Sports for all

Friendly Observer

By Arthur Keefe

I am writing from the UK, which is currently in the grip of Olympic fever! Blanket coverage of every event in every sport is available, with 24 options on interactive TV. It is then all summarised on every news bulletin on TV and Radio.

I love watching, and have no objection to any of this.

What is clear is that a small minority of the 204 nations taking part will bag a large majority of the medals, mostly those from the West and China.

It is possible to believe this represents a natural superiority of the people of these countries. An inbuilt genetic advantage.

For a few groups this may be true. Kenya and Etheopia have produced the best distance runners for many years. Their success seems to be based on their unique physiology, as their environment high in the mountains gives them greater ability to take in and to use oxygen, rarer in high altitudes. However, this benefit does not seem to extend to others, such as Bolivians and Ecuadorians living at even higher altitudes in the South American Andes.

The stature of populations is also a factor. America excels at swimming, but most of their competitors are over 6 foot tall and heavily muscular. This is partly selection, but also denotes a population where the high protein diet of the majority ensures very many achieve their full growth potential. The pool for selecting the top athletes is vast.

Asian people have previously won few medals, and their short light build has been seen as largely to blame. However, the Japanese, the South Koreans, and especially the Chinese, are now entering tall strong athletes and are winning many medals. Similarly,  those of African descent, including those from the Caribbean and the USA, excel at the sprints where their physique seems particularly suited. Oddly, their success on the track has not been matched by success in the pool, where a black competitor is a rarity.

Inherited characteristics may play a part, but opportunities to fulfil potential count for much more. The improved diet and health care of Asian countries helps to explain why these countries have burst onto the world stage. In China, these improvements have not been enjoyed by all, but by identifying potential athletes as young children, and nurturing and training them intensively, they have increased in stature and skill, and achieved a high degree of success in all sports.

Russia and its satellites adopted a similar strategy  decades ago. The fall of communism saw this authoritarian approach dropped, followed by the decline of athletic performance.

By far the biggest cause of difference in performance between rich and poor countries is not nurture or genetics, but resources.

In common with other successful Olympic teams, the UK has poured money into sport, especially at the elite level. In every sport, they have created fulltime teams of coaches, physios, sports psychologists, and even IT specialists working in high tech labs, tracking and tweaking performance.

The athletes themselves train full time, with no need to obtain a separate income. In those sports depending on expensive equipment, such as bikes and boats (where the UK excels in both), the best is available.

At the highest level, where success or failure is separated by hundreds of a second, resources such as these make all the difference.

Countries such as the Philippines do not have this infrastructure or level of resources, and it is not surprising that the sport where they do well is boxing, where there are size categories and where participation is not too expensive. The Philippines could give priority to this, as in China, but would this be the best use of limited resources?  I think not.

In the meantime Filipinos can enjoy participating in sport, as they do in large numbers in San Carlos, whilst taking inspiration from Olympic medallists from across the world. Sports promotes health, self discipline, self confidence, and is enjoyable.

The Olympic's best legacy is to inspire and encourage mass participation in sports.