Whose Olympics is it, anyway?

Performances in international sports are no indication of a country’s sporting culture

Alok Tiwari

Wrestler Vinesh Phogat’s missing the gold medal bout by weighing in just 100gms more provided plenty of heartbreaks to Indian fans. Thanks to the divisive times we live in, it also provided plenty of fodder for recriminations. The treatment meted out to Vinesh, who had participated in wrestlers’ protests over the alleged sexual harassment of women wrestlers by the then Indian boxing chief and BJP leader Brijbhushan Sharan Singh and had been roughly handled by the police at the time, meant that she quickly became rallying point for those critical of government. At the same time, the usual suspects on the government side began finding fault with how casually she and her team had approached the bout.

Many faulted her for competing in weight category lower than her natural weight implying she was not being a ‘good sport’. Then the eventual gold medallist US’s Sarah Hildebrandt revealed that she was a big weight-cutter herself and expressed sympathy with Vinesh’s plight. It turns out that many, if not all, wrestlers compete in lower weight category to gain an advantage. This requires them to artificially reduce their weight to category level just before the bout through a gruelling regimen that includes cutting down on water, food intake, working out, wearing light fabrics, and even getting a haircut. It is a moot question though that if all contestants do that then what advantage, fair or unfair, remains with them. It emerged that it was not just Vinesh’s failure that she could not shed the final 100gms but failure of the entire system.

So, what are the Olympics, indeed, the entire world of modern sports, about? Is it about individuals trying for and attaining pinnacle of human capabilities or a contest of systems? Sportspersons are increasingly smaller part of the entire machinery that is geared up to produce winning performances. The results we see in the arena are a result of meticulous preparations that cover several streams of science. It is not just limited to applying knowledge of anatomy and dietetics, but also engineering and physics and involves use of computers and algorithms. In sports that involve use of equipment, like canoeing or cycling, the contest begins with designing it as engineers try to gain that fraction of a second advantage.

There may have been a time, some time in ancient history when athletes competed as individuals and thus the results reflected their own talent, capability, and commitment. Those still matter but good luck to any athlete in modern era who seeks to compete based solely on them. Now making of an Olympian, or a team, involves vast amounts of resources poured into selection, training, equipment.

Critics have often cited absence of an ‘ecosystem’ of sports in India that results in our winning so few medals. This ‘ecosystem’ no longer involves parents driving their children to neighbourhood badminton hall for an hour or two of training and games. Though the journey may still begin there, for anyone to have hope of competing levels higher than university would mean being accepted in a proper academy where a multitude of experts will work on every aspect of their game, physique, and even personality. We all know about China’s medal factories that accept kids and effectively ‘manufacture’ them into champions. Many American universities admit students based solely on their athletic abilities and give them resources and time to emerge as champions. India is beginning to catch up a little. Many of our athletes spend extended periods abroad at best facilities under foreign coaches.

Our cricket team at one time used to have a single coach, usually a former cricketer, who was little more than an avuncular presence with the players. Now, as resources with BCCI have swelled, it not only has coaches for every aspect like bowling, batting, fielding but also physios, and doctors, and dieticians, counsellors, and array of equipment and technicians who analyse every ball, every movement of not only our players but also of opponents and then come up with a strategy for the game. The people and the technology behind all this are truly multinational. They are available for the highest bidder. This is the case with every competitive sport.

If this be the case, then how far those medals and trophies belong to the athletes, team, and the countries concerned? They merely reflect how much resources the system was capable and willing to pour into making an athlete. We ban performance enhancing drugs and punish athletes severely for violations so that no athlete enjoys an unfair advantage. But when the contest is between sporting systems of countries having vastly varied resources, it no longer remains fair. Do nations with more resources not have an unfair advantage over others? It is no coincidence that China’s rise as a sporting power has accompanied its rise as an economic one. Same with relative decline of Russia after the fall of Soviet Union.

This also serves to defeat the very basis of sports. They are meant to teach people how to play by the rules and win and lose gracefully. The original Olympics slogan on Citius Altius Fortius (Faster, Higher, Stronger) was meant to bring out the best of human capabilities. And through that it was hoped to have an entire population that is healthy and believes in playing by the rules. Today when we have near-perfect performances, it is no reflection of general health of population. It is exactly like our educational system. A handful of students, backed by resourceful families and institutions, scoring 99 or even 100%, do not hide the pitiable state of education available to others.

So next time when you applaud or despair over victory or defeat of a Neeraj Chopra or Vinesh Phogat, do not forget to check what kind of sporting facilities are available to ordinary people and how much they make use of them. That, and not Olympic medals, determine how great a sporting nation we are.

This column appeared in Lokmat Times on Aug 14, 2024