Why does politics have to pollute sporting events?
Srianee Dias
Mirra Andreeva won the women’s singles title at the French Open yesterday (6.6.2026). She is Russian but was competing as a ‘neutral’ athlete. She reached the finals after defeating Marta Kostyuk from Ukraine in the semifinals. After losing the match, Kostyuk ignored Andreeva and walked over to shake the umpire’s hand. She chose to play against Andreeva, but like several other Ukrainian players, chose not to shake the hand of her Russian opponent. It is difficult these days to entirely eliminate politics from sports, but it is my opinion that when players choose to compete in an event, they should act graciously towards their opponents in a sportsmanlike fashion. The athletes are not responsible for the political conflict.
In the finals, Mirra Andreeva defeated Maja Chwelinska of Poland 6-3, 6-2 to claim the title. She was congratulated warmly by Chwelinska. Andreeva is only 19 years old, and this is her first Grand Slam title, although she won two major championships in 2025. She is the youngest winner of the French Open since Monica Seles won in 1992, when she was 18. Andreeva has personality, charm and a sense of humour. She is a refreshing change from grumpy Aryna Sabalenka, who is currently ranked No 1.
Sabalenka is from Belarus. She and Andreeva have. been banned from competing in international events under their national flags. This decision against the Russian and Belarusian athletes was made by the International Tennis Federation in 2022 when it suspended the Russian Tennis Federation and the Belarusian Tennis Association from all 4 major tournaments, as well as team competition (Davis Cup and the Billie Jean King Cup), following the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. To her credit, Sabalenka has not renounced her nationality, unlike some other athletes. I applaud her for that decision, because it probably cost her some lucrative endorsements. I think it is unfair for hardworking athletes to be penalised for the decisions made by politicians in their respective countries.
In the past, we’ve seen many similar situations. South African athletes were prevented from competing in international events for many years because of the South African government’s apartheid policies. I am told that the Pakistani and Indian cricket players do not shake hands with each other, even though they play against each other.
The FIFA World Cup is just beginning with matches being held Canada, USA and Mexico. Iran’s national team, Team Melli, has qualified to play, but the team is being hampered by visa problems being experienced by their players and officials. I read that Tehran has now arranged for the Iranian team to be based in Tijuana, Mexico rather than in Arizona, USA.
Sporting events can play a role in bridging the existing hostilities between nations. The athletes are heroes in their home countries. Any positive experience they have during the competitions will carry over to their fans at home.
Many athletes have also used their
voices and influence outside their sporting careers. Billy Jean King and Megan Rapinoe have fought
for equal pay for female athletes. Wilma Rudolph, Muhammad Ali and Kareem Abdul
Jabbar were very active in the Civil Rights Movement. Lewis Hamilton has been championing diveristy
in F1 racing. They have that privilege
and freedom, but it is my opinion that these activities should be separated
from the actual sports competitions. The
sporting events should be confined to the sport, and politics should be set
aside during the competitions.
I shall comment on the ethical point of view Srianee brought up in her post but couldn’t help recalling a famous sri lankan female tennis player in our school days. Rukmini "Ruki" Kodagoda was a highly celebrated, multi-sport athlete who served as a national tennis champion in Ceylon and later became a national champion and union president in golf. Her remarkable sporting legacy includes being a National Tennis Champion after entering the University of Ceylon in 1957. She later claimed the Ceylon/Sri Lanka national women's doubles and mixed doubles titles on several occasions.
ReplyDeleteIn Golf, she dominated the sport as well, winning the Sri Lanka Amateur Women's Golf Championship in 1979. She served as the President of the Sri Lanka Ladies Golf Union. Her life and contributions to the sport are celebrated annually at the Royal Colombo Golf Club during the Rukmini Kodagoda Trophy junior match-play championships, sponsored by the family business, Perera & Sons.
Her brother Sarath Kodagoda was also a talented Cricketer and Rugby player representing Royal College.
Ruki was an alumna of Ladies' College. Thank you for writing about her. All the Kodagodas excelled in sports.
