When I started writing this blog I did not have any particular plan. Inspired by Juilland's writings I decided to publish a few thoughts on athletics, hoping that some people would discover them (by pure chance since the internet is really, really vast), they would like them and would come back for more. Speaking of visitors the abnormal views did strike again. And this time it was something impressive. Over two months, July and August, I had some 30000 views (20 times more than what I consider normal traffic).
And then, in September things went back to normal, and, in fact, even below what I would have expected, given the timing of the 2019 World Championships.
Well, I don't care much about the number of visitors I get. A few hundreds per month is OK for me. The condition for a blog to be thriving is that the subject it deals with be flourishing.
And I believe that athletics is indeed in good shape. This was made possible thanks to two major decisions. Both of them are associated with the late IAAF president Primo Nebiolo. The first one was the end of the myth of amateur athletes, as in 1982, the IAAF abandoned the traditional concept of amateurism, creating, in the following years, trust funds for athletes. Amateurism has plagued athletics since the very first day. It was something invented by the british nobility as (in the words of IOC member Anita DeFrantz) "a way to exclude people". The terror of the control of amateur status had reigned over athletics for decades, maintained with an extra dose of hypocrisy by the likes of A. Brundage. The second important decision was the creation of World Championships for athletics. It was a great move, liberating athletics from the yoke of the Olympic Committee, who have always been maintaining that the Olympics should serve as world championships for all olympic sports. Relinquishing the control of a sport to the Olympic Committee was an untenable situation, linking the fate of the discipline to that of the IOC. As things stand now, athletics are guaranteed to survive a (hypothetical) bankruptcy of the olympic movement.
Some people, in particular those of an age close to mine, will argue that the golden age of athletics is over. They will mention the unforgettable matches USA-USSR, where we had to ask around in order to understand what on earth did CCCP stand for. Or, closer to myself, the match Balkans-Scandinavia, with the stadium full to capacity. But one should not forget that those were the days before the television invaded all households and when the internet was something encountered only in science fiction novels. So, I am convinced that now is the best period for athletics, with competitions which are followed by millions of spectators worldwide. I, too, am nostalgic of the evenings spent in the Panathenaic stadium following my athletics' heroes, but one must accept that that period is over.
While I am optimistic about the current status of athletics, this does not mean that I do not see the dangers waiting in ambush. First and foremost is the doping problem. I do not think that the IAAF and/or the WADA are doing a proper job. I cannot understand how the ANA status of D. Lysenko was revoked for a whereabouts violation while C. Coleman was exonerated for the same violation thanks to some legalese hocus-pocus from the USADA. I cannot understand why the tabula rasa of records was adjourned sine die while everybody agrees that the current world record list is contaminated. (What is even more infuriating is that in the Doha handbook, the IAAF gives a list of the best performances since 2000 where one finds listed V. Devyatovski in the men's hammer throw and L. Peleshenko in the women's shot put, both known doping offenders. And they are not the only ones in the list).
The second danger for athletics is the current trend to make the competitions more game-like in order to attract more spectators. This is a serious mistake. Athletics will never be as entertaining to the non-specialist who is interested more in the gossip and/or the bloopers of the tv games. On the other hand, a profound alteration of athletics would definitely alienate the real athletics fans, the "mordus" (a french expression I like a lot, literally meaning "bitten" and which can be vaguely translated as "buffs"). Having a full program, with something interesting taking place all the time in the stadium, filmed by an expert team should be enough.
I will stop my rant here, giving you an appointment for next October (once we have survived the Tokyo Olympics) for the seventh anniversary of the blog.
And then, in September things went back to normal, and, in fact, even below what I would have expected, given the timing of the 2019 World Championships.
Well, I don't care much about the number of visitors I get. A few hundreds per month is OK for me. The condition for a blog to be thriving is that the subject it deals with be flourishing.
And I believe that athletics is indeed in good shape. This was made possible thanks to two major decisions. Both of them are associated with the late IAAF president Primo Nebiolo. The first one was the end of the myth of amateur athletes, as in 1982, the IAAF abandoned the traditional concept of amateurism, creating, in the following years, trust funds for athletes. Amateurism has plagued athletics since the very first day. It was something invented by the british nobility as (in the words of IOC member Anita DeFrantz) "a way to exclude people". The terror of the control of amateur status had reigned over athletics for decades, maintained with an extra dose of hypocrisy by the likes of A. Brundage. The second important decision was the creation of World Championships for athletics. It was a great move, liberating athletics from the yoke of the Olympic Committee, who have always been maintaining that the Olympics should serve as world championships for all olympic sports. Relinquishing the control of a sport to the Olympic Committee was an untenable situation, linking the fate of the discipline to that of the IOC. As things stand now, athletics are guaranteed to survive a (hypothetical) bankruptcy of the olympic movement.
Some people, in particular those of an age close to mine, will argue that the golden age of athletics is over. They will mention the unforgettable matches USA-USSR, where we had to ask around in order to understand what on earth did CCCP stand for. Or, closer to myself, the match Balkans-Scandinavia, with the stadium full to capacity. But one should not forget that those were the days before the television invaded all households and when the internet was something encountered only in science fiction novels. So, I am convinced that now is the best period for athletics, with competitions which are followed by millions of spectators worldwide. I, too, am nostalgic of the evenings spent in the Panathenaic stadium following my athletics' heroes, but one must accept that that period is over.
While I am optimistic about the current status of athletics, this does not mean that I do not see the dangers waiting in ambush. First and foremost is the doping problem. I do not think that the IAAF and/or the WADA are doing a proper job. I cannot understand how the ANA status of D. Lysenko was revoked for a whereabouts violation while C. Coleman was exonerated for the same violation thanks to some legalese hocus-pocus from the USADA. I cannot understand why the tabula rasa of records was adjourned sine die while everybody agrees that the current world record list is contaminated. (What is even more infuriating is that in the Doha handbook, the IAAF gives a list of the best performances since 2000 where one finds listed V. Devyatovski in the men's hammer throw and L. Peleshenko in the women's shot put, both known doping offenders. And they are not the only ones in the list).
The second danger for athletics is the current trend to make the competitions more game-like in order to attract more spectators. This is a serious mistake. Athletics will never be as entertaining to the non-specialist who is interested more in the gossip and/or the bloopers of the tv games. On the other hand, a profound alteration of athletics would definitely alienate the real athletics fans, the "mordus" (a french expression I like a lot, literally meaning "bitten" and which can be vaguely translated as "buffs"). Having a full program, with something interesting taking place all the time in the stadium, filmed by an expert team should be enough.
I will stop my rant here, giving you an appointment for next October (once we have survived the Tokyo Olympics) for the seventh anniversary of the blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment