leyton.org

So Dwain Chambers has lost his attempt to overturn his Olympics ban. Almost certainly the right decision given every other runner he’s competing against for a place has a clean record. His transgressions in the past sully the image and reputation of these fine runners.

I recall hearing somewhere that we’re the one of only a very few countries to ban convicted drug users from the Olympics, so in the context of the world of sport, there’s a discrepency with other countries that may be cause for appeal. But - and it’s a very big but - at the same time the deliberate and intentional use of performance enhancing drugs so fundamentally undermines so much of what sport, and in particular Olympic sport is about, a lifetime ban on Olympic participation still strikes me as fair. So rather than us overturning the rule, it’s perhaps other countries who should be reassessing what message they’re sending out by not being as harsh as the UK on such ‘athletes’.

Chambers had lost a huge amount of support amongst the public (his recent qualifying win had a muted response, and even a few boo’s), and even more so, I’d imagine, with many of his fellow runners (At least, those who chose to say anything). His abuse of drugs led to his team mates losing their gold in a 4×100m relay. Shameful stuff to try and enhance your own chance of winning, but even worse to participate in a team event and ruin their efforts. Whilst he’s perhaps to be commended with some of his efforts to help authorities tackle drug abuse, it’s far too little, far too late.

The Olympics strives to set a gold standard for sporting excellence and pushing human achievement and endeavour. So, the right decision today, and the right message being sent out to any other athlete who finds themselves presented with the option. Making the wrong choice will have serious consequences later in life. It really is about taking part, and fairly, and pushing as hard as you can. For me, at least, it’s the journey that’s important, not the destination. Chambers might do well to recognise that himself.

The news this week about the Olympic torch relay has left me feeling a bit despondent, on a number of fronts.

I think it’s a shame that the Olympics continues to be dominated by politics. It feels such a throwback to the 1980’s, and the east vs west boycotts. We’ll have steroid fuelled up eastern European ‘athletes’ and dodgy haircuts next. Perhaps I’m being naive, but I honestly thought the spirit of the Olympics was to celebrate human achievement, and leave politics aside. The Sydney and Athens Olympics look like being the high-point. It’s downhill from here…

The majority of Free Tibet protesters were peaceful, but a few took things a step further than necessary, and lead to scuffles and violence. It’s focused attention on the subject, certainly, but not in a good way for the campaigners. AFP reports the Dalai Lama even supports the Chinese Olympics, and he’s the cause celeb of Tibet.

Of course, the Chinese don’t come out of this well at all (even leaving aside their invasion of Tibet). The Chinese backed governor of Tibet said, on the forthcoming Tibet section of the relay,that “If… anyone should attempt to disrupt or undermine the torch relay, they will be dealt with severely according to law“, and a few other ominous words. Nice touch. The blue-coated escorts (or “smurfs” I gather the Metropolitan police referred to them as) just look a bit too serious and humour-free. Ominous looking guys.

And where’s Darfur in all of this? Spielberg’s decision to resign, drew attention to China not putting any pressure on Sudan over the crises in Darfur. It’s all been blown aside by the Tibet campaigners.

But it’s the Olympic spirit that is starting to suffer. If we’re back to politics as a central force in Olympics, I can’t help wonder what this means for London 2012 (although what campaigns we can expect, I’ll save for another day), but more importantly the future of the Olympic movement: Countries won’t bid if they attract criticism not support.

The complete and utter non-story that was Gordon Brown not attending the Olympic opening has thankfully disappeared from the BBC front page (and talks more of media-led group-think/panic than anything vaguely serious or important, other than perhaps Brown’s media team being hopeless), but talk of such boycotts really just undermines any hope I have that athletics and human achievement will be the focus of the Olympics.

Politics is important, and it’s important to pressure China, but at the same time it can’t let become the dominant theme of the Olympics. It’s against the ideals and goals, and undermines everybody involved. Dialogue with China is important, and if this goes on I fear we may be pushing this country away at a key moment in its recent history.

Puzzled at the relative lack of live coverage of the Winter Olympics on the TV, I was delighted to discover yesterday that the BBC is actually putting huge amounts of the live content out on the internet. So, as I type, I’m watching (well, listening to!) the men’s combined downhill (Slalom).