DeleteBack to the French Open Tennis; the men's final yesterday between Zverev and Cobolli was really exciting. Alcaraz was out with an injury, Sinner had been shockingly eliminated in round two, and Djokovic had also been eliminated in an earlier match. This was Zverev's chance, because although he had made it to 3 grand slam finals earlier, he had never won one. I think he was under tremendous emotional pressure, but he stayed calm and succeeded in defeating his good friend Cobolli. I was happy for him.
I heartily endorse your opinion "The sporting events should be confined to the sport, and politics should be set aside during the competitions". The problem though is to recognise that the behaviour you rightly do not approve of, brings wider publicity to issues which deserve more publicity. I am not sure how we can avoid this completely but I although agree with you in principle but at the same time I have some sympathy for this "mixing politics with sport". Unfair things like sex and ethnic discrimination got more publicity as a result.
ReplyDeleteMahen, thank you for posting this. I agree that athletes can, and should use their voices to raise awareness about issues such as unfair policies and discrimination of all types. I was specifically focusing on the problem of political problems affecting sporting events. When athletes qualify and choose to participate in sporting events, the organizers of those events should not penalize the athletes for the actions of the leaders of their home countries. The athletes themselves should behave with decorum, and respect the event, as well as their opponent. Not shaking hands with one's opponent is simply rude!
ReplyDeleteThank you Mahen for posting the interesting article ‘why does politics have to pollute sporting events’
ReplyDeleteI remember Rukmani Kodagoda much senior to me bus a good friend of my cousin Saro. She was a great Sportswoman.
Yes the sporting world must bring awareness to this issue.
Dhushyxx
Dhushy, thank you for expressing your views on this subject. It appears that not too many of our friends are bothered by these problems, because like so many events that occur repeatedly we become 'immune' to them. For example, we hear about mass shootings so often, that it may get the same attention as a traffic accident!
ReplyDeleteThis is how I see it Srianee. Athletes in international sports events compete as representatives of their country, though they also achieve individual titles. National Bodies: Athletes are selected by their country's national sports federation or National Olympic Committee (NOC).Country Codes: Sportspeople wear jerseys with their country's name, flag, and three-letter country code (e.g., GBR, RSA, USA).Medal Tables: Event organisers tally medals by nation, not just by individual names.
ReplyDeleteThis Nationalism is again shown in that the winners stand on the podium while their national anthem plays. Also, the flags: The top three athletes watch their national flags rise during the medal ceremony.
There are rare exceptions where athletes cannot officially represent their homeland:Neutral Athletes: If a nation is banned due to state-sponsored doping or geopolitical conflicts, clean athletes may compete under a neutral flag (e.g., Individual Neutral Athletes).Refugee Teams: The International Olympic Committee (IOC) runs a dedicated Refugee Olympic Team for displaced athletes who cannot represent their home countries.
so, it is the norm that athletes contest as a representative of a Nation and NOT primarily as an individual. If the athlete feels strongly about the unfairness or unethical nature of the politics of an opponent, the Event is a good forum to display this and bring to the attention of the whole world this bad behaviour. When the tennis player in question refused to shake hands, it was not in my opinion "bad" but she should have at some point after the match, spoken to the opponent and explained that it was "nothing personal" (unless the opponent openly supported the unacceptable stance of her country, in which case, you can't expect he to behave like a hypocrite.
The nonsense that can be caused by this is shown by ths instance in History. The South African barefoot middle-and long-distance runner Zola Budd (also known as Zola Pieterse), controversially gained British citizenship just months before the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles so she could compete, as South Africa was banned from the Games at the time due to the international sports boycott against apartheid. Her expedited citizenship sparked a massive political controversy and divided public opinion in the UK. Running barefoot, she famously competed for Great Britain in the 3000m final, where an accidental mid-race tangle with the American runner Mary Decker became one of the most iconic moments in Olympic history
Hi Mahen, your comments and explanations are appreciated. I agree with you that in international events like the Olympics, Davis Cup, World Cup Soccer, Test Cricket etc. the athletes are representing their countries and are obliged to follow the guidelines and policies set by their countries. Their countries sponsor them and pay for their trips to the competitions. But, in major tennis tournaments the players are playing for themselves, although their home countries are listed on the board next to their names. (Russia and Belarus are not listed.) As the tournament progresses, players may find themselves matched against someone from a country which is at war with one’s own country, as in the case of the Ukrainian and Russian players. If any player finds it objectionable to play against such an opponent they should simply not play in the match. A walkover will be declared. The player has a choice! But, if you decide to play and your opponent wins, then the right thing to do is acknowledge the victory by shaking the opponent’s hand. Be a good sport, for heaven's sake!
