Consider contributions Paralympians make to Olympic mission

For most Americans, the ongoing Paralympics is an afterthought – especially considering the scant media attention it receives here.  (To follow coverage, refer to this earlier blog post by my colleague Dunja Antunovic.)

Sports performed by those in wheelchairs or perhaps missing a limb are not broadcast on television or widely covered by the print media.

 
The Jerusalem Post had a great editorial extolling the virtues of the Paralympics. The article voiced a hope that more resources would be steered toward young people who are not able to play sports conventionally.

As mentioned in an earlier post, money for youth sports is becoming more and more difficult to find. Therefore I do not posit a guess on whether there will actually be any movement toward increasing access of sports to more young people.

What I will say is that the Paralympics fulfill the Olympic mission. It is easy to forget the mission when discussing doping scandals, huge sums of money paid for broadcast rights and wealthy professional athletes treating the Games as secondary to the professional careers. Consider the second principle of Olympism: The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.

The last few words “preservation of human dignity” are especially powerful. People such as Jesse Owens, John Carlos and Tommy Smith readily come to mind when thinking about those words.

However, we should not discount the contributions of all Paralympians – past and present – in that endeavor as well. The feats that will be performed in the coming days will show that Paralympians are truly authentic athletes.

-- Steve Bien-Aimé

London 2012: Title IX Olympics?

The U.S. media started buzzing about the progress of women in the London 2012 Olympics even before the closing ceremonies. By now the media outlets seemed to have come to a consensus that these were truly the "Women's Olympics."

Considering that the U.S. women outnumbered U.S. men both in number of participants and number of gold medals, boxing was added for women, and for the first time all countries had a female athlete on the team, it is only fitting to acknowledge the historical significance of the strides towards gender equity.

For the success of the U.S athletes specifically, scholars and journalists -- Christine Brennan, among others -- have given full credit to Title IX. Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex in federally funded educational institutions. Since its implementation, women's participation in sports in the U.S. has tremendously increased, opening up opportunities for competition in high school and college alike. (See an annual report by Vivian Acosta and Linda Jean Carpenter here.)

It is important to recognize that the law did not only have a legislative impact, but has also resulted in a cultural shift in regards to women's involvement in sports.

That said, it is also important to recognize that Title IX cannot be credited with the accomplishment of all female athletes. The success of Serena and Venus Williams, for instance, is hardly a direct result of Title IX. And their two gold medals are not the only exceptions to the "Title IX Team" narrative. Wendy Parker adds to this argument by suggesting that the emphasis on winning in the U.S. media coverage "runs counter to what the law is supposed to be about."


Whether Title IX was "supposed" to result in the international success of athletes (male or female) who have organized athletic opportunities throughout their school years, while -- not instead of -- receiving their education, is questionable. Perhaps, this is one of those that can be placed under the unintended (positive or negative?) consequences category.

However, what this celebratory coverage should not be doing is positioning Title IX, once again, within the "battle of the sexes" framework. Title IX is not a battle. Contrary to the myth, it is not a battle between men and women. It is also not a quota system which would require more women than men to compete. And, it most certainly is not a contest of who wins more medals at the Olympics.

Title IX is about equity. It is about protection against discrimination. Title IX is about education, let us not forget that. If it had even a slight impact on how female athletes are viewed in the U.S. society- - and I daresay it did -- which then resulted in a greater number of female athletes participating in and succeeding at the Olympics, then, yes, the American media should celebrate.

But let us also remember: there is no win-loss record in Title IX.

--Dunja Antunovic

Why is the focus on Gabby Douglas' hair and not her Olympic accomplishments?

The ridiculous attention given to the hairdo of Olympic gymnast Gabby Douglas knows no bounds.

The 16-year-old recently received a “makeover” in which her hair looks much more in line with European beauty standards, according to media reports.

Britain’s Daily Mail paraphrased a statement from Douglas’ newly hired stylist, saying in part that black women “go to great lengths to keep their dark hair under control.” Under control? I think that this needs further examination.

My former FOXSports.com colleague Jason Whitlock wrote eloquently on the initial furor over Douglas’ hair and the “$9 billion-yearly obsession with straightening, lengthening, curling, coloring and Europeanizing our hair”.  

The control that the stylist referred to seems to be not a control of the physical hair, but one of the mind. Why shouldn’t European women be pushed to make their hair like that of blacks? That never seems to be asked.

Douglas, whose family’s financial issues have been media fodder for the past few weeks, is using a stylist who charges clients $950 at his salon, the Daily Mail reported. A young woman who was seemingly content with herself has now been pushed to acquire a costly service.

