This unsigned editorial first appeared in the Sept. 23, 1972, issue of The Sporting News under the headline, “A Madhouse or Sports Show?”.
Perhaps the best that can be said of the 1972 Olympics is that they have ended. Stalked by tragedy and ripped by bickering, official bungling and political infighting, the Games are suffering from a bad case of disillusionment and bitterness. If the athletes’ performances, by and large, were superior, the post-victory conduct of a few was hardly exemplary. And the coterie of Olympic administrators succeeded only in muddying already troubled waters.
Overshadowing all, the slaughter of 11 members of the Israeli delegation by Arab killers shook the world. One might have assumed that this carnage would have turned the games into a sober, reflective camp, minus the customary scrapping over judges’ decisions and other paltry issues. But after a memorial service in which Avery Brundage managed to lament the ouster of Rhodesia almost as much as the Israeli tragedy, the resumption of the Games revealed nothing had changed. If anything, the yelping attained a new shrillness. It must be said, too, that the ineptness of those conducting this show grew even more obvious,
Observers who declared that canceling of the Olympics would have compounded the Arab guerrillas’ heinous crime probably were on firm ground. We doubt that calling off the ’72 Games would have served any good purpose. Not so compelling, however, is the case for continuing the Olympics on other counts. A number of veteran sportswriters who covered the Munich show contend this international sports extravaganza has reached a frenzied, ungovernable tempo.
As TV entertainment, the Games may have been super. But they left much to be desired as a model for international rapport and decorum. The incessant scramble for national prestige and the use of the Games as a lever for political blackmail and a forum for flaunting racial issues create serious doubt as to the real value of the Olympics.
Caught up in this atmosphere, the athletes themselves were not reluctant to blast their coaches and sound off on a myriad of issues they may or may not comprehend. Nor were many of the participants and their handlers above the use of drugs, as a constant stream of doping charges indicated.
As for official blundering, nothing could top the amazing sequence of decisions which permitted the Russians to beat the U.S. basketball team in the most notorious “long count” since Dempsey-Tunney.
Though international judges gave the U.S. a bad time, particularly in boxing and diving, America’s own bevy of coat-holders did an effective job of thwarting the ambitions of U.S. competitors. Two sprinters never reached the starting blocks because their coach misread the timetable. Swimmer Rick DeMont saw his gold medal snatched away because U.S. administrators and doctors permitted him to use a medication clearly forbidden by Olympic regulations.
But U.S. badge-wearers reached a peak of myopia in the case of American sprinters Vince Matthews and Wayne Collett. In a decision which U.S. officials should have seconded, the International Olympic Committee banned these two from further competition for insulting their country on the medalists’ stand. Instead, the U.S. team’s high command protested their ouster, a squawk as deserving of censure as the arrogance of the two athletes.
It’s difficult to feel compassion for any save the friends and relatives of the murdered Israelis. Yet the brilliant U.S. swimmer Mark Spitz probably deserves a larger niche in Olympic history than he’s likely to get, now that the 1972 Games are imbedded in everyone’s mind as a sports festival ripped by violence.
Confident though he apparently was, even Spitz hardly could have seen himself taking seven gold medals, an unprecedented and magnificent accomplishment. Spitz is a classic case of single-minded pursuit of a goal, which proved especially rewarding in light of his resounding flop in the 1968 Games at Mexico City. His success story was a plus for the Olympics, which sorely need the pluses.
Where do the Olympics go from here? Perhaps to oblivion unless the hysteria and passions can be tempered. The record isn’t encouraging. Some have suggested the Olympics will survive only if the contestants come as individuals, representing no nations. The hard fact is, many of them probably couldn’t come at all without the backing of their governments, and that would not be forthcoming if the waving of national flags and playing of national anthems were abolished. For some governments involved, it’s not fun and games. It’s win at any price. Utopia and the Olympic ideal still are a long way from reality.
Hits: 0