ReplyDeleteMy article was triggered by my seeing the Ukrainian player ignore the Russian winner, in an individual sport, not a team sport. As much as I sympathize with the plight of the Ukrainians, I feel that if you choose to participate in such a sporting event, political differences should be left outside the stadium. Sporting events should rise above politics. That is my view.
Dear Bunter , Thank you for inviting me to add my “two cents “ to this trialogue ! I am afraid it can only be ‘half a cent’ , seeing nowadays I tend to stay unmoved by the endless dramas on the screen !
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with the sentiments expressed by you in the first para of your post .
I also agree that sportsmen and women should not be penalized for decisions made by politicians ,though it has often been the case.
The same applies to the Arts where competitors after having undergone much preparation and expense are banned from participating in major events owing to their country’s politics.
These Sports and Arts events which reach global audiences become vehicles to spread awareness of issues such as racism, inequality and human rights violations to the uninformed and become a voice for change, as happened with the NZ government’s cancellation of a Springboks tour in protest of apartheid in the early seventies.Social change does not happen in one clean sweep , but in small and painful steps over time and political awareness does play a part in reform though I agree politics should stay out of the arena itself .
Whatever the wider politics, individuals, sportsmen or otherwise should respect another’s individuality and behave with respect, observing proper decorum.
There are also the likes of Mohammed Ali who showed the world what true greatness is with his defiance of political pressure to stand steadfast with his beliefs at great sacrifice to himself .
Refusal to shake the hand of a victor at an international tournament while the world watches is - in comparison petty to say the least .
There is no place to abandon common courtesy for any reason, political or otherwise, whoever or wherever you are.
Hi Rohini, thank you for contributing your 'half a cent.' It's worth a lot , believe me. You mentioned Muhammed Ali, who stood up for his beliefs, objected to being drafted to the military during the Vietnam war, and was banned from boxing for three years as a result. He was also stripped of his heavyweight title. He made a huge personal and financial sacrifice. He became a champion in the civic rights movement and a leading voice for social justice. One of the most touching moments, that I remember, was when he lit the Olympic Flame in 1996, in spite of his physical disabilities at the time. He was a unique and remarkable human being.
DeleteHi Bunter ,
ReplyDeleteThank you for getting me thinking on this subject. I would not have bothered about it otherwise .
Since making those sweeping statements in the few last lines of my comment,
I have pondered this matter further , and return to add another ‘half a cent’ !
Politics pervades our entire lives whether we notice it or not - from the cradle to the grave - even further back to one’s reproductive rights , where we are born, our education and healthcare etc, and so it has done with sports and the arts.
It is up to the individual to make a stand as to whether they let politics take them over or act according to what their hearts and minds dictate.
In this sense, in spite of what I have said, Kotsyuk’s refusal to shake the Russian opponent’s hand shows her authenticity and strength - after all - isn’t etiquette and courtesy often hypocritical ?
Firstly, she may have had no personal animosity towards her opponent ,but only wished the world to see her condemnation of the predicament of her country. She was strong not to act differently just to keep the world happy .
Indeed this is contradictory to what I have written above, but I do value and admire authenticity .
Hello again, Rohini. It is true that politics affects us in so many ways, all throughout our lives. Perhaps it is unrealistic of me to expect sporting events/competitions to rise above these political conflicts. To quote John Lennon "You may say I'm a dreamer..."
ReplyDeleteThis particular incident bothered me. The reason that Kostyuk didn't shake her Russian opponent's hand was because that is the manner in which all the Ukrainian players have decided to protest the invasion of their country by Russia. I think that is a rather weak protest, and somewhat hypocritical, because they are perfectly willing to play against Russian opponents, but not willing to congratulate their opponent upon losing the match. It doesn't make any sense to me. It would have a far greater impact if they refused to play against a Russian opponent. That will never happen, however, because then they would be forfeiting the big bucks that are earned at these tennis tournaments, At the French Open even the first round losers earn $102,000. The singles champions earn $3,248,000. The players who get eliminated on their way to the top earn something in between.
