by Gwynn Guilford
Chiding countries that engage in the Olympics "arms race," Ian Johnson recalls the Cold War approach to medal-maxing:
Most people think the Eastern Bloc’s success was simply a question of massive doping—women with Adam’s apples and beards. But…East Germany, for example, never bothered with ice hockey because it realized it would have to train at least two dozen elite athletes just to field a team and even then would have a tough time against established powerhouses. Instead, it focused on sports where one athlete could win multiple medals—speed skating and cycling for example. It also avoided sports that depended on having leagues (ice hockey, basketball, baseball and so on); better to support athletes who trained alone because they required less infrastructure.
China, of course, has long since mastered this strategy. In democracies, however, it's proven harder to sink money into sports programs. Still, the quest for gold is prompting countries such as Germany and the UK to embrace yesteryear's training tactics – at quite a cost:
While Sports England—the mass sporting organization aimed at public participation and health—cut grants this year to £82 million from £98 million in 2011, UK Sports (which funds elite sports) will dole out £264 million for the London games, most of it focused on the handful of sports where Britain is able to reap gold. That makes it unlikely that the games will do much to bolster public participation; indeed, playgrounds are being sold to cut the budget deficit.
The US is no better, though our obsession tends to trickle down:
Sports has become so consuming in the United States that families spend outrageous amounts of money on children with elite athletic potential. Lochte’s parents had their home foreclosed, while gymnast Gabby Douglas’s mother declared bankruptcy.
Big government, indeed. Previous thoughts on the medals race here.
The Dish 