The hygiene theatre persiste et signe

I think that the french expression in the title is the best adapted one.  If I were really forbidden to use anything but english what I would have opted for is "The hygiene theatre is alive and well". Be that as it may what I am going to write about here are the ridiculous lengths to which the IOC is willing to go in order to respect totally unfounded infection-avoiding directives. 

I have written already in my article, where I was wondering whether the Games were going to be held, about the laughable World Athletics rules, with their obsession on cleaning, among which one find gems like 

the use of hand sanitiser should be recommended before each attempt in vertical jumps

But this time the instructions come form the very summit of the olympic hierarchy. 

“The medals will not be given around the neck. They will be presented to the athlete on a tray and then the athlete will take the medal him or herself", said IOC president T. Bach during a conference in Tokyo. And he segued, "It will be made sure that the person who will put the medals on the tray will do so only with disinfected gloves, so that the athlete can be sure that nobody touched them before”.

And he confirmed that “there will be no handshakes and there will be no hugs during the ceremony”.

What utter nonsense!

It has been known almost since the outset of the epidemic that the probability of being infected by touching a contaminated surface is trifling. In my article cited above I linked to the piece by D. Thompson in The Atlantic on "the hygiene theatre". He writes, epigrammatically, "People are power scrubbing their way to a false sense of security". How true! Thompson links to an article of E. Goldman, a professor at Rutgers, published in the Lancet, where the author debunks the myth of fomite (i.e. contaminated object) Covid transmission. Even if you do not have scientific training I suggest that you track down the article of Goldman and read it (it's just one page long). After that you will avoid the absurd, obsessive gel hand cleaning.

The Tokyo podia are particularly large so as to ensure distancing between the medalists!

So now, in the name of a derisory practice, the athletes will be deprived of that unique experience of the medal award ceremony. They will not be allowed to share a few moments of camaraderie, of those moments where they can share a feeling of having reached their objective.

But, not to worry. The IOC, mindful of the depressing atmosphere of the deserted stadia, is going to feed into the arena crowd noise recorded from each event at previous Olympics. I don't know why, but this reminds me of the canned laughs of american comedies of the early tv days. But perhaps this is it: the Olympics have become a huge (money-motivated) comedy. I think that it is high time they bowed out. 

Richardson will not run in Tokyo

It's final. Richardson will not run at all in Tokyo. But let's start at the beginning.

Sha'Carri Richardson became internationally known when she ran a fantastic 10.75 s at just 19 years of age, winning the 2019 NCAA championships. She made the WA list of rising stars that year. I did not include her in mine since her participation in the US Trials was less than satisfactory. I was certainly wrong, since Richardson was undoubtedly a rising star (and I did include her in my 2020 list). 

This year, after a series of superb races, she dominated the 100 m in the US Trials, head and shoulders. She started with a 10.84 in the heats, followed by a wind-assisted (2.6 m/s) 10.64 in the semis and winning the final with a spectacular acceleration in 10.86 s (into a -1 m/s headwind). Her personal best is 10.72 s, form April.

And then disaster struck. She was tested positive for THC, which is the main psychoactive component found in cannabis. In short, she smoked a marijuana joint. Now it happens that THC is in the list of forbidden substances of the World Anti-Doping Code. However THC is neither performance enhancing nor a masking agent.

After learning of her biological mother’s death, Richardson used marijuana in Oregon, where it is fully legalised. And because of the moralistic view of WADA (who classifies it as a substance of abuse) Richardson's results in the Trials were invalidated. She did not mount a defence. She took responsibility and apologised. After successfully completing a counselling program, she accepted a one-month period of ineligibility. And she made a heartbreaking plea: "Please do not judge me. I am human. I just happen to run a little faster".

Jerry Brewer in the Washington Post wrote: "WADA may think it is keeping order. In Richardson’s situation, however, it robbed a 21-year-old of her joy during a difficult time and reintroduced us to the long, racist history of cannabis being used as a tool to demonise black people". 