The manner in which money impacts sports is a discussion for another day!!!
Having read the dialogue between Rohini and Srianee, and the growth of Rohini's half a cent to a princely sum of one cent, it is apparent to me that this is a very thorny topic. The use of sporting events of world wide audiences as a forum to make a protest or a strong point is quite understandable. To avoid contesting and lose the chance of making some money in an honourable way is the way some have chosen in the past. But it is not unreasonable for a sportsperson when given the chance to show his/her prowess by contesting and then grabbing the attention of the World by not shaking hands.
ReplyDeleteIt would be lovely to see the views of other regular batch-bloggers who have gone into hibernation (and hopefully not extinction!). This is my wake up call to my honourable friends in hiding.(amazingly, there is no physical place called "Hiding" in the World!).
Hi Mahen, Rohini and Dushy. What is great about this discussion is that we get a chance to hear another point of view. I value the opinions expressed by all of you, Even though I have my own views, it is always interesting and enlightening to listen to another point of view. I wish more people would join in and express their opinioons.
ReplyDeleteI would like to hear what goes on at the India/Pakistan cricket matches whenever they play against each other. I admit, I have not been paying much attention.
In the early 1900s the expression "What Would Jesus Do?" became popular after the publication of a novel by Charles Sheldon. (I have not read the book). It became a personal motto for Christians in the 1990s and Christians in the US were wearing wrist bands and teeshirts with the abbrevition "WWJD!"
Perhaps, people in the sporting world should have a slogan "What Would Muhammed Ali Do?" -WWMAD! He certainly set a high bar.
Should sporting events ignore politics?
ReplyDeleteMy apologies for the late entry into the discussion. Much has been written about the issues and I do agree with the views expressed.
We really do not know if the family of Marta Kostyuk has been seriously affected by the war or even been killed which makes it much harder for her to shake hands with her Russian opponent. Seated in the comfort and safety of my rocking chair it would be unfair of me to castigate or criticise the Ukrainian. The etiquette and courtesy of a handshake is much easier in peacetime. Is this the way the Ukrainian is protesting about the criminality of the war? May be she feels as long as the Russian embargo exists Russians citizens should not be allowed to play in the tournament. A complete ban helped to change South Africa.
I have always believed males and females should be treated equally and receive the same reward for winning. To make it fairer, women should win 3 sets of tennis to complete a game.
Politics affect every aspect of life. It would be wonderful if sports can be completely free of politics but we can dream.
Very well stated Nihal. Agree with you. In my view, it is not possible to make absolute generalisations and each case has to be examined carefully. As you say, "Politics affects every aspect of life". And so be it because Politics cannot be separated from the lives of people. Politics is also about how we treat people and has a strong ethical aspect. I wouldn't regard Marta K as a "bad person" (simple Trump terminology) till I have had the opportunity to question her reasons.
DeleteI wrote the above comment in a rush after returning from a holiday. Thank you Srianee for writing about this interesting and ever evolving topic. Many thanks to Mahen, Dhushy and Rohini for their valued contribution.
ReplyDeletePolitics is defined as the process by which groups of people make decisions, resolve conflicts, and distribute resources and power within a society or organisation. It determines how communities are governed and manages the balance between individual freedoms and collective security. Hence it encompasses everything !!
There is politics within every sport in its management.
After many thousand years of human existence, despite all the religions and philosophies we havent still learnt to live in peace.
Dear Mahen and Nihal, as you have both written, this is a complicated situation, and it is impossible to eliminate the intrusion of politics in our lives. I don't believe Marta K is a "bad person" because she was simply following what her her teammates had decided to do. (This was not an isolated incident.) Similar incidents occur in many sporting events. Nihal, you summed it up well when you said "After many thousand years of human existence despite all the religions and philosophies we haven't still learnt to live in peace." Cave men may have clubbed each other to death, but now we have sophisticated, very expensive weapons capable of eliminating all of us. Are we civilized yet?
