Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Politics & the Winter Olypmics

  • 08-02-2002 11:40am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭


    OK...

    I could have put this in sport, but I stuck here :)

    On the radio today, it was announced that Dubya would be the first American President ever to open an Olympic Games.

    Now, whatever about the silly complaints about U2 playing at the Superbowl, this announcement disconcerts me slightly.

    The Olympic Games are supposed to be apolitical. OK - we've seen boycotts and the like before, but in general, the idea is that it is about sports.

    I wasnt too upset when I heard that the US team would use two flags - one which would fly for the tournament, but also a second which would be part of the opening parade - the one from ground zero of the twin towers. For me, this was OK - if the US sports team wish to show their national pride and resilience in this way, then fair enough - they should be allowed.

    However, the lighting of the flame has always (to my recollection) been a sportspsersons "job". It is an honour typically bestowed on outstanding athletes - beit outstanding in their performance, or in their surmounting fo some odds.

    So - what is the logic behind having a political figure open the games?

    OK - it could be that the IOC are making their own statement of support. If this is the case, then I would criticise them for mixing sport with politics. Its a bad idea. When the two mix, it is sports which suffers, and the Olympics are about the human spirit transcending barriers such as race, colour and creed.

    The alternative is that the American organisers are turning the Olympics into a political stage. Again, I have to assume that this is being done with the IOC's consent, but even so, the issue should never have been raised.

    I must say that I'm disappointed. I wouldnt propose anything daft like people boycotting the events (live or on tv) as it would be "showing supprort to the US hegemony", but I do think that its a sad day for the Olympics when the IOC are consenting to allow the games to be used as any form of political platform.

    jc


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 747 ✭✭✭Biffa Bacon


    Is Bush being allowed light the flame? Or is he just making a speech to open the games? If he is being allowed light the flame then I would agree that that is out of order.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,574 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    What is the IOC website?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    I would just like to apologise for jumping the gun. The Swiss radio misreported the "opening of the games" as " the lighting of the torch".

    Bush did not light the torch, and it was left to sportsmen.

    Stupid me.

    jc


Advertisement