D. Pound, who was the first president of WADA, recalled the rationale: the WADA people gave in to pressure from the US who forced the inclusion of recreational drugs in the list of prohibited substances. Over the years the governments' attitudes started changing but the WADA rules did not. The only thing they did was to reduce the punishment, down to a ridiculous low of a one-month suspension. This is pure hypocrisy: they simply do not dare come out and say "we do not penalise marijuana anymore".

In the case of Richardson the situation was complicated by the rigid and antiquated rule of qualifications through the US Trials. Having been disqualified in the Trials she cannot run the 100 m in Tokyo. On the other hand, concerning the relay, there are two discretionary positions (apart from the first four of the Trials) which can be filled by the choice of the team coaches. So, Richardson could have been allowed to run in the 4x100 m. But, no!

To tell the truth, I will not be very happy to see Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce win once more. Somehow I do not like her and I was looking forward to Sha'Carri Richardson deposing her. I guess that will have to wait till 2022 and the World Championships in Eugene.

PS There will be quite a few other absences from the Olympics. Most prominent are those of 400 m world champion S.E. Naser (whereabout violation) and 100 m hurdles world and olympic champion B. McNeal (tampering within the results management process). I will not miss them a lot (and the fact that Naser is absent will push S. Miller to double 200-400 m).

The two namibian 400 m prodigies C. Mboma and B. Masilingi have withdrawn from the 400 m, but remain entered into the 200 m. The reason is that they do not meet the WA eligibility regulations for female classification (meaning that their testosterone concentration is too high).

And this brings us inescapably to C. Semenya. She is pursuing her legal battle hoping to convince some court that she be allowed to compete against women. But the probability is slim and time is running against her (she's 30 this year). As far as the other two Rio 800 m medalists are concerned, M. Wambui has not been seen since 2019, but F. Niyonsaba moved to longer distances and will probably participate in the 5000 and 10000 m in Tokyo.

But the one I will really miss is O. McLeod. To my eyes he is one of the greatest hurdlers ever. He is definitely the fastest, although his technique is not up to par. As a consequence, frequently, he is out of a race, hitting hurdles hard or even falling. This time he crashed out in the finals of the Jamaican Trials, after having registered the best time in the semis. And, since, unfortunately, the jamaicans are mimicking the stupid US qualification procedure, McLeod will have to watch the Tokyo Olympics on his tv. 

Gwen Berry does it again

I have already written about Gwendolyn Berry and her protest on the podium of the 2019 PanAmerican Games in Lima. She had won the gold medal and while the US anthem played Berry raised her fist into the air.

The reactions were swift. Officially she was reprimanded with a 12 month probation. The author of the letter was none other than the president of the US Olympic Committee. Hate mail was even swifter.

"If you don't love the USA, then represent some commie country instead of leeching off a host you despise to get your 'moment in the sun'", tweeted somebody. She was called a traitor and a 'pathetic joke'.

Now it turns out that Berry's father has fought for the US, being an Iraq veteran. And he  made clear that he was in total support of his daughter, explaining that

"For her to do that on the podium is more American than anything, if you ask me. "Because that's what our country is founded on: freedom of expression, freedom of speech".

G. Berry, herself, explained her gesture as being due to her "awakening into the history of African Americans in the US, a strengthening of her identity as a black woman". It was a protest against a broken system and a tribute the sacrifices of her community.

After the things settled down The USOC reconsidered and ended by issuing new guidelines in order to allow peaceful expressions of protest “in support of racial and social justice for all human beings". And they did (privately) apologise to Berry.

And then Berry did it again.

She was third in the US Trials for the Tokyo 2020 Olympics (yes, they are the 2020 Olympics despite being held in 2021). And on the podium she turned away from the US flag during the national anthem. In fact Berry had not planned a protest. In principle the anthem does play for every podium of the national championships, but only once a day. But, it happened to play during the women's hammer podium. 

In Berry's own words this looked like a setup. She did not anticipate protesting, but once there she had to do something as she remains committed to her using sport to advance her cause.

“It’s really important for me and my community just to be able to represent. Being able to represent my communities and my people and those who have died at the hands of police brutality, those who have died to this systemic racism, I feel like that’s the important part", she said.

