U.S and Boycotting the Olympics

Boycotting the Olympics typically occurs to make a political statement. It seems as if almost every Olympics has something going on in history, that has made some country upset and choose to boycott the Olympic. I really enjoyed Hunt’s lecture on the past Olympics and boycotts that have occurred. There were talks that the U.S. should have boycotted the 1936 Olympics in Berlin because of the events occurring in Germany at the time. (Nuremberg Laws) While I am completely against all that was going on in Germany at the time, I can’t help but wonder if skipping out on those Olympics would have offended Germany, and even further put U.S. on Germany’s bad side. The list of things America could have, and didn’t do during the beginning of World War II is often talked about, however I would have to say they made a good call on going to those Olympics. HOWEVER, I am very glad they went and were the only country not to salute Hitler. They went to the Olympics, but at least showed they were not supportive of Hitler and his choices as chancellor so far. U.S. also boycotted in the 1980 Moscow games. They boycotted in response to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. When the U.S. takes a stand such as boycotting the Olympics, it is a very powerful stand. 62 countries joined this boycott. America had very few options during this time since the Soviet had nuclear weapons. This boycott was ineffective. There was talk of banning the 2008 Beijing games, because of catastrophic pollution, Tibet, repression of religious groups, and several other events going on at the time. However, I agree with America’s choice to go. Not going to the games in Beijing would be a huge slap in the face to China from America, considering all they have helped us with financially. What I find so fascinating about the Olympics are all the historical events tied into the Olympics related, and unrelated to sports. The Olympics are an international spectacle, in which very political statements can be made by all of the different countries.

Collegiate Athletes.... Pay for Play??

College players, pay for play? Absolutely not. I admit, the life of a DI college football player is not far from that of a professional, and I realize they probably do more than any other student, or student-athlete for that matter, on campus. However, I truly think the love for the game is much more apparent when the players are not getting paid. Having them get paid would turn it more similar to the NFL, like a business, where possibly people with the exceptional talent are only doing it because of the money. College football players, (especially here at UT and all of the other big universities) get special treatment, very special treatment. They often times get school paid for, the prestige and recognition of playing for a D1 program, awesome meals and hotel accommodations on game day- These are things that in my opinion allow them to still enjoy the game and have a good time. By them playing without pay we see the true dedication, and makes us support the program that much more. The boys are in college, I know it was argued by Gilmore that having their school paid for doesn’t mean much because most of them don’t graduate—BUT stop right there. This is a separate problem in and of itself that I feel like large changes should be made about. However, I don’t think we should go AROUND the problem by saying, “Don’t pay for their school, they don’t graduate anyway, let’s just give them money!” I don’t think it should be that way at all, instead, things should be focused on the academic realm of a student-athlete, and having their tuition paid for at such a world class college such as UT can do a lot to pay them off. Several players would do anything to play for UT or DI. It takes extreme passion and dedication, which makes us admire the players that much more. I don’t mean to take away from the players credit by saying they should not get paid, because I realize they work SOOO hard. Instead, I really agree with the “earning college credit” argument. I think that would be a great idea. These boys are putting in well over 20 hours a week, and perhaps getting at LEAST 3 or 6 hours a semester credit would be a great idea. However, we must remember the academic aspect, and be sure they are also still taking around 3 actual classes that involve their degree. Perhaps a special degree plan should be made for collegiate football players. For example, Sports Management/ Football, where you would take the sports management curriculum, however football could be your minor, or provide the credit to get you up the 120 hours needed for graduation.

Football Violence/ Dog fighting

I completely agree with the new football, no helmet to helmet rule. I love the game of football and while I think any change that can be made to protect the players’ safety is important, I don’t think much can be done without changing the game. (Even this new rule is changing it!) Football has been played for several centuries now, and while it can be argued that only up until the last few decades has it started to become filled with such power houses, faster, stronger, bigger, men, I am sure the men in other fathers, grandfathers, and great grandfathers, took some serious blows in football as well. Playing football is taking a risk, just like getting into your car everyday is taking a risk. To compare football players to dog fighting….In my opinion is considering the players do not have a choice in whether they play the game of football. Unlike dogs, they can very easily come out of the game, or choose not to even start playing football. Several of the boys who start playing football, either already have, or develop, a love for the game or they would not continue to play. Those who don’t typically stop playing around jr. high. And as I said before when considering our fathers, grandfathers, etc., a majority of them are just fine. These men choose to take a risk, just like we do every day of our lives. Sometimes I feel like players in the NFL start to lose the love of the game.. due to the intensity level and extremely high pay.. However, they still have the power, unlike dogs, to get out of the game. Also, these men are being paid millions of dollars, and men like firefighters, policemen, and the military, risk their lives every day (for a cause more meaningful than a football game) and they’re not paid near that amount. These men are choosing to be in the NFL, and possibly risk their lives, just like the men who protect our country. Football is considered an “All-American game. It is not as unmoral as dog fighting. While we do like seeing big hits, we definitely do not seeing serious injuries. Sure, it can be looked at as inherently violent, and some plays definitely are, I see football as much more of an interesting, purposeful game that is not as near inherently violent as say, boxing. The purpose in football is not to seriously hurt someone, and if it is for a player, then that is a separate matter that should be handled appropriately (coach taking him out.) Lastly, with the proper care of football players, and maybe some sort of technology able to exam the head and tell when enough is enough, and other small changes, I believe the game can be played and enjoyed for another several decades, just as It has for the past several centuries.

