2008 SUMMER OLYMPICS.

**ct2k** · 08-17-2008, 08:02 AM

Read a pretty vehement column in the Times yesterday lambasting the Olympics for the way the medals are still allocated heavily to 'elitist' events like equestrianism, sailing, indoor track cycling, rowing and so on. And to the highly disproportionate medal distribution amongst British athletes along socio-economic lines (ie a majority are awarded to people from public school backgrounds whilst only 7% of kids here go to public schools).

Kinda had to agree with what the guy was saying to some extent. I mean firstly we call Steve Redgrave everything but God in this country, but in a sport which is essentially confined to the Western and old Colonial elite can he truly be considered an Olympian on a par with someone like Carl Lewis or even Phelps who have both risen to the heights whilst competing against people from vastly bigger pools of talent?

And how can the Olympics really be above or beyond the normally constrictive bounds of economics when many of the events are essentially off-bounds for most of the worlds population (that even includes most in the West)? I mean sailing? Rowing? EQUESTRIANISM?

Come on

ps - to be fair I'm not taking a side completely here, its just its the first time I've read (or bothered to notice) a critique of the Olympics along these lines.

08-17-2008, 08:02 AM	#11
ct2k Triple A Posts: 48,551	Read a pretty vehement column in the Times yesterday lambasting the Olympics for the way the medals are still allocated heavily to 'elitist' events like equestrianism, sailing, indoor track cycling, rowing and so on. And to the highly disproportionate medal distribution amongst British athletes along socio-economic lines (ie a majority are awarded to people from public school backgrounds whilst only 7% of kids here go to public schools). Kinda had to agree with what the guy was saying to some extent. I mean firstly we call Steve Redgrave everything but God in this country, but in a sport which is essentially confined to the Western and old Colonial elite can he truly be considered an Olympian on a par with someone like Carl Lewis or even Phelps who have both risen to the heights whilst competing against people from vastly bigger pools of talent? And how can the Olympics really be above or beyond the normally constrictive bounds of economics when many of the events are essentially off-bounds for most of the worlds population (that even includes most in the West)? I mean sailing? Rowing? EQUESTRIANISM? Come on ps - to be fair I'm not taking a side completely here, its just its the first time I've read (or bothered to notice) a critique of the Olympics along these lines.