Reactions burst forth. Some white politician demanded her removal from the US Olympic team. Clearly he does not realise the absurdity the situation, when he suggested that a black protester must be sanctioned for anti-americanism. “We don’t need any more activist athletes", he said. I beg to differ. More activist athletes is precisely what we need.

Berry will be on a larger stage at the Tokyo Olympics. and it just happens that the IOC is discussing granting athletes permission to demonstrate, before their competition (although they remain banned from demonstrating on the podium). Berry has said she will not back down in Tokyo, regardless of the rules in place. She has not decided how she will demonstrate.“When I get there, I’ll figure out something to do”, she said. 

So, I cross my fingers for Berry to win a medal in Tokyo.

The story of Alice Milliat (part 3 of "the long and arduous road of women to the Olympics")

 Sara Gross' article on Alice Milliat starts with the statement:

"one visionary Frenchwoman could have saved us from a 100 years of inequality".

It is difficult to summarise the contribution of A. Milliat to women's sports more accurately. If women are today accepted in the Olympics it's in great part thanks to the efforts of A. Milliat. But let us start at the beginning. 

Alice Milliat was an expert rower

It is not clear what kindled the interest of women in athletics and sports in general at the dawn of the 20th century. It probably had to do with the fact that women started having more opportunities to become educated. The fact that more and more women were working contributed to their seeking to assert their independence. The feminist ideas, which in the 1900's had already taken root in the western society, and the militant suffragette movement had influenced many women to try and do whatever men were doing, including venturing into the sports arena.

As early as 1899, women sports activities were developed inside male athletics clubs, despite the fact that most managers were opposed to women’s sport. The first official women's gymnastics club was Églantine de Lyon founded by C.F. Ludin in 1910. In 1912 was founded the Parisian club Femina Sport which proposed to its members activities in athletics and gymnastics. (The club exists to this date). Since the women activities were not recognised by the official gymnastics federation, Mme Ludin proposed, in 1912, the creation of the “Union Française de Gymnastique Féminine”. However, as is often the case (and this is a universally human characteristic, affecting both males and females), dissenting opinions did exist. Thus the Parisian clubs Femina Sport and Academia (the name of the later is in tribute to Plato who proclaimed the same obligations for women as for men in protecting the city) founded, in 1917, a dissident federation: Fédération des Sociétés Féminines Sportives de France. The president of Femina Sport, Alice Milliat was appointed treasurer of the new-founded federation. She was on her way to becoming a highly controversial and dominant figure in international sport for women.

The same year, 1917, saw the first french women's championship in athletics, organised by Femina Sport. By 1919 A. Milliat had become the president of the Federation. One of her first tasks was to petition the International Olympic Committee for the incorporation of women's athletics events in the Olympic Games of 1920. In vain! The IOC as well as the International Amateur Athletic Federation (that's what World Athletics was called at that time) did not care about women's sports. In fact, as I have explained in a previous post, de Coubertin was in favour of IOC eliminating all women's sports.

Mary Lines at the 1921 Monaco Games

Thus MIlliat decided to explore the possibility of an international women's sports organisation. It started with a women’s international athletics meeting, held in March 1921 in Monte Carlo, in the Casino Garden, under the name of Women's Olympiad. It met with a great success and this spurred Milliat to proceed to the creation of the "Fédération Sportive Féminine Internationale". Only a woman of Milliat’s determination and ability could have accomplished such a feat. Once the FSFI was founded, Milliat reiterated her plea to the IOC concerning the inclusion of women's athletics events in the Paris, 1924, Olympic Games. To no avail! Milliat recounted: “I came up against a solid wall of refusal, which led directly to the creation of the Women’s Olympic Games”. So, in 1922 the second Women's Olympiad were organised, again in Monaco (a third instalment of the competition was to be held in 1923 in Monaco and a fourth one in London). Given the success of this competition, and the fact that the FSFI counted with  38 countries from 5 continents, Milliat decide to organise Olympic Games for women. 

