olympic glory: at What Price?

By STEPHEN BOURNE

STRATFORD, a run-down area of east London, is expe- riencing a re-awakening. This is an area that has never in its history risen far above poverty and squalor, and where depression and unemployment are commonplace. For just a few weeks this summer, however, it will become the center of attention and entertainment for London and the world, as it hosts the 30th Olympiad. True, it will never achieve the cultural status of Stratford-upon-Avon, the birthplace of William Shakespeare, but it will enjoy its few moments of glory. At what price, though?

There are so many sides to this story, but few that have not already been experienced in other cities that have staged the Games in recent times. Far from being a simple expression of joy, this has become a monumental exercise in risk management. Like the football World Cup, it offers untold opportunities for terrorists, extremists and crackpots to cause disruption in the pursuit of their own selfish political agendas, without heed to the dismay and injury that they might cause to people from other societies who have no stake in their complaint. At the same time, it tests the ingenuity of the organizers and disciplined services in containing the dangers of hostile actions, while simultaneously seeking to ensure that the Olympic public is not inconvenienced by heavy-handed security measures. What do the UK Immigration authorities need to do to ensure the safety of the public during the Olympiad, without forcing visitors to our country to endure hours waiting in line at our borders?

There will always be the unexpected that will be virtually uncontrollable. Who would have anticipated the cynical brutality of the 1972 massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games? How can the madness of an individual opportunist be foreseen? A recent more modest example, but nonetheless one that upset many participants and onlookers, occurred during this years Boat Race on the Thames, between Cambridge and Oxford Universities, when one protester swam into the path of the boats and caused the race to be stopped. The effect was of widespread distress, as it was one of a bizarre series of incidents that took the gloss off Cambridges victory, that left the Oxford crew feeling that they were robbed of a possible win if the race had continued uninterrupted, and that angered the TV audiences around the world. This was a futile gesture that won few admirers for the protester, whose motives, even now, remain obscure. How far should one have to go to defend against such actions, and at what cost?

The problem is that large-scale public events have long become politicized. Its no good asserting that political disagreements have no place in sporting or cultural jamborees. The shameful Black Power salute of Tommie Salute and John Carlos, which demeaned them as much as it did the Games, changed all that for ever. So did the Munich massacre. So did the US-led boycott of the 1980 Olympics in Moscow. So did the Soviet-bloc tit-for-tat boycott of the following Games in Los Angeles.

The innocence of the Olympics and other iconic events –the Tour de France cycle race, athletics world championships, and so on – has been further compromised by a cocktail of professionalism, money and performance-enhancing drugs. We think of these things as phenomena of the modern-age, but they are doubtless as ancient as civilized (and uncivilized) man. The international community has rightly chosen to assert that victory achieved through the influence of stimulants is without credit. The consequential issue we must accept is the high and permanent cost of policing this high-minded position and of staying one step ahead of the criminals who lust after the rewards that accompany sporting success.

In short, this all costs money, without even counting the enormous expenditure on infrastructural enhancements. Beijing, South Africa, Delhi, London, Qatar and now Rio de Janeiro have all spent billions on improving their transport links, power supplies, sports stadia and accommodation for the athletes. These improvements are among the great legacies of sporting tournaments, though some are admittedly less welcome than others. The London Olympic Stadium, for example, will quite possibly become the new home of my beloved West Ham United FC, which should result in greater prosperity for our club, but in a less intimate stadium than the one we currently inhabit in the heart of our community. I guess you cant expect everyone to be happy!

In the case of London, the Olympic expenditure couldnt have come at a worse time in the economic cycle. But what if it had been Athens, or perhaps Madrid or Rome or Lisbon or Dublin? Would the international community simply have bailed them out, to ensure that the Games would not be cancelled? Because the Games must go on, mustnt they?

There will always be a body of people who will argue that the Olympics demand a cash outlay that we can ill afford and that this profligacy is disgraceful at a time of high unemployment and severe social stress. But should we just shrink back in the face of tough economic choices and threats from terrorists? Should we just stop holding large-scale public events? Surely not! Life must go on. Governments must be brave enough to continue investing in the infrastructures that will improve our world in the long run, and to defy the extremists who would disrupt our lifestyle and lead us towards anarchy.

Above all, though, lets remember that the Olympics are the ultimate Friendship Games. How do you put a price on friendship?