ReplyDeleteI must reiterate that Srianee has touched on an important issue on the etiquette and courtesy in sports today and it certainly applies to in life in general. I may sound like an old ‘f….t’ when I say that the friendly rivalry that existed in sport during our schooldays is now long gone. I read a newspaper clip from Sri Lanka that there was a serious ‘punch up’ between the parents watching a school rugby game which spilled on to the pitch. The reasons for this aggressive behaviour in sport are complex and I don’t think I am competent enough to get to the bottom of the problem.
ReplyDeleteI firmly believe good discipline starts at home. Many school teachers tell me that when they discipline students nowadays, for bad behaviour, parents complain to them and some even go further to complain to the principal. As a result teachers are most reluctant to punish students and bad behaviour is often ignored. I firmly believe religion at an early age teaches children kindness, decency, generosity and important aspects of good behaviour. People are far less religious nowadays compared to when we were growing up. This is more so in the Western hemisphere. The huge sums of money involved in sports must play a part.
I would love to hear what my learned colleagues feel about the current situation, the reasons for this aggressive behaviour in sports and the possible reasons for this change.
Hi Nihal, Thank you for your sharing your thoughts. What I am sad about is that sportsmanship in competitive sports is a thing of the past. It's not whether you "won or lost, but how you played the game" (This line is attributed to an American sports writer and poet, Grantland Rice - just found out on Wikipedia). School teams playing against each other should be used to teach young people how to win and lose graciously.. Unfortunately these days this is not what the coaches and the parents are teaching them . Unacceptable behavior in all areas is being normalized and society is turning a blind eye. I guess we are just old f----ts!
ReplyDeleteIn the US this sort of involvement in sports by the parents is a big problem even at an elementary school level. In the classrooms the teachers have to be extremely careful about how they discipline the students. I agree that discipline and respect for elders should be taught at home. But, I think some parents are too busy doom scrolling their smart phones!
Hello Srianee
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you the sportsmanship of competitive sports is gone. In my retirement I do watch a lot of sports on TV. Tennis, squash Badminton and Table tennis when it is one to one, at the end of the game the victor often shake hands with the loser but it doesnt give me the impression it is done with any feeling. Just a cursory shake of hands. Come on!! cant they smile and speak a word or two or even put your arm around the loser. Perhaps I am being rather pedantic.
I go back again to those halcyon days of school cricket in the mid 20th century when all cricketers seem to belong to a brotherhood. There was constant friendly banter with one's opponents. When injured in the heat of the battle the opponents showed concern and helped in whatever way they could. I have such wonderful and happy memories of the cricket that I have watched under the 'Mara ' trees at Campbell Park.
I went to one World Cup soccer match and watched a couple of them ( My wife watches most of them) remarkably the cordiality among the teams is amazing. The help the other team when they are down, pulling them up, patting each other and spending time with the opposite side after the game is over. Even the spectators from all over the world cheered the opposite them when there was a brilliant save. I know the new rules prevent harsh words, with a red card. Hopefully this is going to spread and there will be world peace.
ReplyDeleteRajan
Rajan, it is good to see you in the Blog. Most heartening to hear about the sportsmanship noticed at the World Football Cup matches. Being a "good sport" was synonymous with being a good human being with worthy qualities because "sport" was equated/assoiciated with good behaviour. Like so many changes in human behaviour, sport has suffered not just from politics but with greed, power and money. Money and greed distort our thinking.
DeleteAnother factor contributing to corruption in Sport is in a funny sort of way, improvement in living standards giving us more time to spoil ourselves, often at the expense of the less well off. We are less busy earning a living and have more busy with self-indulgence. We have less time to devote to more important things as we are so busy with unimportant things.
But I don't necessarilly paint all sportspeople who show unsporting behaviour with the same brush. The pressure on a famous sportsperson to "make a point" and bring to the notice of the world (press and TV etc being so widespread and instant) an unfair pratice or system is extremely strong and almost impossible to avoid for "the greater good". A sportsman who takes up a sport to become a millionaire and behaves with perfect manners is to me worse than a sportsman who risks his/her reputation to publicise abhorent unethical and immoral behaviour (such as Aparthied). Such a person is unselfish while the money-maker is not- I am thinking of a money-maker who does not share his/her wealth with people who are less fortunate- those who never donate to Charity for example.
