What kid hasn’t dreamed of being in the Olympics? These games are a long-standing tradition of sportsmanship, competition, triumph, and sometimes disappointment. In a world of wars, strife, and struggle they perhaps bring distraction and rejuvenation to a periodically weary world. Though they have had their moments of controversy.
Nonetheless, amazing athletes gather quadrennially in competition. There are thrills, spills, triumphs, and disappointment. Too often there are distractions of politics, boycotts, and controversy.
Unfortunately, we are also periodically left to wonder if this is the fastest runner, or the runner (or any athlete) most successful at disguising the substance(s) that make her/him appear so? If you want inspiration, check the videos from the Paralympics. Those people are amazing. Check out the "Rocketman" victory here.
There is also sometimes controversy regarding whether this or that contestant is appropriately categorized, or whether societal pressure is exerted somehow or somewhere to create favor or advantage? In that, there are controversies of gender, a topic in which various people see some or no room for debate and in which others see boundless breadth for conversation. Nonetheless, controversies bloom.
One of my earliest recollections of the Olympics involved overhearing hushed conversations between adults. I learned in my youth that a group called “Palestinians“ had attacked athletes from a place called “Israel,“ during the games in the city of “Munich.“ At the time, I was unaware of the meaning of any of these words. The import and gravity of that situation persisted over days, and forever marred these games.
Interestingly, there has not been a nation called Palestine. There was a territory with that name in the days after the Ottoman era, which came under the stewardship of Great Britain in the early 20th century. All of those territories except Palestine later became “fully independent States,” according to the United Nations.
Nonetheless, there are over 14 million people who identify as Palestinian, about half of whom live in Gaza, the “West Bank,” and the “1948 territories” according to the Arab Center in Washington DC. The remaining half live in Arab or foreign countries. Nonetheless, the news referred to those 1972 terrorists as “Palestinians.”
The implication of that terror was significant. A place of peaceful competition and interaction became a place of violence and politics through the efforts of terrorists. The venue, Munich, was already famous to many adults. It was home to annual frivolity and festival, as well as the first of Hitler’s concentration and death camps, Dachau. People identifying with a desired geographical dream, “Palestine,” killing Jewish athletes in that venue reverberated around the globe. Thankfully, though there have been controversies and complaints since, the Olympics have not returned to such infamy.
That was in 1972. In a notable addition to the 2024 Olympics, a shoe business hired a model who has reportedly been vocal about the creation of a “Palestine” country. She was hired in 2024 to market a shoe “inspired” by the terrorist-marred 1972 Olympics.
Some clamored over perceptions of a tone-deaf German shoe company campaign. Others were supportive of the vocal model and critical of the ad campaign being truncated following public hubbub. In a word, "controversy" in 2024.
So there is a history of challenges and disparate perceptions and opinions. Perhaps the Paris rendition of the games would be controversial only for cocaine, sexual assault, and intriguing endorsement contract allegations, as reported by NBC.
But, the 2024 Olympics may be most controversial instead over the legalities, technicalities, and impartialities.
In the world of evolving technologies and persistent advances, the distance between victory and loss has become increasingly abbreviated. Contests are frequently decided by hundredths of a second. For most of us, a second is a minuscule measure, but in elite competition, it must be divided into 100 subparts to determine a winner in some instances.
Without a doubt, that has driven teams to “up their game.“ There are better shoes, better uniforms, scientific diets, and more. To be fair, the “more” has periodically included various drugs and substances, which have also fed controversy at times.
I have often thought that the only role I could ever play on an Olympic team would be of some passive nature (ballast in the rear of someone’s bobsled?) Athletic, I am not. I can “run," but not at a speed that anyone would find impressive. In fact, many would likely dispute my misappropriation of the word “run.“
But then comes the 21st century. In the 21st century, perhaps we will see an end to the “my runner is faster than your runner, or in colloquial terms, “my dad is bigger than your dad” arguments? Perhaps we can evolve beyond the competition regarding physical capabilities, and instead focus on what really matters: who has the better lawyer?
Finally- an Olympic event for those of us “less physically inclined.”
Following the “floor final” in Paris, the outcome appeared obvious. Ana Barbosu (Romania) had prevailed over Jordan Chiles (US). Well, mathematically anyway. But, by what formula? Chiles' team quickly appealed and noted that the complexity of her routine dictated a different formula and outcome, according to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).
The chagrined judges had erred. They recalculated and Chiles prevailed (winning the bronze medal). But wait, there’s more. Romania’s team appealed that. Her team said the US appeal was untimely. It was asserted, they said, seconds (whole seconds, an eternity in sports) too late.
The judges agreed and re-awarded victory to Barbosu. Well, technically they “reallocated” the medal from Chiles to Barbosu? For all the innocuous tone of "allocation," that means took Chiles’ medal away.
In came the technology. Team US presented video evidence of timely appeal. The video was then disregarded as itself untimely. There seemed fair room for discussion and debate. However, the Olympic committee said it was powerless, according to The Hill.
In the hours that followed, it was revealed in the press that one of the judges in this competition (and controversy) earns a living representing Romania (Barbosu's home country). A conflict of interest? Some said so. Or perhaps an “appearance of impropriety?” But, those in charge said, essentially, that any allegations of conflict of interest were too late, according to CNN.
Technology is a challenge in the modern games. Definitions of identity may be dependent on competing scientific theories, tests, or opinions. Technicalities, rules, and conflict. This is a job for lawyers!
Is she or isn’t she? Did he or didn’t he? Was it or wasn’t it? Lawyer questions.
They have a televised clock for determining winners in events. Why not have one for the timeliness of appeals? It could be in hundredths of a second and the viewers could watch as the post-event lawyers sprint to the judge’s table to appeal?
There was a time when the fastest runner won. Then came the era of the coach and trainer; the best preparation mattered. Before long the team doctor was a necessary travel companion. But now perhaps comes the age of the lawyer, the appeal, the argument, and the spin.
CNN concluded about the Barbosu/Chiles situation that the "Olympic Games has been tarnished by confusion, heartbreak and allegations of incompetence.” Thus, now comes the age of the lawyer. It is troubling to some, but who else will manage the complexity of rules, competing priorities, scandals, and “incompetence?”
Recently, attorneys for Chiles announced the commencement of a lawsuit in Switzerland to address the situation. History tells us these things can take years. Ask the skaters who received winter gold medals at the recent summer Olympics. And the Paralympic athletes might benefit from lawyers too.
Ms. Chiles’ situation is not on the level of terrorists killing athletes. It is a tragic outcome nonetheless. Do we really need lawyers to sort out fair play, sportsmanship, and athletics? Is amateur athletics simply a thing of the past? Will lawyers take the medal stand?