From the Paris 1922 Women's Olympiad

The first Women's Olympics were held in Paris in august 1922. Eleven events were in the program, including a race of 1000 m. (If you wonder why I am mentioning this, I recommend that you take a break and go read my article on what happened after the 800 m race was included in the 1928 Olympics and the abusive, scurrilous, vituperative comments of a bunch of misogynists who, supposedly, followed the race).The IOC started to panic. In 1923 they discussed the feminist movement and the “abuses and excesses” to which it gave rise. They realised that it was too late to muzzle the women's claims. So they decided to embrace and stifle. The first step was for the international federations to take control of the women's activities. Concerning athletics this was quite convenient, given that the president of the IAAF was S. Edström, who made sure that women were excluded from the 1924 Games. So Milliat organised the second Women's Olympic Games in 1926 in Göteborg. The use of the term “Olympic” aroused the ire and indignation of the IOC. Negotiations between the IOC and the FSFI ensued and in the end it was agreed that a full programme of women's athletic events would be introduced in the 1928 Olympic Games. In exchange Milliat altered the title of the Women's Olympics to "Women's World Games". Unfortunately the IOC did not respect their side of the bargain. When this proposal came before the IAAF Congress, the reactions were such that finally it was decided that five events would be admitted and, in fact, only as an experiment.

In its annual meeting in 1929 the IOC voted to withdraw the women's program from athletics. The representative of the USA in the IAAF was not A. Brundage (thank God!), but G. Kirby, a person who is considered one of the architects of the modern US Olympic committee. He fielded a motion that the IAAF withdraw all male athletes from the 1932 Olympics unless women were accepted in the Games. So the IOC back-pedalled and in 1931 voted in favour of admitting women. This shows that despite the strong personality of A. Milliat women would not get very far without the support of a part of the male sport establishment. The third Women’s World Games were held in Prague, in 1930. Two hundred athletes from 17 countries participated in this 3-day event. Regardless of the success, the demands of Milliat for a full Olympic program fell once again on deaf ears. The women’s program for the 1932 Olympic Games included two new events but in the same time the 800 m had disappeared. 

H. Konopacka conpeting in the 1928 Olympics with her trademark red berret

(the photo is post-colourised but I like it because one can see the colour of the berret)

The FSFI renewed its demand for a full women's athletics program in the 1936 Olympics during the IAAF 1932 meeting. This was not accepted, as expected, and as a result the FSFI presented an "ultimatum": if a full program was not accepted, then the FSFI preferred to have no women events at all. Leigh and Bonin, in their article on A. Milliat, argue that the ultimatum was the beginning of the end for the FSFI. It started with the proposal from Germany that the IAAF take complete governance of women’s athletics. The IAAF argued that the dualistic control, IAAF and FSFI, was expensive and troublesome, and that women would be best represented in the IOC by the IAAF. What was really happening was that the IAAF, witnessing the success and world-wide influence of the FSFI, decide to suck the lifeblood out it.

The 1934 Women's World Games were held in London with 19 countries from 4 continents participating. In the FSFI 1934 meeting it was decided that the FSFI would discontinue the Women's World Games series in exchange for a full program for women in the Olympics and a direct women's representative in the IOC. (Women had to wait for decades for both). Following the IOC reluctance, Milliat asked that all participation by women in the Olympics be terminated then and there, so that women could organise their own games. The demand was simply ignored. And to add insult to injury, the IOC rejected the IAAF proposal  to augment the women's athletics program for the 1936 Olympics.

The final episode of A. Milliat's campaign took place during the 1936 IAAF Congress. It was decided that the IAAF would recognise the records, curated up to that point by the FSFI. In the same time the Women's World Games programmed for 1938 were to be transformed  into European Championships under the full control of the IAAF. However the IAAF did not promise any substantial enlargement of the women’s Olympic program: a program of 9 events was proposed, and in fact the 1938 Europeans took place with this 9-event program (with the longest race being the 200 m!).

Leigh and Bonin, observed epigrammatically "(at that point) all FSFI cards had been played". So in 1938 the FSFI closed down. Alice Milliat’s career as an international sports leader was over. Thanks to her character, charisma and actions, she remained a key figure of the women’s sports movement of the early 20th century. She also remained a visionary of the realities of sport: 

"Unfortunately we do not have leaders; the men who take an interest in sport do not realise that they could profit by granting some interest in women's sports; they confine themselves to the eternal male egoism". 

It would take more than half a century for things to start changing.