If there was one good thing about the Olympics being postponed until next summer, it's that the IOC and the different international federations didn't have to deal with the issue of political protests. The events of this summer have obviously made the athlete activist more prevalent than ever, especially in the United States...and you know there are American athletes who would've protested on the medals stand in Tokyo, whether it was "allowed" or not. Now the IOC has time to come up with some sort of plan that, while it might not make everybody happy, will at least be a reasonable compromise.
IOC rules are very clear in that "no political demonstrations are allowed on the field of play or medals stand." American athletes don't like this rule, but it's a good one that exists for a good purpose. You're dealing with athletes from 205 different countries. They don't all share the same ideologies. So, one athlete might be protesting for something that their competitor might be against. Neither is "right." Neither is "wrong." And they're both entitled to have their conflicting opinions.
Likewise, an act of protest is as much about the athlete as it is about the issue. The athletes know this. That's part of the reason they do it. They want to draw that attention to themselves. So, regardless of the motivation, the act is selfish.
And, again, you're talking about 205 different nations here! Triple jumper Christian Taylor is one of the most outspoken advocates of "athletes' rights." But what Taylor fails to understand is that not everyone thinks the way he thinks. As an American, he takes things like freedom of speech and freedom of expression for granted. Those are foreign concepts in a lot of other societies.
So, while Taylor and Co. may think the ability to protest is a "right" that they're unfairly being denied, that sentiment is not shared by all athletes around the world. And the IOC needs to consider the feelings of those athletes, as well.
They also want to avoid situations like what happened at last year's Swimming World Championships, where Australia's Mack Horton refused to take the medals stand with China's Sun Yang, who was allowed to compete despite a pending doping suspension. The reaction was mixed to say the least. A lot of people praised Horton for taking a stand (metaphorically). But there were also plenty of people who criticized Horton for making it about himself. And the level of criticism will only be magnified in Tokyo.
This important topic was discussed by the IOC Athletes' Commission at its virtual meeting a few weeks ago, and the results were telling. There was no clear consensus one way or the other. Some athletes favored abolishing the rule. Some were fine with it as-is. Others would like to see it amended and perhaps define what's acceptable and what's not.
The point is there's no simple solution. That was never going to be the case. Somebody's not gonna be happy either way. If the rule is kept in place, you'll have a group of (mostly American) athletes who are upset about being denied their "right" to protest. If the rule is changed, you'll have a group of athletes who are upset when others are protesting during the medals ceremony, potentially hijacking a moment that they've worked their entire lives for.
It's a difficult balance that the IOC must find here, and they still might not have a solution to this very complex problem even with the extra year. IOC President Thomas Bach, an Olympic gold medalist himself, doesn't appear to be completely opposed to the idea. However, he also cautioned that that a clear distinction needs to be made between suitable forms of protest and "divisive demonstrations."
One potential solution proposed by the Athletes' Commission was to have a moment of silence at the Opening Ceremony in Tokyo. Kikkan Randall, a gold medalist in PyeongChang and member of both the IOC Athletes' Commission and USOPC board, thinks that could be a "really powerful statement to the world."
I agree with her. That would be an excellent compromise. It would be an excellent demonstration of worldwide solidarity, too. While it probably wouldn't be enough to satisfy those athletes who still want the ability to protest individually, it would still show them that their voices aren't being ignored. More importantly, it's not specific, which is key. Because once you start getting into specific causes, you run the risk of offending/alienating those who disagree.
Maybe there's a way to individually protest within the rules, though. That solution was provided by American Noah Lyles, who figures to be one of the sprinting stars of the Tokyo Games. When he was introduced prior to his race at the Monaco Diamond League meet, Lyles lowered his head and raised his fist. It was simple, personal and inoffensive. And it got the point across.
That's easier said and done in a sport like track & field or swimming, where they have individual introductions. But it does seem like it could work in the other sports, as well, which makes it perhaps the best solution of all. Athletes would have their opportunity to express themselves without tainting the medals ceremony with a political statement that others may not agree with.
Regardless, there will be athletes who want to protest in Tokyo. Especially in the politically-charged environment of the past several months (that doesn't figure to calm down before next summer). The IOC's challenge will be to find a way to accommodate their desire to protest with their own desire to keep politics out of the Olympics. It's a daunting task to be sure.
No comments:
Post a Comment