The Olympic Ideal and the Multiple Agendas of the Games

Renford Reese Cal Poly Pomona University

The are often viewed as an ideological, geo-political sporting battleground. The nuanced relationships between nation states and their respective sporting structures and organizations are played out on the global stage of ‘The Games’. The stage offered by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) through their four- year cycle of celebration of sporting prowess is universally recognized as ‘more than just a Games’. Sport has become not only a means of bringing people together but also of emphasizing difference, thus it has become impossible for sport to distance itself from world issues. By staging the ‘greatest show on earth’, the Olympic movement becomes a worthy area of investigation into this relationship between sport and international politics and offers a different lens through which one can offer a view on global politics and international relations. No other event in the history of the world has the type of universal appeal of the Olympic Games. It is this very universality that is the focus of this paper. The investigation is based on observations, interviews, and written sources. It will briefly examine the significance of the Games in the context of broader Olympic politics, international relations, nationalism, racial harmony, and the self professed humanistic ideals of the Olympic movement itself through this small scale, observational study.

Key words: Olympics, Olympic politics, Olympic movement, Olympic Games, International Olympic Committee.

Introduction At the level of international politics it is impossible for sport to distance itself from the political questions, which beset the world, especially questions relating to the recognition of states. This applies to all kinds of international sports organisations, but the necessary engagement with politics is especially obvious and important within the Olympic movement because of the extraordinary interest generated worldwide by the Olympic Games, the great amounts of money involved and the movement’s aspiration to universality (Hill, 1996). The core of this paper is based on observational analysis and small-scale sampling interviews from two Olympic Games--Atlanta and Vancouver. Observations from Sydney are also included but only from the preparation phase of the Games. Interviews were conducted with six individuals closely connected to the Olympic Games. The Olympic Movement is structured in such a way that its influence permeates through its own committee structures from its International Olympic Committee (IOC) through its various commissions, individual National Olympic Committees (NOCs), and through its affiliated National Sports Federations and International Sporting Federations. As Chappelet and Kübler-Mabott state, “All of these non-profit organizations could be likened to the five symbolic rings of the Olympic Movement” (2008, p.2). Arising from the often complex relationship and self-interest that each grouping has with the others, there emerges a power structure at the top which sits the IOC itself. Historically the IOC was established by the 1894 Congress of which first mooted

the notion of the celebration of the ideals of the ideology of ‘Olympism’ through universal celebration at a ‘Games’ based on the ancient Greek games (of which there were a number) which were held on a four yearly cycle. The current ‘Games of the Modern Era’ are based on what is known (and indeed invented) about the ancient Greek Olympic Games (Chappelet and Kübler-Mabott, 2008). Central to the power that the IOC is able to hold and express is the idea that nation states must seek admittance to this ‘Olympic Club’ thus acceptance is seen as some sort of seal of international approval. Often seeking to belong the ‘Olympic Family’ as it is called, resembles a game of political ‘chess’ with the IOC acting as judge, jury and broker as to which countries are accepted or rejected and once in, regulated. The IOC in effect determines who will be acknowledged or not acknowledged as a nation-state. The IOC therefore is viewed as an elite (if not elitist) decision-making body. The authority of the IOC in choosing its host country for its Olympic Games makes it one of the most powerful and influential organizations in the global community. This power is also manifested when the IOC decides which National Olympics Committee to recognize or not to recognize as in the case of apartheid South Africa. Hill (1996, p. 1) states,

…the decision to recognize or not to recognize an NOC contributes to the far more important decision as to whether a territory with aspirations to recognition as a state (like East Germany after the Second World War) is to achieve it, or whether a country like South Africa, whose internal policies have been widely reviled, should continue to enjoy normal relations with other states.

The Olympic Ideal A particular emphasis of the Olympic movement is on its humanistic values credo particularly in relation to world peace through the involvement of young men and women (‘the youth of the world’) expressed through the notion (in part) of Olympic values. The often conflicting relationship that exists between these values (the credo of ‘Olympism’), the way in which the Olympic movement functions and the broader geo-political maneuverings, often create ambiguities in the way in which the Olympic movement is viewed. As Cottrell and Nelson state,

For many, the famous interlocking rings of the Olympic Games symbolize a common spirit of sportsmanship across five major continents of the world. However, they may also paradoxically symbolize the significant political authority and control that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) exercises over the international community…The IOC is a private governing entity that exercises enormous influence over both state and non-state actors, thus occupying a unique place in the international system that underscores the growing complexity of global governance in the 21st century (2011, p.1).