The danger to avoid is not to make generalisations and always think of the context- including the era, the particular country and culture, the behaviour of the "handshake refuser" in general and what principles he/she stands for. "Sporting behvaiour", tools like all tools, can be used for the benefit of human beings or for their destruction.
Hello Rajan, it is great to have you participating in this discussion. I am glad that you and Qilan are enjoying the World Cup matches. I don't know a lot about soccer rules, but I am enjoying some of the matches when it doesn't interfere with my sleep! I was able to watch Lionel Messi score his hat trick. That was fun. I'm also impressed at the way some of the underdog teams are giving the big guns a hard time. I watched Congo DR stifle Cristiano Ronaldo, and not allow him to score a single goal. Very interesting! I am an idealist like you, and think of international sporting events as a way to build relationships between players from different countries, regardless of their leaders and corrupt regimes. Apparently this year 48 countries are participating in the World Cup, which is the largest number so far. I was happy to read that your impression was that the sportsmanship displayed by the players and fans was better than before.
ReplyDeleteI believe that at events like this political differences should be left outside the stadiums and tennis courts. The focus should be on the sport.
Time to be a bit controversial! How do you judge whether an action is immoral or unethical? I am leaving religion out of it for the moment.
ReplyDeleteOne way to analyse an action is to look at it in sequence.
First, the initial thought prior to the action, including the motivation. Then the action itself, and finally the expected or desired result.
A man kills another man. Terrible, killing is bad. The killer is bad.
Further analysis. He wasn’t planning to murder, but when the man with a reputation for being unscrupulous approached the man-turned-killer’s mother with a loaded gun and threatened to kill her, the son threw himself at the assailant with a kitchen knife he grabbed and killed the man. Result:- his mother is alive, he is alive, and the assailant is dead. Good things? Mother is alive, he is alive. Bad things? The assailant is dead, and his children are orphaned (it later turned out). What would have happened if he did not attack the assailant? His mother is dead and most likely he too is dead. How do you judge his action?
The point is to take into consideration the motive, the circumstances (the context), the action and the desired effect of the action into consideration and not just pass judgment based just on the "immoral" act. Other factors to take into consideration in less urgent situations are the alternatives available. The time available to weigh the risks and benefits of the available actions .
To me, a matter of central importance is was the behaviour selfless (no personal gain) and motivated through qualities such as generosity and kindness.
Machiavellian ethics: posits the belief that ethical intention must be matched with situational awareness (I call thsi contxt), and the responsibility includes understanding the consequences of action and inaction alike (motivation and intended consequence). individuals can decide that telling the whole truth may cause more harm than good or choose to act within the reality of their situation.
ReplyDeleteHow complex decisions about good and bad action can be is partially summed up by saying, Machiavellian deception may be permissible within the lens of care ethics if it protects someone from unnecessary harm, buys time to stabilise a fragile situation, stops a crisis from escalating or preserves the long-term integrity of a care network. The key here is that the intent is protective and not used for personal gain.
Facing realities as opposed to idealism - Machiavelli didn’t think values and morals were irrelevant. He believed that values were fragile when incentives contradicted them. In his mind, fear of loss, status, safety, income and belonging tended to outweigh abstract commitment to virtue. This is certainly a point of contention.
I am not a fan of the 16th century philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli, but he has some interesting points of view in judging human and societal behaviour.
I found this fascinating but quite naturally, we will have differing views. That is quite normal!
Dear Mahen, I think the whole world has fallen into a Machiavellian abyss! Will we ever get out? You have broadened the discussion in your comments and highlighted the complex nature of the problem I initially presented.
DeleteI know that I cannot save the whole world! I was simply presenting an argument to save sporting events from political interference and influence.
In my Utopia, sporting organizations such as FIFA (Federation Internationale de Football Association), ITF (International Tennis Federation), ICC (International Cricket Council), IOC (International Olympic Committee) would allow all qualified players to compete in events PURELY based on on their abilities, regardless of the actions and policies of the leaders of their home countries.
The players would then compete with decorum, and respect for their opponents setting aside their own political views, and that of their opponents.
These competitive sporting events could be an opportunity to improve understanding between nations far more than a G-7 conference ever would. (Rajan said something similar!)
