12-13-2018 04:11:41 PM -0800
12-13-2018 01:40:43 PM -0800
12-13-2018 09:55:34 AM -0800
12-13-2018 08:38:49 AM -0700
12-12-2018 10:18:40 AM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.

Olympic Committee or Athletic Nanny State?

Never mind that this athlete is trying to scrape together approximately $224,000 while the International Olympic Committee raked in a record $3.8 billion for broadcasting rights to the 2010 and 2012 Games. It’s also worth noting that female Olympic athletes -- from the Australian soccer team to Canadian biatheletes -- have funded their dreams by stripping down to the nude in tasteful calendars and have gone on to represent their countries.

If legislating individual morals were not enough, the organizers for the 2012 London Games have decided to focus their attentions on macro issues. Britain’s “Cultural Olympiad,” which will be run in conjunction with the 2012 Olympics, awarded artist Alex Hartley more than $825,000 this month to tow part of a small island off of Greenland to the southwest coast of England. The purpose is to bring attention to climate change. “It’s an absurd thing to do, I admit that,” said an unapologetic Hartley to BBC Devon. Still, he also promised: "When you see the island there will be magic in it." As for the environmental impact of ripping off a piece of an island and hauling it thousands of miles, Hartley is confident that the attention he will bring to global warming will offset the project’s carbon footprint.

Now I actually believe that climate change is a worthy issue. But I certainly don’t want the Olympic movement (whether it be national or international Olympic committees or local organizers) spending money to tell me about it. This is especially the case when they seem to be forgetting the fact this is all meant to be an athletics show. In fact, only a day before the announcement of Hartley’s windfall, the British Olympic Association disclosed that it might have to trim the size of the 2012 British team because of a more than $6.6 million shortfall in funding.

No doubt, the hard work put in by the British athletes who may be snubbed -- or by New Zealand’s Mr. Campbell -- would surely do more to renew my moral spirit than seeing Mr. Hartley’s piece of an island off the British coast.

Ultimately, these “Olympic” actions speak to the hubris of the movement. When Olympic founder Pierre de Coubertin coined his Olympic oath, the one request he had for the competitors was to glorify sport through sportsmanlike decorum. In 2000, athletes also needed to swear they will eschew doping in their quest for gold. Here’s hoping that the next level of commitment doesn’t include agreeing to a set of principles that have nothing to do with sprinting down a track or throwing a javelin. Considering the current direction of the movement, I wouldn’t bet against it.