The universality of the Olympic Games has given the IOC the world stage. The decisions made by this organization to recognize or not to recognize National Olympic Committees and in the way it controls sport through its various ‘gate-keeping’ activities of for example funding for third world countries, are viewed as a key factor in maintenance of its power. Hill (1996) states that “governments use sport as a means of projecting a national image abroad, but in order to achieve political and social objectives at home”. Decreasing ethnic tension and increasing the morale, pride, and esprit de corps of citizens is a common objective of most governments who support the Olympic Games (preface, 1996). When the idealistic French nobleman, Baron de Coubertin, created and developed the concept of a modern Olympic movement, it was his idea to highlight everything that was good about humanity. The virtues of discipline, fair play, and respectful competition were to be on display for the world (Coubertin, 1997). The modern Olympics Games, the largest regularly scheduled sporting event in the world, has embodied more than its founder's virtuous ideals (Wells, 1994). On one level, the modern Games have become the idealistic stage for fostering world peace, healthy international relations and reconciliation. But on other levels, this event has underscored the “ugly” side of world politics and international relations. Methodology and Emergent Interview Themes This paper develops the central thesis of the ambiguity inherent in the way in which the Olympic movement functions on the one hand and its overt message embodied within its own ideology of ‘Olympism’. For this paper, I interviewed one Olympic participant in the 1964 Games and one participant at the 1984 Olympic Trials that did not get a chance to participate in the Games because of the U.S. boycott. I interviewed two prominent scholars in the field of sport history. I interviewed a longtime sportswriter for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to get his perspective of the 1996 Atlanta Games. I also interviewed an executive of the Vancouver Olympic Committee for their 2010 Winter Games. These individual were chosen because of their expertise and in-depth knowledge of the Games. Five of the interviews were conducted in person. One of the interviews was conducted by e-mail exchange. The emergent interview themes revolve around the importance of the Games and the political nature of the Games. The Olympics have been described as an important symbolic event that helps to galvanize a spirit of goodwill. In an interview regarding the importance of the Olympics, Harrison, stated, “The Olympic Games are important because it is one of the few times that the world comes together for one common goal and celebrates the true diversity of our world” (March 22, 2011). Donnelly, stated in an interview about the Olympics, “The athletes are the Games” (July 28, 1999). On one level this statement is accurate. However, on other levels, this statement fails to take into account reality. For example, in 1980 U.S. athletes were prepared to compete in the Games in the Soviet Union, however, a boycott initiated by President Jimmy Carter did not allow them to do so. In theory, the Games should consist of teams or individuals simply competing to see who is the best. However, the Games of the modern era have not been that simple (nor indeed were the ancient Games). Whether in domestic or international arenas, politics have always been intertwined with the Games. As Harrison states, “The Games always have been, and

always will be, political. The 1936 and 1968 Games are two poignant examples of the political symbolism that is unavoidable during the Olympics” (March 22, 2011). The work of Hill (1994), Mandell (1987) support this claim. Political Symbolism Harry Edwards (1984), the pre-eminent sport sociologist, articulates the prevalence of Olympic politics when he wrote,

In 1968 I organized the Olympic Project for Human Rights (OPHR). Its purpose was to carry out a black athletes' boycott of the Mexico City Olympic Games in protest against racism in American sports in particular and American society in general. Those of us associated with OPHR were viciously attacked in the U.S. media for introducing politics into the Olympics. My response to these attacks was simple: “The Olympics are and have always been political!” My position on this issue has not changed, but now I am far from alone in my view (p. 172).

When the IOC selected Beijing to host the 2008 Games there was a political message being conveyed. The IOC wished to recognize China as a developing force in the world. However the ambivalent position of China with regard to human rights combined with what some saw as opportunism on the part of the IOC with regard to the selling of commercial rights to the largest populated nation on earth countered the more idealistic view of the IOC as a key player in pulling China more into the mainstream of world politics. Thus the Beijing Olympics offer us an especially sharp perspective regarding the multiple agendas of the Games. In the months leading up to the Beijing Games, Jacques deLisle (2008) summarized what these Games meant to various stakeholders.

