The Buch stops here

On Wednesday, the Belgian Olympic Committee announced it would ban its athletes from discussing political issues this summer in Beijing while in the Olympic village or at Olympic venues. They also added that they will prohibit their athletes from wearing any clothing deemed to criticize China’s human rights record. This is likely a political move, given that Jacques Rogge, a Belgian, is the current president of the International Olympic Committee. There will be plenty of politics around these Games, so it makes sense for Rogge to try and keep his own
backyard from causing him problems. It’s certainly troubling for free speech to position a gag order on athletes, though.
The Globe and Mail’s James Christie wrote a quality piece on this subject for the Globe on Sports blog. As he eloquently pointed out, freedom of the press was supposed to be a key feature of these games.
“One of the big selling points that got the 2008 Olympic Games for Beijing was that, with all the world’s athletes and media on hand, the Games would be a vehicle for change,” Christie wrote. “Freedom of the press, a more open China … that’s what helped Beijing overwhelm Toronto’s technically superior bid for the Games. The Chinese organizers made a point of emphasizing that media would have unprecedented liberties to report on what they see. The same isn’t true for athletes, apparently. … Europeans and North Americans can’t expect that the Olympics will transform China into a Western style democracy. But slapping a silencer on athletes smacks of repressive policies influencing what happens in the West, rather than the so-called “positive influence” going into China.”
Christie also wrote an excellent article on the subject for the newspaper’s print edition, featuring an interview with Phelim Kine of Human Rights Watch, who wrote a great comment piece for the Globe last year on the deplorable tactics the Chinese government has taken to ensure the Olympics receive only positive coverage, including harassment, detention, and even physical attacks on foreign journalists. Kine had an interesting take on the ban, arguing that it might set a precedent for other countries to gag their athletes on speaking out during the games.
“I’d say it’s dispiriting and it bodes ill for what other national Olympic committees might choose to do,” Kine told Christie. “There have been indications from the Chinese side that there will be no tolerance for dissent. The fact that teams are becoming complicit with that is unreasonable, and not keeping with the Olympic spirit. The Olympic Charter is dedicated to fundamental ethical principles, and obviously the expression of opinion on social or political topics should fall within that fact.”
Fortunately, other countries haven’t yet followed Belgium’s lead in banning their athletes from discussing such controversial subjects as freedom of speech, the occupation of Tibet, and the alleged organ harvesting of Falun Gong. The Dutch government has said that they hope to use the Olympics to press for change in Beijing, while the Canadian and American governments have said they won’t stand in the way if their athletes want to take a stand. Chris Rudge, the chief executive officer of the Canadian Olympic Committee, made some very positive comments in an interview with Christie.
“It is not our intent to give any kind of edict,” Rudge said. “Our athletes are mature enough and smart enough to know what they want to say and when it’s appropriate to say it. We respect their rights and opinions.”
It’s great to see Canada and the U.S. allowing their athletes to take a stand against political oppression thus far. Sadly, that hasn’t always been the case. Consider the bowed-head, black-gloved salute given by African-American athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos on the 200-metre race podium in 1968, showing their solidarity with the civil rights movement and their sympathy for the poor conditions of African-Americans in the U.S. As a result, they were expelled from the Olympics by IOC President Avery Brundage for bringing politics into the Games. They were ostracized by many back home, and even received death threats. The third man on the podium, Australian Peter Norman, also helped with the cause by wearing an Olympic Project for Human Rights badge and came up with the suggestion that Smith and Carlos should each wear one of Smith’s black gloves. For his assistance, he was reprimanded by the Australian Olympic Committee and heavily criticized in the Australian media.
However, recent times have looked more favorably on the actions of the trio in Mexico back in 1968. In 2005, San Jose State University erected a 20-foot statue of Smith and Carlos, alumni of the university. Positive interpretations of the incident now tend to dominate, and the image became one of the defining symbols of the struggle for civil rights.
Whether you agree or disagree with Smith, Carlos and Norman in this instance, the Olympic Games have always been political to one degree or another. They give a forum to those who might never otherwise get the chance, and this has often had positive results. Regardless of the results, though, it’s still important not to try to suppress people’s beliefs and ideas. The Olympics has always been politicized , like every major sporting event, so it’s a little late to try and divorce the political influences now. In fact, denying athletes the right to express themselves is itself a political statement.
Sometimes, nothing needs to be said, and athletic performances speak for themselves: consider the four gold medals Jesse Owens won in Berlin in front of Adolf Hitler, which showed the futility of the notion of an Aryan master race more clearly and concisely than any scholarly work on the subject. At other times, athletes need to take an outright stand for their beliefs, which they should be allowed to express. As Beatrice Hall famously paraphrased Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” The Belgian Olympic Committee wants to take away this right from their athletes: let’s hope that other countries don’t follow suit.