Integrated View of Intercollegiate Athletics

I could not agree more with Myles Brand's idea that collegiate athletic departments should be "integrated" into universities mission statements. In fact, this is one of my favorite topics!! I would strongly advocate for sports and all of the benefits I feel come with physical learning and health. Mainly D1, but certainly DII, and DIII athletes also, are extremely dedicated individuals. I feel this group, is at the top, if not the top, of the university as far as maintaining work load and busy schedule. Here at UT student-athletes are not only juggling their grades at a world class university, but also maintaining a high performance level in a world class athletic program. I agree with the statement that there must be harmony within the body and mind, to create a happy life. I believe it wouldn't hurt us to focus more on physical/ athletic development at all age groups. Beginning from when a child starts school. Not only could this possibly help our nation's obesity problem, however, it will lead to all around healthier people, (which means less hospital debt and uninsured getting sick), and also teach the very important skill of maintaining the two entities of the physical, and cognitive learning. Once physical learning is incorporated at such a young age, we as a society will learn how to juggle being healthy, along with academically prospering, which I feel go hand and hand. This same importance view should be held for intercollegiate athletics. As Brand argues, why should there be any difference in physical talents such as playing an instrument (music majors,) or dance majors, and having physical talents such as running fast or dunking in basketball? Athletics should be a valuable part of education as well. Improving physical learning is as important as cognitive learning. Sports provides players with the ability to think critically and problem solve. Every important value in life, I feel can be taught from sports. As Brand also mentions, student-athletes are use to competition and experiencing failure, so they become good at becoming adversity. Which is something that wouldn’t hurt everyone to become familiar with incase, for example, certain career plans do not work out. Sports also teach teamwork, responsibility, dedication, time management, self confidence, and hard work. All very important virtues that are very useful in everyday life. Sports provides players with a positive self image of themselves, once they are able to appreciate what their bodies can do athletically, in addition to academically. Sports allow student-athletes to develop a value system, a set of goals, and a perspective on life.  I am a firm believer in sports providing much greater benefit than detriment, teaching important lessons, and making a well-rounded person…. Integrated view all the way!  : )

Violence in Hockey

In Drewe's article, titled "Violence in Sport: Just Part of the Game?" I disagree with the aspects of fighting argued in the article. The first argument for fighting in hockey is that it is a way to "release anger." This anger is typically from losing. For one I do not feel fighting is the answer to releasing anger. Another argument is the "motivational aspect of fighting." Meaning that fighting gets the crowd and your teammates "pumped" while it does indeed do this, I feel there are other ways to getting the team pumped besides risking extreme injuries and losing moral values. Hockey is still rough and a contact sport, the speed and aggressiveness should allow the team to be pumped enough and release enough anger. An intentional act of violence does not have to be committed.
Considering the long hockey sticks, extremely hard ice and puck, blades on the bottom of their skates, someone could get seriously hurt or fatalities could even occur when resorting to fighting.These serious injuries that come from fighting are just not worth releasing your anger, or motivating your team. The article even talks about seeing less fighting when play-off time comes around. This is because the teams are taking these games more serious, and do not need the penalty of fighting and risk losing the game. The teams should have this same attitude during regular season. This just highlights our societies importance of winning at all costs. The anger of losing is enough to make an athlete lose moral principals and start a violent fight on the rink. When it is play-off time, time to WIN, athletes fear risking the game over fighting, however still participate in violent acts such as, taking the other team's star player out of the game. Fighting breaks both written and unwritten rules of sport. A moral standard should be held by athletes. They should focus on being role models. They already typically have healthy bodies, they should take this healthy lifestyle and apply it to all aspects of life, and focus on being an all around good person. Some argued that a hockey game with no fighting would attract less of a crowd. However, I agree with Wayne Gretzski's counter argument that perhaps an analysis should be done on those who do not watch it for the violence, who do not appreciate the fighting, but instead like the game, and want their kids to be able to watch it also. The article mentions the root word of competition, com-petito, which means "striving together." Perhaps we, as a society, should lose our "win at all cost" attitude that we have turned "competition" into, and focus on the origin, of striving together to achieve excellence.