For outsiders seeking to change China and Chinese reformers as well, the Games offer extraordinary opportunities to advance their broader agendas through the linkage to the Olympics—whether deeply resonant or shallowly ad hoc. The Games present mirror-image opportunities—as well as risks—for a regime seeking to enhance its stature at home and abroad. On both sides, multiple actors pursuing diverse agendas and seeking to define the story of the 2008 Games can draw upon Olympic ideals in ways that range from invoking to resonating to hijacking (p.19).

The political power and influence of the IOC was highlighted by their choice of Beijing as the host of the 2008 Olympics. China took advantage of this grand opportunity to send an emphatic statement to the world that they should be taken seriously: politically, economically, and in the international sport community. Andrew K. Rose and Mark Spiegel stated in an article before the China Games, “When the Olympic flame is lit, China will be hoping for a 17 day festival of sport and international friendship. It sees

the games as marking not just its re-emergence as a global economic force but also as a country that the rest of the world treats with admiration and respect” (2008, p.1). In summarizing the multiple benefits of The Games the authors argue that being awarded the Olympic bid in 2001 allowed China to successfully negotiate with the World Trade Organization two months later thus “formalizing its commitment to trade liberalization” (2008, p.18). Cold War Politics Indeed, during the period immediately after World War Two, the Games that took place specifically in Helsinki in 1952 and Seoul in 1988 provided a key setting for some of the most important ideological and political struggles to be played out. The key period in all of this was after the cessation of hostilities particularly from the late 1940s through the 1950s and into the early 1980s (termed the ‘Cold War’ in the early stages, especially after Churchill’s speech in the late 1940s in America referring to an Iron Curtain being drawn in Europe as a reference to the rapidly emerging political divisions in Europe). The period of the 1950s, 1960s and into the 1970s in particular, provided a global stage for propaganda and the ideological differences of these geo-political struggles in this so called ‘Cold War’ to be played out. In 1952 in particular, the U.S. and the Soviet Union launched an intense battle for international supremacy. This supremacy was to be manifested (amongst other aspects such as an arms race and supremacy in space exploration) through international sport competition. Implicit in the overall success of each country in the Olympics was the superiority of its governmental structure and national ideology (Edwards, 1984). Positions had become so entrenched that by 1980, the U.S. and many of its political allies boycotted the Moscow Games, in public protest of the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan. Such had become the value of the Olympic Games as a platform for geo- politics. Four years later, the Soviet Union and some of their allies boycotted the 1984 Olympics held in Los Angeles. The Olympic athletes from the countries that were boycotting had little influence on these decisions (Malec, 1995). McReady, a member of the University of Southern California swimming team in 1980, wanted a chance to compete in the 1980 Moscow Games. His best time in 1980 would have beaten the bronze medal time in Moscow. In a personal interview with McReady, he informed me,

I was heartbroken when he did not have the chance to compete in Moscow. Although me and my fellow athletes were publicly loyal and supportive of President Carter's objectives of the boycott, privately, we were angry that politics had interfered with sports. Politics had taken away our dreams. (Interview, McReady, 1999).

In Jerry Caraccioli and Tom Caraccioli’s book, Boycott: Stolen Dreams of the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games, the authors poignantly capture the sentiments of athletes such as McCready. They maintain that the Olympics are intensely political and that the 1980 Games were symbolic of this politicization. Earnest Reese of the Atlanta Journal- Constitution covered the Olympic Trials for the 1980 Games, which were held in Atlanta. In an interview with Reese, he re-iterated the politicization of the Games when he informed me:

The athletes publicly stood with President Jimmy Carter because of patriotism. The U.S. was in the midst of the Iranian hostage crisis and people felt a need to be loyal to the President. However, privately, the athletes were terribly upset that they would not be able to compete. They felt the best way to handle the rift was to battle it out in the Olympics (Interview, Reese, 2011).

