Problems, Possibilities, Promising Practices: Critical Dialogues on the Olympic and Paralympic Games Eleventh International Symposium for Olympic Research Editors Janice Forsyth Michael K. Heine Western University Canada London, Ontario October 19-20, 2012 The International Centre for Olympic Studies The International Centre for Olympic Studies, established at The University of Western Ontario in 1989, was the first of its kind in the world. It remains the only such Centre in the Americas. It has as its primary mission the generation and dissemination of academic scholarship focused specifically upon the socio- cultural study of the Olympic Games and the Olympic Movement. In order to bring this endeavor to frui- tion, the Centre pursues the following four initiatives: 1. The Centre produces Olympika: The International Journal of Olympic Studies. This refereed schol- arly journal, which has an internationally recognized editorial review board, is currently published annually, and is available for subscription throughout the world. 2. The Centre hosts an important International Symposium for Olympic Research in every Olympic year. The Centre publishes the Proceedings of these symposia. 3. The Centre organizes and sponsors regular guest lectures presented by recognized Olympic schol- ars and officials, including three annual honor addresses entitled the Ion P. Ioannides, the J. How- ard Crocker, and the Earle F. Zeigler Lectures. 4. The Centre maintains a resource unit in its home in the Arthur and Sonia Labatt Health Sciences Building (Room 317) for the use of visiting scholars worldwide, as well as for faculty members, graduate and undergraduate students at The University of Western Ontario. The Centre welcomes and invites correspondence concerning any or all of these matters, and encourages scholars to consider participating in the Twelfth International Symposium for Olympic Research, sched- uled for the second half of 2014. Copyright to these Proceedings is held by the International Centre for Olympic Studies and the authors of the scholarly works herein represented. Problems, Possibilities, Promising Practices: Critical Dialogues on the Olympic and Paralympic Games Eleventh International Symposium for Olympic Research Published by the International Centre for Olympic Studies Western University Canada London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B9 http://www.uwo.ca/olympic © 2012 Table of Contents Table of Contents . .ii Foreword . iv Pam R. Sailors “Organically Sound” Olympians: Gender and Women’s Distance Running . .1 Fred Mason Choices of Commemoration: Analysis of Canadian Winter Olympic Commemorative Videos . 6 Toby Rider ‘It Is Not a Simple Matter to Keep Aloof’: Avery Brundage and the U.S. Government in the Early Cold War Years . 12 M.S. Doiara S. dos Santos Growing Pains: Avery Brundage and the Olympic Movement in South America . .19 Matthew P. Llewellyn & John T. Gleaves The Rise of the ‘Shamateur’: The International Olympic Committee and the Preservation of the Amateur Ideal . 23 Sarah Teetzel Olympic Support Personnel and Entourages: Coherence with the Philosophy of Olympism . .29 Nao Masumoto Youth Olympic Games: A New Paradigm in the Quest for Transnationalism . .35 Jörg Krieger The Youth Olympic Games from the Athlete´s Perspective Larry R. Gerlach An Olympic Friendship: Alma Richards and Hans Liesche . .45 Mark Devitt Olympic Education: Gold Medal for Propaganda? . .51 Joshua R. Pate & Robin Hardin The Model for US Paralympic Training Sites: A Case Study of the Lakeshore Foundation . 57 Stephan Wassong & Jörg Krieger Munich 1972—Turning Point in the Olympic Doping Control System: The First Official Appearance of Doping Concerns on the Agenda of the International Olympic Committee . 62 Tuna Batuhan The Politics of Olympic Transportation Planning: The Case of the 1996 Atlanta Summer Olympic Games . 68 Keiko Homma & Naofumi Masumoto How Social Factors Developed Sport Legacies after the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games . .73 ii Ian Ritchie The ‘Spirit of Sport’: Understanding the Cultural Foundations of Olympism through Anti-Doping Policies . 78 Kathryn Henne Tracing Olympic Bio-Citizenship: The Implications of Testing for Ineligibility . .83 Charlene Weaving ‘Babes Boxing in Skirts:’ A Critique of the Proposed AIBA Uniform Rule . .88 Amanda Schweinbenz ‘Float Like a Butterfly, Sting Like a Bee’—But Only if You Dress Like a Girl: An Analysis of the Feminization of Female Olympic Athletes through Athletic Attire . 94 Christine O’Bonsawin Igniting a Resistance Movement: Understanding Indigenous Opposition to the 2010 Olympic Torch Relay . 99 Wanda Ellen Wakefield Citius, Altius, Fortius: At Whose Expense? Making Sense of the Death of Nodar Kumaratishvili at the 2010 Olympic Winter Games . 105 Geoff Nichols & Rita Ralston Volunteer Management at the 2012 Olympic Games: A Tension between ‘Programme’ and ‘Membership’ Management Styles . 