Editorial

Yes there were great performances from Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps yet somehow their performances didn’t capture my imagination the way old Olympic champions did.

There are a number of reasons for that including perhaps nostalgia for a more purer sport (a time that arguably never existed given the questions about drugs East German and other eastern European athletes faced in the 70s and 80s).

I was pleased to hear the Russian athletics team were booted out of the Olympics but it was craven of the IOC to offload the decision on other sports to individual sporting organisations.

Then there was also the ridiculous restrictions on coverage that host broadcasters like Channel Seven imposed on the wider media.

These restrictions meant that if you weren’t watching the right television channel, then the chances of you stumbling on Olympic coverage was minimal.

As someone who tries to keep their viewing of overly commercial Channels Seven, Nine and Ten to a minimum, it meant I probably saw less Olympic coverage this year than possibly ever before.

I have to say also that I find the Olympics coverage cringeworthy and jingoistic.

I know it’s not just the Australian commentators that do it, by all accounts American TV edited their Games coverage almost like it was a national event and apart from a couple of stand-outs like Bolt, hardly any other nations got a look in.

I was delighted as everyone else was with the Australian gold medal winners – mostly women, I might add.

But the obsession with the medal count is counter productive.

The Olympic Games has become too unwieldy and too greedy.

Olympic sports get a lot of funding from the taxpayer and arguably this is not money well spent, especially given the marginal health benefits.

We would be better off putting money into the games people actually play, most of which are not in the Olympics, such as netball, rugby league, AFL and cricket.

DB