Instead of feting Douglas for her accomplishments, the focus remains on what’s on her head, not what’s in it. And what’s in her head is the drive to overcome adversity and be an Olympic champion.

Sadly, I fear the story young women will take from Gabby Douglas is looking “nice” (read European) will give you more media praise than your actual achievement.

-- Steve Bien-Aimé

Franklin and the NCAA: Amateur or pro?

Missy Franklin won four gold medals at the London Olympic Games, but she does not want the endorsements or the sponsorships, thank you very much.

At least, not yet. Franklin stated, according to a number of media outlets, that she wants to preserve her amateur status in order to be able to go to college.

Franklin said that the decision will be a tough one, but that she would love to experience college life. In an ESPN interview, she enthusiastically stated that she would particularly "love the team aspect" of intercollegiate competition.

Jane McManus from ESPNW pointed out that it's "four years of earning potential that she will be missing out on." A blogger on BleacherReport, on the other hand, commended Franklin on her decision.

Just to be clear, Franklin will be allowed to accept a certain amount for her accomplishments -- contrary to what the catchy ESPNW video title "Don't show Missy the money" suggests. How much exactly that is before she loses a year of eligibility, that will be the job of the famous NCAA Eligibility Center to figure out.

A number of reasons can be named for both why she should pursue a college swimming career, but also why she should not.

As a former Division I athlete, who loved her college career, I am happy to hear that Franklin wants to experience an individual sport in a team setting because the team aspect does add a different dimension to competition even if you are still alone in the pool (or on the court).

What I also find important to mention is that swimming is one of those sports in which college level competition is strong enough that college swimmers can, and do often, pursue professional careers after enrolling in school or even after graduation and they do that very successfully. This is not a trend for all sports. In tennis, for instance, you will hardly find a top professional/Olympic player who is a former college athlete.


So, we can certainly analyze and talk about Franlkin's decision. And, just as she said, there are many factors to consider.

But one thing is for sure: If she decides to go pro now, she will be giving up on NCAA swimming for good. (Note: Not college swimming altogether -- the NAIA could be an option later)

If she, on the other hand, decides to stay an amateur, she will not be giving up the hopes of another Olympic participation.

She also would not be giving up endorsements and sponsorship. She would merely be delaying them.

-- Dunja Antunovic

Fears about boxing should not be a gender issue

One and done. This is what columnist Linda Chavez believes needs to happen with women’s boxing.

Chavez wrote in the New York Post late last week, “Is there no evolutionary advantage in having half the population play a gentler, more nurturing role that tempers the aggressive tendencies of the other half of our species?”

I am not going to debate the essence of men and women in this post. There are far more knowledgeable scholars who have and will continue to speak on that topic.

This post is to talk about the sport of boxing.  As a former boxing editor, I enjoy the sport immensely. I take issue with the idea that women need more protection from violent sports than men. Chavez does say that perhaps the sport should be removed altogether, but the crux of her piece is that women should not be boxing.

There is no doubt that the sport has a physical, rough element. However watch a technician such as Floyd Mayweather Jr. (his out-of-the ring transgressions notwithstanding), and it is obvious why the sport is dubbed the “sweet science.”

His superior defense and movement is a joy to watch for purists. Chavez even pointed out in her column that the objective of boxing is to hit your opponent without getting hit.

The brutality that can come with boxing does turn a lot of men and women against the sport. The brain damage that can occur from competing in the ring is definitely a major concern. Chavez was right to mention it.

But Olympic boxing is far safer than professional boxing because of the protective head gear the fighters wear. Also, there is less risk of serious injury in a three-round fight than the long 12-round bouts that people envision when it comes to pro boxing.

But what sport is not too dangerous? There are concussion problems not just in the NFL, but in hockey, too. Should women be banned from that? Mixed martial arts is violent. Should women be banned from that?

Under Chavez’s violence paradigm, maybe something should be done to soccer, as well. Abby Wambach’s black eye shows that there is some brutality in that sport.

The major quarrel I have with the column is that it wants to make everybody the same. Not all men enjoy or want to participate in rough sports or even sports in general. And not all women fit the stereotypical mold of their gender, too.

-- Steve Bien-Aime

"Killer Instinct" at the Age of 8

In sports, you can never run out of manifestations of hegemonic masculinity. The article by Rick Reilly, an ESPN columnist, brings our attention to a recent example in pee wee football: a masterpiece, as a matter of fact.

Reilly reports about a coach in a pee wee football league who wrote in an e-mail to his 8 and 9 year-old players that he demanded “an aggressive or killer instinct” and a commitment at the summer session conditioning and practices as the team needed to “ramp it up.” 