Although athletes like McReady suffered many, however, understood the ‘bigger picture’ of their actions. In examining the 1980 boycott, Derick L. Hume states in his book, The Political Olympics: Moscow, Afghanistan, and the 1980 U.S. Boycott, “Never before had the tool of sport been wielded on such as massive scale in order to punish politically an `offending’ nation (1990, preface). Similarly, Caraccioli and Caraccioli (2008, p. xviii) in support of this assertion state, “Politics and the Olympics will probably never be mutually exclusive, but in 1980 they were tangled in such a way as to strike at the very core of human rights and the Olympic ideal Geo-Political Flash Points In the 1972 Munich Olympics, the U.S. basketball team was upset by the Soviet Union on a series of controversial rulings. This experience prompted U.S. player, Tom McMillen, to state, that if this trend continues, games will be decided in conference rooms before they are ever played. McMillen stated after the game that, “I felt helpless. There was utter futility as others decided which team had won and which had lost” (Espsy, 1981, p.46). Indeed, U.S. boxers are coached to leave no room for judgment in the ring. History has taught them that even a decisive effort is sometimes not enough to ensure victory. Olympic judges, in some cases, driven by a number of ulterior motives, interfere with the purity of the competition. For example, an article by Ian Fenwick and Sangit Chatterjee analyzes scores given by Olympic judges in figure skating competitions, and found that not surprisingly that judges tend to give higher scores to contestants from their own country (1981, p.170). The modern Olympic Games have infrequently been about just athletes and pure competition. The Games of the modern era, just as the ancient Games were similarly afflicted, have been fraught with politics. The Olympic Games have been used to satisfy multiple agendas. Key examples are the Olympic Games of in 1936, Mexico City in 1968, Munich in 1972, and the tit-for-tat games of Moscow in 1980 and the Los Angeles in 1984. The 1936 Berlin Games were perhaps the most symbolic of the Games' multiple agendas. Leni Riefenstahl’s acclaimed film, Olympia, highlights the Berlin Games as merely a celebration of international competition. In response to Riefenstahl’s cinematic production, Mandell (1998, p.xvii) states, “I believe to portray the Berlin Olympics to the world in 1936 as nonpolitical festival was not only deceptive but a political act as well as a lie”. In the 1968 Mexico City Games, John Carlos and Tommie Smith, U.S. track medalists, used the Games as a stage to express their disgust with the racism and oppression in the U.S. As the “Star Spangled Banner” played on the loud speakers as a salute to their winning efforts, they raised their black-gloved fist in a “black power”

salute (Edwards, 1969). Kevin B. Witherspoon’s insightful book, Before the Eyes of the World: Mexico and the 1968 Olympic Games (2008) focuses on the spirit of protest in Mexico. As he points out, the African American athletes were not the only ones protesting at these Olympics as athletes from a number of African countries protested due to the admission of South Africa in the Games. Moreover, in the 1972 Munich Games, African countries band together to protest against the repressive regime of apartheid in Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe). Threats of an African boycott forced the IOC to deny an invitation to Rhodesia. The 1972 Games, also represented a low point for the modern Olympics as Arab terrorists, members of the “Black September” organization killed eleven Israeli athletes (Espy, 1981). This tragedy was seen as the extension of ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, and the Games were exploited to politicize this struggle. In 1976, 28 African nations boycotted the Games in Montreal. The most salient political issue was the IOC's failure to ban New Zealand from participating in the Games because its All Blacks rugby team had competed in South Africa. Civilians including school children were massacred by the South African police and security forces during this uprising (Edwards, 1984). The African nations pressured the IOC to withdraw New Zealand’s invitation, but the IOC responded by saying that it had no jurisdiction over rugby, which was a non-Olympic sport (Chappell, 2007) South Africa’s apartheid regime consistently posed a moralistic dilemma for the IOC. South Africa was a founding member of the IOC, which partially explains their leniency towards a government that the international community condemned. Eventually, the IOC responded to the pressures from the South African Non-Racial Olympic Committee (SANROC) and the international sport community and banned South Africa from the 1964 Tokyo Games. However, with only superficial changes in their sport policy, the IOC accepted the South African team in the 1968 Mexico Games which caused the Supreme Council of Sport in Africa to apply further pressure on the IOC to prohibit South Africa from the Olympic competition in subsequent Games (Chappell, 2007). In the case of the 2008 Beijing Games, the human rights organization, Amnesty International, argued that China did not fulfill its promises of protecting human rights for the 2008 Games. Among other human rights violations, Amnesty International pointed to the Chinese government’s crackdown on protests in Tibet months leading up to the Games as an example of its heavy handedness. Critics also highlighted the Chinese government’s support of the government in Sudan (Ruwitch, 2008). Although the ideal of universal participation and world peace is the quintessence of the Olympic spirit, the Olympic Games have brought forward the prevailing dramas being played out in national parliaments and international councils all over the world. South Africa's suspension from the Games from 1960-1992, the protest against Soviet aggression in 1980, the problem of the two Chinas, the two Germanys, and the two Koreas have educated us about world politics and exposed us to different geopolitical experiences.