Last weekend may have been a turning point in the race for the English Premier League title. In an early game Saturday, Arsenal was held to a shocking 1-1 draw by lowly Middlesbrough. Defending champions Manchester United then took the field for a later game against Newcastle United, knowing that a win would put them back into the lead based on their better goal differential. Newcastle defended well at first, and the game was scoreless at the half, partly due to a couple of strong United penalty appeals denied by referee Rob Styles. For a moment, it looked like Newcastle could hold on to a draw, and United would be unable to make up ground on Arsenal. Everything changed in the second half, though, as United poured in six straight goals for a decisive victory, throwing down the gauntlet of a determined title challenge to Arsenal.

What was most impressive was the quality of the goals, demonstrating the undeniable attacking flair this United team. As a Setanta Sports commentator remarked after Rio Ferdinand’s stunning goal, “It emphasizes what Manchester United at their flamboyant best are all about.”

United’s domination of the second half was so absolute, they easily could have had a couple more goals.

United manager Sir Alex Ferguson told Setanta Sports their success in the second half was due to the team’s cohesion.

“I thought there were too many individuals in the first half,” he said. “Once they got the passing and movement, they were a fantastic team in the second half. It was a marvellous performance.”

The game also showcased the continuing evolution of United winger Cristiano Ronaldo into one of the undisputed best players in the world. Ronaldo notched his first hat trick for United, improving his league season goal total to 16, only one shy of the 17 he scored last season that led to his selection as Professional Footballers’ Association Player of the Year. He also had a penalty appeal denied, and could have easily notched even more goals. There’s still four months to go, so he should easily pass last year’s total, barring injury.

Ferguson said he favoured Ronaldo to surpass last year’s stunning performance early on in the year.

“They said he couldn’t match that, but why not?” he said. “He’s a young lad, he’s improving, and his decision-making’s been better all the time.”

Newcastle interim manager Nigel Pearson recognized United’s overwhelming superiority in his post-match comments.

“That is a very difficult day,” he said. “They were just a lot better than us.”

The stunning performance from United against Newcastle was a clear statement of challenge to Arsenal, as the play-by-play announcer remarked at the end of the game.

“In the most resounding possible fashion, Manchester United say to Arsenal, ‘It’s our title, and we intend to keep it,’” he said.

This weekend showed a return to quality for both sides, with United pulling off a 2-0 win away against Reading and Arsenal recovering to win 3-0 at Fulham. Both sides are still tied at the top of the table at the moment, but United should continue to gain momentum due to the return of some key players. Regulars such as Owen Hargreaves and Wes Brown started Saturday, along with Korean winger Ji-Sung Park. Paul Scholes, Gary Neville and Louis Saha should be soon to follow down the stretch. This will boost their chances of clinching the title, but nothing is certain competing against a strong Arsenal team that delivered a strong display of their own Saturday. Chelsea could pose an outside threat for the championship, but their lack of consistency thus far, and their four-point deficit to the leaders, suggests it will be United and Arsenal in it at the end.

United still has an edge, however. Their squad is generally equivalent to Arsenal’s, but most neutrals would likely take their star playmaker/striker pairing of Ronaldo and Rooney over Arsenal’s Fabregas and Adebayor, both of whom are terrific players in their own right but don’t quite seem to be at the all-world level yet. As Reading manager Steve Coppell pointed out after his side’s loss today, those two can make all the difference.

“You look at their incisive individuals—and by that I mean Ronaldo and Rooney,” he said. “By and large we handled the other nine well but over the course of 90 minutes their appetite will create openings and opportunities. In the end it was one too many.”

Coppell also sees it as a two-team race, and favours United.

“It is between United and Arsenal. European commitments will be key because from now on for them it will be a game every Saturday and a game every Wednesday,” he said.
“If either team lose any key individuals that will be significant. But if both sides stay healthy then I would say United by a nose.”

As Coppell points out, both sides are almost equally talented and either could legitimately take the championship. The X-factor of injuries also makes predictions tricky, but I tend to agree that United’s depth gives them a slight advantage. Regardless of whether United can defend their title or Arsenal rise to the challenge, either case should make for a great showdown and a tremendous stretch run towards the Premier League title.