The complete e-mail is worth reading and so is Reilly’s commentary on the situation. He places this instance in the larger cultural context of sports -- more specifically football -- pointing out that players at all levels (apparently now pee wee too) are pushed to exhaustion, injuries and health risks.

We see this mentality in pro sports; we see it on the college level. (If only I had a publication on my CV for every time I heard that I didn’t have the “killer instinct!”)

But when we see this ideology forced upon kids, where the emphasis should undoubtedly and unquestionably be on participation rather than performance, we really need to worry. How do kids interpret this system of values? Do they even understand what it means to “whole heartedly commit” to a team? 

More importantly, what happens if they don’t “get it?” I dare assume that there are punitive consequences to disobedience (whether this disobedience is intentional or unintentional, that hardly matters). And the punitive consequence will take a form of being yelled at by the coach, extra workouts (e.g.: push-ups) or being benched. 

All for something arbitrary. The kid didn’t pay attention. Or the kid laughed too much at practice. Or talked to a friend. Or found it more interesting to toss the ball in the air rather than to a teammate.

That’s if the kid stays. If the parent pulls the kid out of the activity, just as some of the parents did in this instance, then we can only hope that there will be another, different opportunity for the child to stay physically active and to experience the positive attributes of sports. At least some of these parents saved their children from months of potential abuse. 

Hardly is there a better time to think about “commitment” in sports than during the Olympics when we hear stories about athletes who go through training camps and leave home in a hope for a later professional success. Not uncommon at all.

About 10 or 15 years ago, kids similar to those who were asked to toughen up for tackle football were taught to desire winning, to “go for the Gold.” In the past week, we’ve been hearing about those few who made it, and then we even got disappointed when they finished 4^th (see Christine Brennan’s article here). 

The question of when sports “should” become about performance rather than participation would, I’m certain, stir up a lively conversation among scholars, journalists, athletes, sports workers and fans alike. So would the question of is “killer instinct” even necessary in sports. 

But the time (if ever) is not and must not be when the kids are 8. If an instance such as the one illustrated by Reilly occurs, perhaps it’s not the kids who should quit the team, but the coach. 

-- Dunja Antunovic

Olympians tossed for trying to lose are signs of a bigger issue

Throwing a match is considered one of the biggest taboos in sports. In fact that action is the opposite of sports, which is supposed to an honest and fair competition between entities.

Well tell that to the eight female badminton players who were tossed from Olympic competition Wednesday after the sport’s governing body deemed them to be trying to lose on purpose. The athletes came from China, South Korea and Indonesia. (The South Korean and Indonesian delegations are appealing the decision.)

But does the International Olympic Committee bear some responsibility for this turmoil? Quoting from the Associated Press article (via ESPN.com): “Teams blamed the introduction of a round-robin stage rather than a straight knockout tournament as the main cause of the problem. In the round-robin format, losing one game can lead to an easier matchup in the next round.”

The report does also point out that the fans voiced their displeasure with the teams’ quality (or lack of) during the matches in question.

In the major American sports, there has been speculation for years that teams set to miss the playoffs lose games (or at least do not put forth maximum effort) to enhance their draft positions. (See this Sporting News article on the 2011-12 NBA season.)

Both the Sporting News and the Associated Press articles rightly point out that fans are the biggest losers in this scenario. Maybe more creativity needs to be placed to incentivize athletes/teams to play every match as hard as they can.

Altering the structure of tournaments to emphasize winning each match is a possibility (or changing the draft structure of U.S. pro sports to encourage struggling teams to win as many games as possible and not worry about their draft positioning). Adding a bigger financial incentive could be another way to go: Perhaps teams that go unbeaten in tournaments receive a sizable bonus.

The punishment handed down to the eight badminton players likely will send a message to others contemplating doing something similar, but will this solve the problem? Or will players try just hard enough to look like they are attempting to win and subsequently avoid punishment?

Ultimately it is better to be proactive, seek out potential problems and solve them before they even become issues.

-- Steve Bien-Aimé

Did Greece miss potential teachable moment at Olympics?

Greek triple jumper Voula Papachristou was booted off her country's Olympic team after making a racist comment on Twitter, according to various media reports.

The articles reported that Papachristou said on Twitter: “With so many Africans in Greece … at least the West Nile mosquitos will eat homemade food!!!” Though Papachristou later apologized, it is understandable why Greek Olympic leaders removed her from the team.

This decision is not just a golden opportunity lost for Papachristou, but for the fight against racism as well. The Olympics is a venue where athletes of various races, religions, sexual orientations, etc. come together in the spirit of competition at the highest level.

I venture to think that Papachristou interacting with African athletes would be the best chance for her to learn why her words were hurtful and inappropriate. Actually spending time with the people she insulted and learning who they really are is the best antidote to the venom of racism.