Nationalistic Pride The Games invariably provide a focus for nationalistic pride. This patriotism can, at one and the same time, be both positive and negative. Given that the focus of any Games is the ‘bringing together the youth of the world in peace and harmony’, the setting apart of these (relatively) young people by participation only through representation of a particular country, seems contradictory. However, given the diverse race, ethnic, religious and linguistic backgrounds of the participants, the Games are to be commended for being one of the few occasions where such a cultural mix can exist. Lord Coe, the lead in the London 2012 Games, captures the importance of hosting the event when he stated, “Fantastic Games will be our calling card to the World” (2011, p.24). Coe goes on to capture the excitement and pride generated in hosting the “greatest show on Earth” when he wrote in The Guardian,

London 2012 is coming. And from 15 March 2011 we start the process to sell 8.8m tickets for the Olympic Games. Within these pages you will find details of our entire sport schedule - every session, every sport, every venue, every day. That's 670 ticketed sessions, across 26 sports, 39 disciplines, 34 competition venues, across 19 days, featuring the world's greatest athletes. If you want to be there in 2012, this would be a great place to start. The venues in the Olympic Park are taking shape - the skyline of east London has changed dramatically over the past six years or so and the venues across the rest of London and indeed the United Kingdom which are hosting events are getting ready to welcome you and the world. Our athletes are also approaching the home straight, their training schedules meticulously planned to peak in the summer of 2012. Now it is the turn of the UK public to start planning their London 2012. (2011, p. 4)

The Western Daily Press in Bristol, U.K. reported, “When it was announced that London would hold the 2012 Olympic Games, there was a swelling of national pride and great excitement that accompanied the news that almost reached fever pitch”. (2009, p.1) The images of Coe, Kelly Holmes, and David Beckham dressed in beige suits celebrating the announcement of the London bid added to the national fervor in London and the UK generally. The excitement of the South Koreans after learning they had been awarded the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchng was palpable. According to the Korean Institute for Industrial Economic and Trade, a state-run think tank, the Pyeongchang bid is expected to translate into 230,000 jobs reducing the nation’s current 3.3 percent unemployment rate. These Games are expected to infuse US$27 billion into the South

Korean economy. These types of economic benefits inspire a type of national pride that go beyond the initial cheers (Gottlieb, 2011). Nevertheless, less desirable aspects of such expressions of nationalism are reflected when latent political hostilities are manifested in and through Olympic competition involving rival countries such as the U.S. and the former U.S.S.R. during strained diplomatic relations such as the period of the ‘Cold War’. Instead of the ideal goal of fostering better international relations, fierce competition can drive nationalistic wedges in relations that become difficult to overcome. Scholar Bruce Kidd, has been active in several capacities with the Olympic movement since his participation in the 1964 Tokyo Games as a Canadian track and field athlete. His standing within Canada is subsequently high. When asked if he thought the Olympics inspired a counterproductive nationalism, he stated:

that nationalism is a “current” that has complex meanings. If nationalism is expressed as an aggressive force manifested at the expense of others it is negative. If nationalism is expressed in the form of pride for one's community and pride for one's country this is a good thing. Kidd further said that chauvinism and hegemony are key elements to observe in determining the positive or negative consequences of nationalism.

I continued by asking about his experience participating in the Games in Tokyo. Kidd said:

I developed solid friendships with people all over the world because of the international context of track and field competition. The Olympic experience was an excellent venue to cultivate old friendship and to initiate new ones.