I’m a huge fan of the winter Olympics - especially the ski events. Whilst I’m a reasonably competent skier myself, I’m in sheer awe of the ability of athletes as they go down such overwhelmingly steep slopes (TV gives no indication at all of the true steepness of competitive courses) at breakneck speeds. It’s one of the most technically challenging, riskiest and demanding of all competitive sports in my view. And don’t get me started on the cross-country events, which combines amazing levels of endurance and fitness, with pinpoint shooting accuracy.

I know that the winter Olympics isn’t everybody’s cup of tea. But take a step back and consider what the implications are for streaming almost every event down your internet pipe, to watch as and when you choose. It’s amazing. For those of us who’re wired up with Broadband, it opens up so much of the BBC’s content that doesn’t normally make it to view, meaning the interested license payer can pick up exactly what they want, without interrupting the viewing habits of those less keen. I know the BBC has other things up it’s sleeve for the next few years, including more on-demand transmission. I just hope they keep in mind not everybody chooses to run Microsoft operating Systems.

So it’s great news for London, having beaten Paris to host the 2012 Olympic games. Superb news, despite my earlier reticence.

Hopefully everybody will be able to enjoy the celebrations, but the hard work starts now for so many people. It’s a huge prospect, but one that will surely lift the east-end of London substantially, and do so much to enrich one of the poorest parts of the capital, and the country.

That such a huge event should be occurring in our country must also do a great deal to help lift the spirits of the entire country. Whilst I’ve sympathy to France: Economic problems and unpopular leaders, and now loosing the Olympics (it’s Paris’ third attempt) must surely mean that France can’t be a particularly uplifting place to be right now.

Quite the opposite - I suspect - from the UK, where the uplift from winning the right to host the Olympics will add to what was already a growing sense of confidence and optimism. Quite remarkable.

In just over three hours time, we’ll know whether London has secured the 2012 Olympic bid. I have to confess I’m a late convert to the proposal. When I lived in London I was more than a little shocked to hear that Londoners would be expected to pay quite a chunk (something approaching £100 extra on our council tax for a few years), and somehow the idea of thousands more tracksuited people descending on the city was less than appealing (all be it without the Burberry and the pushchair perhaps).

But my chav aversion aside, listening to the discussion over the last few days, hearing about the redevelopment of the east-end of London that would occur, I’ve come to think that this really could be a great event to be hosted in the city. The scale of redevelopment suggested puts it at an advantage over Paris, which has much already built. There also seems to be a genuine turnaround in public opinion regarding the bid. Perhaps, given my personal opinion until recently, I’d thought it was inflated, but I suspect it’s more than genuine.

Frances and I visited the Olympic site in Sydney. One of my only concerns is we were less than impressed by the venue. I don’t mean to say it wasn’t impressive as a sporting venue: It was big, impressive and had lots of flagpoles: All things I think are important factors. But it somehow felt empty (we were there at about 8pm, on our way back from the Blue Mountains). So I just can’t get worked up by politicians saying it’ll be a great “legacy”, as sporting stadia are only used occasionally. Much of the rest of the time they’re empty and somehow drab as a result, and I’m not sure I’d want that down the end of the road.

That aside, to snub Jacque Chirac one more time by snapping it away from the supposedly favourite bid from Paris would be so desirable. The pique this man is putting on is ridiculous, and seems to be more appropriate from a 12 year old child than a senior European statesman. I’m almost expecting Chirac to run across to Tony Blair, snatch the football from him, and steam off on his own (perhaps with Bush bursting into tears).

Rumour has it on the political programmes that much in the G8 actually hangs on the Olympic decision. If Paris looses, expect some grandstanding. If they win, expect some snide remarks. Whilst France supposedly backs Britain’s push of the Make Poverty History agenda, I’m somewhat cynical that loosing out to Britain would serve only to encourage more fits of pique from Chirac, a most curious statesman.

But all that aside, I’m very hopeful that at 12.46pm we’ll be awarded the games. Hearing the level of support from both British athletes and sportsmen, as well as famous figures such as Nelson Mandela, it’d be great - and boost the entire country - to actually win the right to host the Olympics in 2012.