertising in the mid-Eighties. However, from the trenches of the shoe wars and recruiting battles, has emerged a team concept that is impossible to deny and catching on from the bottom up. Once the NBA completes its transition from a league of players into a league of teams, the results can be nothing but positive. After all, nobody wanted to see LeBron try to beat the Spurs himself last summer; it’s just not good basketball. It is to be determined whether or not the Blazers and the Hornets are able to sustain the fire that they’ve kindled in their respective locker rooms. However, the mere existence of a team concept in a league of superstar millionaires is a step in the right direction. The NBA cannot return its former glory without such a change.

Maybe there is hope

I'd like to think that this was because of the last post, but Knicks fans have been universally angry about Isiah.

Check out this latest attempt to get him canned.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3161668

Calling X McDaniel

It isn’t often that I feel like Zach Morris from“Saved by the Bell,” but now and then, I am tempted to press the proverbial “pause button” on life and take a look around. Today seems like a better time than ever to look at the state of affairs of the New York Knicks, the team that I have cheered for and screamed at since the days of Xavier McDaniel (I know that wasn’t that long ago, but I’m only twenty.) That’s right, it’s time to do some soul searching for an organization that seems to be losing this very entity.

The Knickerbockers have had a very tough year. Aside from another losing season (they don’t look like they can rebound from the 6-14 record,) the Knicks have endured some serious hardship over the past year, and although a good deal of it has been self-inflicted, some has truly been tragic.

Now don’t get me wrong, I would be the first to applaud Isiah Thomas’ firing, Stephon Marbury’s trade out of town, and James Dolan’s relinquishment of the team. But none of these seem very likely anymore. For some reason, Dolan has chosen to stick by Thomas, even after yesterday’s culmination of a sexual harassment scandal that cost the team over $12 million (not to mention the credibility that was there for the historical greatness of the franchise.)

Thomas was accused of continually committing unwanted sexual advances towards co-worker Anucha Browne Sanders. When interviewed about his coach’s case, Marbury stated that “I know Isiah and I know he's an honorable man…I know that he's a guy filled with a lot of character, so I think everyone here is on his side.” But according to many sources, when Thomas mused with the idea of not starting Marbury, Stephon had this to say about his “honorable” coach: “Isiah has to start me…I've got so much (stuff) on Isiah and he knows it. He thinks he can (get) me. But I'll (get) him first. You have no idea what I know.” Hmm…

Marbury was also implicated in the sexual harassment suit that was filed against Madison Square Garden, which may help to explain his willingness to jump to Isiah’s defense. He was accused of having a sexual relationship with a drunken intern and he admitted to calling Ms. Sanders “a bitch,” a charge that Marbury took rather lightly considering the weight of the lawsuit.

And through all of this, James Dolan has seen no reason to fire his trusty (also not trustworthy) GM/Coach. Even with fans chanting “Fire Isiah” at nearly every home game this year, Dolan has moronically stuck by Thomas. It is an unfortunate state of affairs for Knicks fans when we have to relish the days of just being in the news for our team’s inability to win games, now though, there is this.

To be fair though, the Knicks have had some hard luck that has nothing to do with their morally reprehensible behavior. Newly acquired Zach Randolph’s grandmother died only a few weeks into the season, and Stephon Marbury’s father suffered a heart-attack while watching his son at Madison Square Garden on December 2nd (Marbury’s aunt also recently passed away.) To the credit of the organization, the Knicks have confronted both Marbury’s and Randolph’s crises with class. Both players have been given blank checks as to when they should return to the team while they mourn their loved ones.

And while the Knicks have handled this situation relatively well, it leaves one wondering: how bad can a company be that it is applauded for giving people proper time off for bereavement? Let us not be fooled by the grace of Isiah Thomas when he assures us that the Knicks are giving Steph as much time as he needs; he is merely covering his behind so the players association doesn’t file a grievance.

Much like our president, Isiah Thomas is a lame duck, and so while success (both in terms of sport and of soul) seems to be impossible while he is the sitting coach, there are two directions towards which we can look. We can reach nostalgically back to the times of Hoop Dreams, a film that portrayed Thomas as a legend and a role model for inner-city youth in Michigan. Or we can look excitedly towards November, 2008, a month that will have just seen the beginning of a new basketball season and the election of a new (fingers crossed) party in the White House. We must hope that next year will bring new hope and honesty to the presidency, as well as to the Knicks’ front office.

But then again, what am I saying? Lightning can strike twice. Mitt Romney could be our next president, animal abusers could continue to be more ostracized than wife beaters and sexual deviants, and you never know… Isiah Thomas could still be coach the New York Knicks.