In response to the notion “The athletes are the Games,” Kidd stated that the Olympic Games are composed of multiple narratives. The Games cannot be described by using one theme. The athletic competition is just one story. The world's embrace of one culture (e.g. city or country) and one culture's embrace of the world makes up other significant narratives (July 28, 1999). In the most recent years, the Olympics have come to embrace its high ideals. Several of the most recent Games have been, dubbed by some, as the “Happy Games.” Indeed, there has been more to smile about during the most recent Olympics relative to the tumultuous Games of decades ago. The 2011 “Arab Spring” uprisings in the Middle East have symbolized an urgent need for collective economic progress, transparency, and democracy in that region of the world. These animated protests have also reflected an intense nationalism much of which could be termed “new” nationalism centered in part on ethnic and cultural norms. Coupled with the nationalistic spirit of protest perhaps the world needs more elements of the type of nationalism that the Olympics inspire. Although the Olympics, in some cases, have been a cause for malpractice, the ideals of the Games transcend singular acts of impropriety and promote a healthy nationalism.

This brand of nationalism creates positive intrastate solidarity and a special ‘esprit de corps’. Indeed, Nelson Mandela, used athletics and international competition to unite all South Africans during his administration as president of the nation. In this case, Mandela used sport as a means to achieve national unity. The world has come to frown on the fever-pitched chants of “USA, USA” during the Olympic Games. This rallying cry has been widely seen as a reflection of American bravado. For Americans, however, the chants transcend bravado and are effective at bringing one of the world’s most diverse nations together under one voice (Reese, 2007). Racial Harmony One of the most poignant examples of national pride and racial unity generated by the Games is the case of Cathy Freeman. Freeman, the Aboriginal gold medalist in the 400 meters in the Sydney 2000 Games, became a symbol of national pride in Australia. In terms of racial reconciliation, her victory seemed to do for Australia what decades of treaties between the Australian government and the aboriginal population could not do. After the race, Freeman took her victory lap with the Aboriginal and Australia flags as the entire nation cheered. According to Jones, Jones & Woods (2004, p.1),

Cathy Freeman’s moment of Olympic history is saturated with political geography. Most explicitly, there is the demonstration of Australian patriotism, reflecting the way in which sports events often provide a focal point for the articulation of national identity. Yet, with Freeman, a black Aboriginal woman and Aboriginal rights campaigner, the event assumed a deeper, more complex symbolism. Freeman had been reprimanded on a previous occasion when she had celebrated with the Aboriginal flag. This time, however, there were no objections as she waved her dual Australian and Aboriginal ensign. In doing so, Freeman served not just to re-affirm Australian national identity but contributed to its reinvention, turning the Olympic stadium into the stage for a seminal performance in the politics of race and identity in Australia.

As Hill states, “Governments do not merely use sport as a means of projecting a national image abroad, but in order to achieve social and political objectives at home: these may include promoting racial harmony” (1996, p.1). The Olympics provided a stage where the suspense and power of the competition provides the catalyst through which the mindset of a nation is galvanized. Like Freeman, other Olympic athletes have been symbolic of a bigger picture. Sport creates an ‘esprit de corps’ that encourages racial harmony. Indeed, sport has played a major role in fostering integration in the U.S. and validating African Americans as Americans (Reese, 1999). In the 1936, Berlin Games, Jesse Owens was not just a black runner from America-he was the source of nationalistic pride in the U.S. William J. Baker’s Jesse Owens: An American Life (1996) states that when Owens won four gold medals in the Olympics, Americans cheered. Owens, irrespective of his race, became an American icon.

