This article is a response to the first controversial post on the subject.
Elena Alexandrovna knows perfectly well how well I treat her. But in a wide variety of places, we always can’t do without crashing. And my counterpart even jokingly insists that our disputes should already be beautifully sold and monetized.
But seriously, in my opinion, we are talking about only one thing: history is a science that is both simple and complex. The same set of dates and facts, which in itself does not generate controversy, can lead to completely different concepts coming from different mouths. Sometimes the same facts can lead to directly opposite conclusions. Here we have exactly such a case.
I will try point by point. The colleague complains that any decision in world sports is made only from the point of view of economic expediency. And what other denominator needs to be addressed? Everything is decided by the market. Sport is not just a business, it is show business. It competes for our attention with movies, concerts, shopping malls. Therefore, the economy, and not some, God forbid, political expediency.
If the organizers of television broadcasts of leading sports forums believe that they suffer losses due to the fact that not all the strongest compete, and if they believe that for the sake of ratings we must be returned, okay, they forgive us (albeit conditionally ). , we bought tickets and went to perform. No, it seems to us that the whole world should, and preferably still, tear their hair out and apologize for having offended us. What kind of nonsense?
And what is the terminology? “They took 50 medals from me.” If a thief was caught red-handed and the stolen goods were returned to those who suffered from his actions, is this really called “taken”? No, justice was restored, not taken away. It does not occur to us that they do not take away our medals, but that they take them away as if they were won in a dishonest, dirty, unsportsmanlike fight. With the help of doping manipulations, we finished this Olympic counter for ourselves; now the specialists have come and corrected the counter.
Ah, since 2015, the “pressure of sanctions” has intensified! Well, let’s not pretend! It didn’t materialize out of nowhere. They forgave us time and time again, but we continued to extract fake certificates for athletes, hiding them from doping officers, and allowing, under some preposterous pretext, banned lifetime coaches to continue working with athletes.
Separately, everyone is very fond of talking about the topic with the flag and the anthem. This is usually a win-win twist: you say you can’t perform without a flag and anthem; it means that you seem to be a patriot, you care about the country. And those who are against the patriots – well, of course, spies and foreign agents. If we have been forgiven and they are ready to let us in again, but today the choice is limited to only two options: not to participate or to participate in a neutral state, then it is even incomprehensible why develop some kind of left. to the discussion. I like to talk about the terminology “enemies” – okay, understand: you are opposed to the admission of Russian athletes to the Games – which means that your position is, to put it mildly, unpatriotic.
And, of course, the substitution of causal relationships… “At the 2021 Tokyo Olympics, Russia competed under a neutral flag. Before the Games, VTsIOM conducted a survey, which revealed that 97% of Russians could not name more than one Russian athlete: what is the connection here? The author is trying to imply that if we compete without a flag, then there is no desire to follow that team? Well that’s funny…
Anyone offering Alternative Games is a scoundrel and a rogue. Both the Ministry of Sports and the ROC put so much effort into bringing us back to the global sports movement. All these processes are very “thin”. Here it is easy not just to scare, but simply to introduce a certain dissonance. We are invited, we confirm our desire to participate, and suddenly we are talking about Alternative Games. Our foreign partners, far from our realities, simply do not understand anything.
The Olympics are by no means a hostile brand that came out of Russia. The Olympic Games are a supranational, apolitical phenomenon. Therefore, the relationship must be appropriate. The Olympic Games are a dream, the Olympic champion is a hero. Depriving a person of the right to a dream, to happiness is already akin to a lifetime ban on a profession.
And I’ll end where you start, mate. It is better to quote from the world of commentators of the past, in my opinion, not Nikolai Ozerov, although he was epoch-making, he was still sensitively to the wind and therefore a little official, but his predecessor Vadim. Sinyavsky. His reports and intonations were much closer to the people, because the commentator relied on live speech and not all these ideological templates about “vaunted Canadian professionals.” But this is a matter of taste. and style