Once upon a time, cross country was a part of the Olympic program. A race was held three times from 1912-24, with Olympic legend Paavo Nurmi winning four of his nine career gold medals in cross country (two individual, two team). The last time it was held, in 1924, it was on an unbearably hot midsummer day in Paris (over 100 degrees at race time). Throw in the fact that it was held too close to a power plant, and you had only 15 of the 38 runners finish the race. And so marked the end of cross country at the Olympics.
But does that incident a century ago mean cross country should remain permanently exiled from the Olympics? The sport has come a long way since 1924. Did that Swiss woman stumbling across the line in the first-ever women's Olympic marathon in 1984 mean the women's marathon should be taken out? That suggestion obviously sounds ridiculous, as it should!
Over the years, there have been attempts to get cross country reinstated, but they haven't really gained much traction (it was even suggested that cross country be added to the Winter Olympics, which is never going to happen). Another serious push is coming. IAAF President Seb Coe, who ran the incredibly successful London Games, has long been a proponent of cross country. He's influential in Olympic circles, so his advocacy will be incredibly beneficial for cross country's chances.
It's obviously too late for cross country to be added to the Olympic program for Tokyo, so they're targeting 2024 for its return. And wouldn't it be fitting that, especially after the disaster of 1924, when the Olympics return to Paris 100 years later, cross country also makes its triumphant return?
Adding cross country wouldn't be too much of a challenge logistically, either. The track & field stadium schedule doesn't start until the Friday after the Opening Ceremony, so they could easily hold the cross country races on the Monday and Tuesday of the first week (or even just Tuesday if they wanted to have both on the same day). That would give athletes an opportunity to do both cross country and a track race, too. And, since the individual standings would determine the team results, that's four medal events for the price of two.
As for the course, mountain biking is already an Olympic event. I'm sure it would require some tweaking (mountain bike races are significantly longer and the course is significantly more difficult), but that course could easily be used for the cross country running race, too. Or, they could set something up in a city park or another spectator-friendly setting. (Paris is beautiful, there would be plenty of options.) And there's always the old golf course option, although that would likely be deemed too flat and not challenging enough for a world-class international race.
Of course, cross country has its critics, many of whom are put off by the dominance of the East Africans. To an extent they have a point. There were 27 medals awarded in the five events at World Cross, 25 of which went to either Ethiopia, Kenya or Uganda, including all nine golds. But, at the same time, the European countries didn't put up much of a fight, by and large bypassing the meet entirely (even though it was held in Denmark).
Maybe there would be some sort of solution to balance out the African dominance. Set it up so that only a certain number of countries from a given region can qualify, while guaranteeing a certain number of spots for each region. And, who knows?, if you tie qualifying into World Cross, that could potentially increase the exposure/importance of that event, too. Maybe even enough to get the Europeans to actually show up (the next one's in Australia, so if they didn't come to Denmark, I'd bet the chances of their traveling all the way down there is minimal at best).
Perhaps the biggest issue with bringing cross country back into the Olympic fold is the IOC's limit on the number of athletes. Even though they're allowing Tokyo and Paris to add sports and events (and athletes) left and right, they still want to keep the total number of athletes around 10,500 (how they think makes any sense is beyond me). As a result, the existing Olympic sports are seeing their athlete quotas cut.
Track & field has already had to cap the number of competitors for Tokyo, which has led to a serious reduction in events like the marathon and 100 meters (which are generally the two events that smaller countries enter their one athlete in). While I'm sure there would be some crossover, adding cross country would cut into track & field's quota even more. And that would be a difficult pill for some competitors in the other events, which have already seen a reduction, to swallow.
So, yes, there are challenges. And there would almost certainly be some opposition. But putting cross country back in the Olympics simply makes too much sense. It checks all of the boxes. And, unlike a lot of the sports and events that have been added in recent years, it actually has a place Olympic history. (Without cross country, Paavo Nurmi would only have five gold medals, not nine.)
The IOC and host city organizers are obsessed with X Games sports right now (Break dancing? Really?!). With all these ridiculous events being added, not to mention their other new obsession--mixed team events--you're telling me there's no place to add cross country too? Please!
Here's hoping they add at least one more new event to the Paris 2024 Games. Because it's time for cross country to make its Olympic return.
No comments:
Post a Comment