Should Tiger Woods be an Olympian?

To answer that question, we first need to understand the broader question of what the Olympics are, and what they mean. As some of you might remember, I’ve argued this point before, and my opinion remains unchanged. The Olympics are, or at least should be, above all else an expression of freedom. They are one of the last remaining bastions of fairness, equality and ultimately of fun amidst an otherwise often bleak political landscape. With a warming planet, illegal wars, massive financial corruption, and a litany of other problems facing the world today (as if today were somehow different than any other day), the Olympics should stand as a place to forget all of it; a place where people can interact and compete without all the baggage that the rest of life brings with it, on a level playing field, the sole goal being the celebration of personal and thereby collective achievement. The very last thing that the Olympics should be about is TV ratings. Sadly however, that is exactly what the IOC seems so concerned with.

Yesterday’s ruling by Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon should not have come as a surprise. Whether they’d care to admit it or not, everyone involved with the women’s ski jumpers’ suit of VANOC on the grounds of sexist discrimination against their sport must have known that there was never any chance of a BC supreme court judge attempting to actually over-rule the IOC. That doesn’t mean that the suit was a failure, however. What Justice Fenlon surprisingly did accomplish with her ruling was the laying of blame for what she describes as a case of discrimination at the feet of the IOC, but probably not exactly as she intended.

Of her ruling, Justice Fenlon had this to say; “Many of the men the plaintiffs have trained with and competed against as peers will be Olympians; the plaintiffs will be denied this opportunity for no reason other than their sex,”

Her sentiments are right on the money, but she missed one key fact. These dedicated and courageous (have you ever so much as stood at the top of a ski jump, let alone contemplated hurling yourself off of one?) women are being denied a fair chance to represent their sport and their countries, but not based on their lack of a penis. They’re being denied this chance based on their current inability to draw a North American audience.

Despite the IOC’s claims to the contrary, this cannot possibly be about technical merit. Ski jumping is a sport with a longer pedigree, a richer history and a larger pool of athletes than many other sports that have been granted an Olympic berth. Take snowboard cross racing for example. Women’s ski jumping has 135 competitors from 16 nations. Women’s snowboard cross has only 30 women from just 10 nations. Ski jumping can be traced back to the 1800’s…snowboarding has only been around roughly as long as me. Ski jumping attracts spectators by the thousands. Snowboard cross attracts spectators by the thousands. Oh, wait…what’s the difference here? Ski jumping’s spectators are European, as are they’re primary sponsors and equipment suppliers. Snowboard cross spectators are North American, and the industry that makes their equipment is one of the fastest growing and most profitable on the continent. Hmm. Whatever they wish this controversy were about, the IOC has made it clear that their only concern when adding new sports is the ability to increase TV viewership and garner more advertising dollars for their massive corporate sponsors. If this example isn’t blatant enough for you, look at beach volleyball, one of the summer Games’ darling attractions. Perfectly toned, sculpted and oiled men and women throw themselves around a sandy beach, clad only in the skimpiest of (overpriced) swimwear and adorned with tacky (and hopefully temporary) corporate tattoos. The message is clear. Anything that sells (in this case it’s sex) is good with the IOC. Too bad female ski jumpers can’t simply start sporting bikinis; if the could, the debate would be moot.

So, should women’s ski jumping be an Olympic sport? Of course it should, I doubt there is any question of that in anyone’s mind, regardless of what side of the debate they’re on. What troubles me the most is that, given such a flagrant display of the IOC’s true values, when will Tiger be crowned an Olympic Champion?