And if she changes her views (though to be fair she did say in her apology that she "could never believe in discrimination between human beings and races"), then it is a great story to champion in the fight against bigotry.

This is not to say that Papachristou should not have been sanctioned. But is kicking her off the team creating the best outcome? Perhaps having her perform a public service announcement educating people about the wrongs of racism would have been better. Ills that plague society cannot be swept under the proverbial rug. Rather they must be confronted head on and honestly.

An Olympian telling kids that she made a mistake about making a racist act and telling young people that is it not right to judge people on the color of their skin can be pretty powerful. It can be especially effective if she were to also describe the multitude of athletes she met at the Olympics and how they helped her grow as a person.

I just don’t think society gained too much keeping Papachristou at home. Can we honestly say that she will not harbor any racist thoughts because of this punishment? It is much more likely that if she has any bigoted sentiments she will now just keep them to herself.

 

-- Steve Bien-Aime

NBC: World's best girls give it their all in the women's downhill

As Julia Mancuso whipped around the gates during the women’s downhill at the Vancouver Olympics, the NBC announcers noted the icy and difficult conditions. “She likes a course that is rough and bumpy,” said analyst Christin Cooper. “She says that it eliminates some of the advantage of the larger girls that have more mass that can kind of go like freight trains down a smooth course.”
Later, Cooper said during Elisabeth Goergl’s bronze-medal run, “These girls have got to really nail it aggressively all the way down the course.”
In fact, Cooper repeatedly referred to the women’s skiers as girls, something that also appeared on NBC’s liveblog of the event, which noted that “it's scary to see these girls go down at such speeds.”
Calling the women’s skiers girls trivializes and delegitimizes women’s sports participation in two ways.
First, each instance in which the skiers were labeled as “girls” came at a time when the related description violated gender norms in some way. For example, femininity is at odds with the notion of a “big” female moving like a “freight train.” In the same way, aggression is culturally marked as masculine, and attacking a mountain at break-neck speed is hardly a traditional feminine quality. Calling the skiers girls in a context where they are being described in terms that often reference masculinity neutralizes that apparent oxymoron – and ultimately preserves a more traditional representation of gender.
Second, “girls” playing sports don’t violate gender norms in the way that “women” playing sports do. When you are a “girl,” it’s okay to engage in trivial and fun pursuits like sports; women, on the other hand, are expected to perform traditional forms of femininity, which is at odds with the masculine notions of competition and sports.
This logic also adds another level of explanation to Deford's question about the lack of attention given to the UConn women's basketball team. The undefeated Huskies do not enjoy the fan adoration Lindsay Vonn receives, which Marie Hardin notes is largely because Vonn participates in a sport that doesn't challenge gender norms in the way that contact sports like basketball do (see below).
Still, the Huskies have a much stronger following than any WNBA team -- after all, they're still college "girls," which makes their violation of gender norms in a contact sport less egregious than the professional women.
--Erin Whiteside

Commentary on SI's Vonn cover: Why the outrage?

A blog post earlier today by Nicole LaVoi, a researcher at the Tucker Center for Girls and Women in Sport at the University of Minnesota, has drawn a great deal of attention from national and international media.
It has also drawn a great deal of rage aimed directly at LaVoi. To summarize the LaVoi's post: She suggests -- based on research and a well-documented pattern by SI -- that the magazine's cover photo of skier Lindsay Vonn continues a pattern of general objectification and sexualization of female athletes.
LaVoi's observation isn't a stretch at all for women's sports advocates well versed in the ways female athletes have been depicted for decades.
The vitriol aimed at her in response to the post has been swift and ugly, however. I won't belabor it here (You can read it yourself.)
Although some of the comments clearly reflect -- in a civil tone -- disagreement with LaVoi about whether this particular shot of Vonn is meant to objectify or sexualize her, many comments aim to completely discredit LaVoi with a range of ridiculous accusations.
The fact is that women who attempt to speak with authority about sports have often been the target of sexist attacks. That's because sports have been primarily defined as a male domain -- a place where traditional "tough guy" masculinity is reinforced. The rights provided to girls and women via Title IX have certainly started to challenge that assumption, but scores of studies show that we're far from equitable on many fronts.
Women's sports advocates who speak out, then, run the risk of drawing a great deal of criticism because they are asserting their voices -- against the grain -- in an environment where women generally sidelined from having any real power.
But it is the voices of LaVoi and many others -- including those on the Women Talk Sports network -- that continue to challenge the norms and chip away at constricting gender roles for men and women in sports and the larger culture.
They may make many people uncomfortable -- even outraged. But they are essential.
--Marie Hardin