110 Richard Baka Olympic Houses: A Comparative Investigation Between Canada, Germany and Australia . .116 Presentation Abstracts . .124 iii Foreword With Problems, Possibilities, Promising Practices: Critical Dialogues on the Olympic and Paralympic Games, the International Symposium for Olympic Research and these accompanying Proceedings reach their eleventh iteration. The International Centre for Olympic Studies at Western University, Canada, has hosted the Olympic Symposia biennially since 1992. This 11th Symposium was held at Western University’s Ivey Spencer Centre in London, Ontario, just a short time subsequent to the closing of the 2012 Summer Olympic Games in London, England. The editors present these Proceedings to the reader in a somewhat altered format. In keeping with current development in the book publishing sector, the Proceedings are now distributed in electronic format only. For now, ICOS uses the Adobe Acrobat pdf format; the epub e-Book format will be added in the future. As a consequence of a second change, not all of the presentations given at the Symposium, are included in written form, in the Proceedings—presenters were free to submit a paper version of their presentation for inclusion in the Proceedings, or to contribute a presentation only; twenty-three papers are thus contained in this publication. They provide a good representation of the range of subjects addressed; to give the reader an understanding of the full gamut of topics, all of the presentation abstracts are reproduced in the second segment of these Proceedings. In all, over 60 pre- sentations were given in the course of the weekend. The ability to attract contributions from Olympic scholars and researchers from across the globe, has always been one of the Symposium’s sustaining strengths. In addition to the large number of attendees from North America, Australia, and Europe, ICOS was particularly delighted to welcome colleagues representing institutions in Brazil, Egypt, Iran, Japan, Nigeria, and the People’s Republic of China. ICOS particularly welcomes all first-time attendees, and especially all graduate students. We sincerely hope to see you again at future Symposia! The broad spectrum of Olympics-related research in evidence during the weekend, is also reflected in the widening of the Symposium’s thematic scope: ICOS in particular seeks to attract con- tributions examining the ‘problems and possibilities’ of the Paralympic Games. In all, the Olympic issues raised at the Symposium, were examined from the perspectives of classical studies, education, political science, gender studies, economics, sociology, history, philosophy, management and organi- zational studies, and law. The editors and ICOS would be remiss not to acknowledge the extensive volunteer contributions by the members of the submissions review board (Fred Mason, Amanda Schweinbenz, Sarah Teetzel, and Charlene Weaving), and the Symposium organizing committee (Laura Misener, Robert Lake, and Kevin Wamsley)—a sincere ‘Thank you!’ to all of you. JF, MKH London, Ontario, October 2012 iv “Organically Sound” Olympians: Gender and Women’s Distance Running Pam R. Sailors Missouri State University, U.S.A. The long and difficult process of women’s inclusion in the Olympic Games has been well-docu- mented, but room for discussion remains regarding women’s distance running in at least two areas beyond the fact of mere inclusion. First, as recently as the early 1960s, the authors of a book on coaching track and field found it necessary to reassure their readers that girls and women could exert themselves physically without danger, so long as they were properly conditioned and “organically sound.”1 Even so, women were not allowed to run events of the same distances as men, since the International Olympic Committee (IOC) was not persuaded to include events for women at any dis- tance over 1,500 metres until the 1980 Games in Moscow. Second, even when women are allowed to engage in exactly the same contests as men, they may bear the burden of additional expectations, negative stereotypes, and inequity as a consequence of their gender. Most prominently, the appear- ance and personal lives of women distance runners are subject to far more scrutiny than is the case for their male counterparts. I begin this examination by providing a brief history of the effort to include women’s distance running events, with a particular focus on the marathon, which was con- tested for the first time in the 1984 Games held in Los Angeles. I then examine issues of gender in women’s Olympic distance running events. Many accounts of the history of women’s participation in Olympics running events begin with the story of the infamous 800 metre foot race at the 1928 Games in Amsterdam.2 It was the first time women had been allowed to run 800 metres and it ended with the collapse of several participants at the finish line. As John Tunis described it for the New York Evening Post, “Below us on the cinder path were 11 wretched women, 5 of whom dropped out before the finish, while 5 collapsed after reaching the tape.”3 Alarmed by this display of the physical distress of the women, the event was eliminated from the Games. It is a good story, but it is almost entirely false. The number of women in the race was nine, not eleven. The number of them who dropped out was zero, not five.