Similarly, other African American athletes have risen above the racial barriers of U.S. society to valiantly represent the U.S. in the Olympics. Irrespective of the racial tensions that have hovered in the U.S., each Olympic victory by a black athlete has helped to validate the African American’s status as Americans. Cassius Clay (Mohammad Ali) dazzled the world and made Americans proud when he won a gold medal in the 1960 Rome Games. In the same Games, Wilma Rudolf became the first American woman to win three gold medals, and similarly Olympian track standouts Carl Lewis and Michael Johnson captured the hearts and imaginations of the U.S. Negative Effects Although recent Games have been dubbed the “Happy Games,” there are still problems that plagued the IOC and the present-day Games. Chappelet and Kübler-Mabott comment on the negative aspects of the Games when they highlight problems such as doping, cheating, and corruption. In commenting on the dark side of the Games, they say these issues, “constitute a very real threat to the survival of this magnificent, unique event and the system currently behind its celebration” (2008, p.2). For some Olympic athletes, winning has become more important than the fundamental Olympic ideal of fair play. Barry R. McCaffrey, former director of the White House Drug Policy Office, told an International Olympic Committee "Athletes who use performance enhancing drugs do not earn medals--they steal them." Doping has become such a problem in international competition that countries such as the U.S. and China have created their own anti-doping agencies within their National Olympic Committees. According to McCaffrey, “Drug-using athletes verge on creating records that honest human performance cannot beat." He goes on to say, "We seriously risk the creation of a chemically engineered class of athletic gladiators" (Skolnick, 2000, p.1). The Olympic Spirit In his Olympic Memoir, discusses the importance of the Olympic oath and “gradually setting modern Olympism towards the `purification’ of the competitor’ that had been one of the fundamental tenets of ancient Olympism” (1997, p.188). Coubertin's great contribution was his vision of the modern Olympic Games being an event that revolved around a universal moral code of fair play, honesty, fraternity, and respect. Kidd concurs when he states that the “Olympic Games are a uniquely humanitarian endeavor that have contributed to making the world a better place” (July 28, 1999). Christine Cooper, a former Olympic Alpine skier, captures the sentiment of Kidd and the fervent idealism of Coubertin's when she states,

Olympic athletes can transcend politics where even established institutions cannot. Olympians are perceived as global citizens, living examples of the Olympic ideal of tolerance, brotherhood and mutual respect. As the world cries out for new role models who can be trusted, who are clearly not motivated by power, profit or politics, Olympic Athletes are uniquely suited to step forward (Cooper, 1994, p.148).

Sportswriter Earnest Reese said of the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, “Even with the criticism regarding the transportation and the like, on a daily basis, The Games

were electric”. Reese went on to state how the euphoria of the Games was dampened when IOC president, Juan Antonio Samaranch withheld saying, “These are the best Games ever” at the conclusion of the Games. The Atlanta Games was the only time he withheld making this claim in his over two-decade tenure as the President of the IOC (March 22, 2011). Irrespective of this omission, the Games were significant for those that had the opportunity to participate. I was at the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, my hometown. I was proud that my hometown hosted such a significant event. I saw an unprecedented spirit of cooperation that was inspired by the Games. Although Atlanta always prided itself as being the ‘City too busy to hate’, the population is still segregated ethnically and there is still a subtle racial tension between blacks and whites. During the Olympics this tension subsided completely. I was in awe of how the various languages and culture could come together to celebrate respectful competition. The Games renewed my faith in humanity. I saw first-hand how the Games inspired peace, love, and brotherhood. It made me envision ‘what could be’. I was in Sydney prior to the 2000 Games and I was able to witness the before and after transformation of a people. What I saw at the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics was a vivid display of the Olympic ideals. The Canadians welcomed the world with a spirit of respect, sensitivity, and warmth. This spirit was on consistent display throughout the Games. Canada’s remarkable athletic feats in these Games galvanized a national pride that was inspirational to witness. When the women and men’s hockey teams defeated the U.S. and won gold a multi-cultural and multi-generational Canada cheered and embraced the Canadian flag with as much pride as they could muster. John Mills, The General Manager of the Richmond Olympic Oval in Vancouver, was chosen to carry the torch for the Vancouver Games because of his tireless commitment and dedication to the ideals of sport ethics and fair play. He was one of the key players responsible for the success of the Vancouver Games. In my interview with Mills, I asked about the impact of the Vancouver Games on the Canadian psyche. He responded:

The 1988 Calgary Olympic Winter Games made Canada a proud host; the 2010 Vancouver Winter Games made Canada a proud competitor. We are a more confident country now, which we expect to see manifested, not just in sport, but in culture, education, health and the economy" (March 22, 2011).

One of the most fundamental questions that should be asked is, “Are the Olympic Games really necessary?” On multiple levels, the Olympic Games are very important and necessary. The spirit of the Games represents fair play on and off the playing venues. The Olympics give nations a chance to be prideful collectively. One significant aspect of the Games is that they bring so many diverse individuals together to one venue to embrace world peace as the predominant theme. The athletes and the audiences at the Olympics inspire colorful dreams. The Games are a microcosm of how the world should function. Despite all of the wars, political turmoil, transformation in political systems, and Olympic protests and boycotts in the past 100 years, the Games have remained intact and have become our shining symbol of human potential.