The Amateur Sports Act

The United States and Soviet Union had a strict competition going in the medal race of international sport. The country that lost in the medal count was a sign of that country’s weakness, and the winner earned respect internationally as a strong country. As President Ford said “I don’t know a better advertisement for a nation’s good health than a healthy athletic representation.” I completely agree with President Ford. America was falling behind in international athletics and something had to be done about this. Having healthy, drug free, strong athletes that dominated at the Olympic games would be an awesome representation of America. Hunt mentions in his article that the Amateur Sports act of 1978 was passed in response to policy proposals provided by President Gerald Ford’s Commission on Olympic Sports, and provides the framework for amateur sports in the U.S. and serves as one of the bases for the nation’s current international athletic success. Poor performance of the American team at the 1972 Olympics was the ‘focusing event’ this act was based off of. While this act focused on the U.S. having elite athletics, it failed to look at the other important issues in the U.S. such as decreasing physical activity and increasing obesity rates.  As the rivalry between the Soviet Union and U.S. developed it became increasingly apparent that the American team was not prepared to compete with the Soviets, so this act was put into effect to act as a system that prioritized the production of elite athletes to win international prestige for the U.S. rather than a promoter of a system that contributed to the basic fitness and equality of athletic opportunities of the general public.  However, during the Kennedy and Eisenhower administrations, a sports system founded on mass participation was envisioned as a means to promote national health and, by doing so, maintain the nation’s preparedness for war. Eisenhower became alarmed at our country’s extremely low average fitness level, especially when compared to that of European countries. The president’s came up with the creation of the President’s Council on Youth Fitness. To advise Americans on these low fitness levels, and what can be done to reach a happy, healthy America. President Kennedy, agreeing with Eisenhower, claimed that “the fitness of our citizens is a vital prerequisite to America’s realization of its full potential as a nation..” I completely agree.  I really like how our president administration (especially Nixon and Ford) really believed that sport encompassed the positive values of mainstream America and that elite athletes were especially note worthy for their high character.” I like how we had presidents around this time that came to realize this. The president I must say I am in most agreement with is Kennedy. In that he realized it was very important that they started to realize that not only elite athletes needed to improve their athleticism, but America as a whole needed to. As Hunt mentioned, perhaps we should focus more on adults in our country, since they have less exercise resources at those in other countries. American needed to become more physically fit as a nation, to represent our country well, and even though we still have a LONG way to go, the presidents of that time made great leaps in promoting that fitness for the mass.

Sports and the Cold War

The tension between countries during the Cold War was represented through sports, and specifically, in the Olympics, since they were an international competition. The quest for dominance in the Olympic medals led to the creation of highly sport systems that utilized the latest scientific advances in athletic training and exercise physiology. This led many countries to turn to drugs for their athletes. Drugs were very common in the 1960s and 1970s during sport and even in the Olympics. Although it became an issue many started to notice was getting out of control, little was actually done about it right away. When the issue started to become something that was very difficult to ignore, and after much debate with the International Olympic Committee, a test finally did come along for amphetamines in the 1972 Munich games. The next worrisome drug was that of hormones, considering it was problematic and hard to detect. Avery Brundage, president of the IOC, claimed that hormones could be undetected if the athlete took them early enough before the competition. Hunt tells the controversial story of swimmer Rich DeMont in his article. He explains how DeMont was stripped of his medal for being tested positive for a drug found in his asthma medicine. Many people were unhappy about this because in another doping scandal in the 1972 Munich games fourteen athletes participating in the pentathlon tested positive for tranquilizers but were not disqualified from their events as DeMont was. U.S. officials were infuriated. Basically, to be competitive, all athletes were using some sort of drugs. Hunt also mentions Dr. John Zeigler, a U.S. team physician in the 1960’s who was very unhappy about the teams drug use. He quit after finding out some men on the team were taking 20 times the recommended dosage of various ergogenic drugs. I feel he made the right choice. He took a stand for something that was unhealthy, and un-American. Something should have been done about the drugs of the Olympic games of this time. I understand our countries were in a tense race athletically, as well as non-athletically, however drugs are a form of cheating in my opinion. It provides the body with something that it naturally could not attain on its own. Although I feel something should be done... It is such a tough problem that I honestly do not know what could have been done. Perhaps it was handled in the best way possible? No… I still think more could have been done… but what? How do you solve something the whole world is involved in?... This issue started back then.. and remains today.. A LOT has been done, however drugs still are around in sports. Therefore, these are unanswered questions.