Conversely, men and women in the sporting world are certainly free to express their views as individuals outside the sporting arenas. In recent history many have used their voices to improve the lives of others or protest when injustice is perceived.
But, when competing, my view is that the focus should be on the sport, and the sport alone.
Probably, this is just a pipe dream on my part...
Srianee, thanks for starting this discussion. The World has become more complex and "smaller" in a way because of the extent and rapidity of information spread and the actions of well known people are more and more under scrutiny. I have tried to indicate this complexity and how it can affect even things like sporting behaviour.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, I heartily endorse your statement-"In my Utopia, sporting organizations such as FIFA (Federation Internationale de Football Association), ITF (International Tennis Federation), ICC (International Cricket Council), IOC (International Olympic Committee) would allow all qualified players to compete in events PURELY based on on their abilities, regardless of the actions and policies of the leaders of their home countries". and like you said, "when competing, my view is that the focus should be on the sport, and the sport alone". My own caveat is that we should not categorise a sportsperson who uses such occassions to bring to the notice of the World unfair and unethical practices, as "bad people" as the intention was selfless and honourable.
Okay my friend, I get it. Let's shake hand on that- virtually!!
DeleteDear Friends, please excuse me for the late response. I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion regarding cheating in sports as well as unacceptable behaviour.
DeleteIn the 1960s when the Ceylon cricket team captained by Michael Tissera toured Pakistan , Hanif Mohamed had been the opposing captain. At the toss, Hanif had tossed the coin over Michael's head and quickly gone behund him, plcked up the coin and said "Heads you lose and we bat". before Michael could see the coin!
In the 1960s when the MCC toured South Africa, Basil D'Oliviera was chosen for the tour. He was of mixed South African descent and playing county cricket for Worcestershire because of apartheid in South Africa. He was not granted a visa and I think the tour was called off and South Africa was deprived of playing Test Cricket for many years.
On the 5th of September 1960, Cassius Clay ( Mohamed Ali) won the Gold Medal for boxing in the Heavy Weight category. When he had returned to New York and visited a cafe, they had refused to serve him. He was so disgusted that he had walked out and thrown the Gold Medal to the Hudson river. Many years later he had been given a replica of the medal.
An addendum; it was at the Rome Olympic Games
DeleteSo good to see you back on the Blog, Sanath. Your cricketing stories reminded me of a famous English "great", W.G. Grace. He was infamous for "gamesmanship" and exploiting his massive status to bypass gentlemanly etiquette. His most notable controversial behaviours include refusing to "walk" when clearly out, intimidating umpires, and running out unsuspecting opponents during breaks in play.
ReplyDeleteApparently, Grace never accepted an umpire’s decision against him if he could avoid it. If he nicked the ball or was clearly out, he simply stood his ground, demanding the umpire make the final call, a practice he justified by claiming the crowds came to watch him bat, not the bowler!
Sanath and Mahen, thank you for sharing your cricket stories. I bet there are many about sportsmanship in cricket or lack thereof. W.G. Grace sounds like an umpire's nightmare!!
ReplyDeleteSrianee and Sanath, here is another famous incident featuring the Test Bowler with the highest wicket haul (Murali) and then NZ Cricket captain Brendon McCullum (now head england coach). Muttiah Muralitharan was run out in a controversial incident during a December 2006 Test match against New Zealand in Christchurch. While batting, he stepped out of his crease to congratulate his partner, Kumar Sangakkara, on scoring a century. The ball was not ruled "dead," prompting New Zealand wicketkeeper Brendon McCullum to quickly whip off the bails and appeal. Sangakkara was batting on 99 and hit a single towards fine-leg to reach his 100. Muralitharan, assuming the play was complete, stepped out of his crease to congratulate Sangakkara. Fielder Chris Martin threw the ball to McCullum, who dislodged the bails while Muralitharan was out of his ground. The umpire had no choice but to give him out according to the strict Laws of Cricket. The dismissal was widely condemned as being against the "spirit of cricket" because it took advantage of a batter's momentary excitement over a teammate's achievement. However, McCullum later expressed regret for the dismissal in his 2016 MCC Cowdrey Lecture, admitting it was against the spirit of the game
ReplyDeleteJust to wind up with a story about how individual athletes who trained for years before the Olympics, suffered because of Political boycotts.