References

Baker, W. J. (1986). Jesse Owens: An American life. The Free Press: New York, NY.

Caraccioli, J. & Caraccioli, T. (2008). Boycott: Stolen dreams of the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games, New Chapter Press: Washington, D.C.

Chappelet, J-L., & Kübler-Mabott, B. (2008). The International Olympic Committee and the Olympic system: The governance of world sport. Routledge: New York.

Chappell, R. (2007). Sport in developing countries. International Sports Publications: London.

Coe, S. (2011, February 15).). London 2012 ticket guide and schedule, The Guardian, p. 4.

Coe, S. (2011, February 15). Fantastic Games Will be Our Calling Card to the World,” The Independent, p.24.

Cooper, C. (1994). The centennial Olympic Congress: Texts, summaries or plans of papers. International Olympic Committee: , Switzerland.

Cottrell, M., & Nelson, T. (2011, March 16). Guardian of the flame? The International Olympic Committee and international politics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association Annual Conference, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. de Coubertin, P. (1997). Olympic Memoirs. International Olympic Committee: Lausanne. deLisle, J. (2008). One world, different dreams: The contest to define the Beijing Olympics,” in M. Price (Ed.), Owning the Olympics: Narratives of the new China, pagesAnn Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Donnelly, Peter. (1999, July 27). Personal Interview.

Edwards, H. (1984). “Sportpolitics: Los Angeles, 1984: The Olympic tradition continues,” Sociology of Sport Journal, 1 (2) Pages 172-183.

Edwards, H. (1969). The revolt of the black athlete, The Free Press: New York

Espy, R. (1981). The politics of the Olympic Games, University of California Press: Berkeley.

Fenwick, I. & Chatterjee, S. (1981), Perception, preference, and patriotism: An exploratory analysis of the 1980 Winter Olympics. The American Statistician, (35) 3. Pages 170-173.

Gottlieb, Benjamin (2011, July 7). South Korean economy welcomes 2018 Winter Olympics. CNN.com.

Gordon, H. (1994). Australia and the Olympic Games, Queensland, University of Queensland Press: Queensland, Australia.

Harrison, K. (2011, March 21). Personal Interview.

Hill, C. (1996). Olympic politics: Athens to Atlanta 1896-1996. Manchester University Press: Manchester, U.K.

Hume, D. L. (1990). The political Olympics: Moscow, Afghanistan, and the 1980 U.S. Boycott. Praeger Publishers: U.S.

Jones, M., Jones, R., and Woods, M. (2004). An Introduction to political geography: Space, place, and politics, Routledge: London.

Kidd, Bruce. (1999, July 28). Personal Interview.

Malec, M. (1995). “The social roles of sport in Caribbean societies,” Routledge: London.

McReady, N. (1999, July 29). “Olympic Politics and Nationalism,” Interview conducted at the University of Redlands.

Mellgren, D. (1998, February 8). In Lillehammer, the flame has yet to go out. The Associated Press Page 07.

Miller, D.(1992). Olympic revolution: The biography of Juan Antonio Samaranch, Bath Press: London.

Mills, John (2011, March 23). Personal Interview.

Reese, Earnest (2011, March 22). Personal Interview.

Reese, R. (2007). American Bravado, Inkwater Press: Portland, OR.

Reese, R. (1999). The socio-political context of the integration of sport in the U.S. Journal of African American Men, 4. Pages 53-62.

Rose, A. & Spiegel, M. (2008, August 2). The Olympic effect, Economist. Pages 652- 677.

Ruwitch, J. (2008, April 2). Olympics a human rights failure, says Amnesty; Watchdog agency says promises were made when Beijing awarded Games, The Vancouver Sun. Page 13.

Skolnick, A. (2000, July 3). Skepticism surrounds new agency to halt doping in Olympics. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Page 1.

The Western Daily Press (2009, June 9). West must be ready when Olympians sail into town. p.1.

Wells, S. (1995). 100 Years of the Games, Collins Publishers: San Francisco.

Witherspoon, K. (2008). Before the eyes of the world: Mexico and the 1968 Olympic Games, Northern Illinois University Press: Dekalb, IL.