ReplyDeleteThe 1980 Moscow Olympics Boycott: Led by the United States to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, over 60 nations refused to participate. This move retaliated against individual athletes who had trained for years, depriving them of their competitive dreams for a purely symbolic political gesture.
The 1984 Los Angeles Olympics Boycott: In a direct tit-for-tat response, the Soviet Union and 14 of its Eastern Bloc allies boycotted the U.S.-hosted Games. They cited fabricated safety concerns, further weaponizing international sports as a tool for Cold War propaganda and dividing the global athletic community.
Right or wrong, like it or not, sadly, politics will seep into all areas of human existence and it will be interesting to see how future generations will view these. Despite all that, I personally don'y believe that sportsmanship is on the decline in general.
Mahen, yes the bureaucrats complicate things for us!
ReplyDeleteIt is a pity that we haven't heard from Bora and Kumar (being spoorts people). Is this is a sign that the Blog is very likely in its sunset stage, sounding to me like an echoing hall?
ReplyDeleteI hope not, though I write infrequently, yet I read it regularly including the comments. As a memory for Lucky let’s not let the “ Cardinal “ be over. ( our final year theme song). Rajan
ReplyDeleteHeartening to read your comment Rajan. Let us hope “the carnival” is not over yet!
DeleteMahen and Rajan, the blog may not really be in its terminal stages, but it may be dealing with the problems of aging as we all are. Rajan is not the only one who looks at what is posted on the blog fairly regularly without getting around to composing and posting a comment. The reasons for this are many.
ReplyDeleteWe may check the blog quickly to see 'what might be going on' with the intention of coming back and then life distracts us. There are appointments with doctors (more than we like!), family commitments, housework etc. that keep us busy until the end of the day, And then, we are too tired to be sitting at the computer writing comments!
Another reason is that the subject matter of a particular post may not interest us. It takes time to read a long essay on something that may or may not interest us, and then it takes even longer to get our thoughts together to respond..
I think that many of us find the WhatsApp groups an easier way to keep in touch with friends. Forwarding jokes and messages doesn't take much effort, does it?
I wonder if we should be posting more interesting photos of our travels, meetings with friends etc. and fewer words ? Just a thought.
Rajan, Srianee Sanath and Mahen
ReplyDeleteAs Srianee has pointed out the Blog too is suffering from old age of its users. I have been a regular contributor to this forum since its inception but finding time for it now amongst the many "must do's" has become a problem. Energy levels are dropping but slowly. I was a regular visitor to electronic shops to see whats new but I just dont feel like going anymore.
I just wonder if the Final Year Trip is still a feature in the Faculty in Colombo or if the Carnival is really over.
As for the Blog - it will carry on until Mahen gives up on it or the last person to leave the batch switches off the lights.
Pram will be visiting London soon to watch tennis at Wimbledon. A batch reunion is on the cards and I look for ward to seeing my pals again. With dwindling numbers this too is rater lowkey compared to a few years ago. When Pram gives up on travel to London the reunion will bite the dust.
Impermanence is the only constant. While this can feel heavy at times, it’s also what gives every moment its value and beauty. So we must enjoy what we have now.
Very true, Nihal. You are and have been one of the main contributors, from the Lucky era to the Mahen era! Sanath, Srianee, and Rajan are also key contributors. The key numbers have dwindled over the years, some with very valid reasons, such as Razaque, who is dead!
ReplyDeleteYour final wise statement is worthy of emphasis- "Impermanence is the only constant. While this can feel heavy at times, it’s also what gives every moment its value and beauty. So we must enjoy what we have now."
All of us live in "rooms" with a number of windows and we decide which ones to look through, which ones to close intermittently or permanently! It is up to us, "The Keen lot", to try and find ways of enticing people to keep the Blog window open (as often as possible) by making the view through it interesting enough to drag ourselves from other competing windows.
Please note, this applies to Apple users as well as Windows lovers!
DeleteNihal and Mahen, I'll second (or third) Nihal's statement that "So we must enjoy what we have now."
ReplyDelete