Communists and the Olympics

[Biotop]

Back in the old pre-Fall of the Berlin Wall days I used to hear a lot of negativity towards the Eastern Bloc countries, especially East Germany and the USSR, with regards to the Olympics. It seems, if memory serves me correctly, that when little communist kids were discovered to have special athletic talents, they were forced to undergo rigorous training at the expense of any "normal" childhood lifestyle. All time outside academia was spent in workouts and gyms under the eyes of despotic coaches. Sports were not fun--sports success was patriotism. Failure was not tolerated, and success at the Olympics (always the ultimate goal) meant a hero status at home and much wealth and favors. Parents accepted that their children would rarely be at home because their future glory and the country's glory were of utmost importance.

I grew up in a conservative household that generally took most anti-communist propaganda as the gospel truth. But now I wonder: Was there really that much difference between how those bad old communist countries trained their olympic hopefuls? Or was this just a convenient sour grapes excuse to explain why they so often kicked ass?

[Road Rash]

Originally posted by Biotop


Back in the old pre-Fall of the Berlin Wall days I used to hear a lot of negativity towards the Eastern Bloc countries, especially East Germany and the USSR, with regards to the Olympics. It seems, if memory serves me correctly, that when little communist kids were discovered to have special athletic talents, they were forced to undergo rigorous training at the expense of any "normal" childhood lifestyle. All time outside academia was spent in workouts and gyms under the eyes of despotic coaches. Sports were not fun--sports success was patriotism. Failure was not tolerated, and success at the Olympics (always the ultimate goal) meant a hero status at home and much wealth and favors. Parents accepted that their children would rarely be at home because their future glory and the country's glory were of utmost importance.

I grew up in a conservative household that generally took most anti-communist propaganda as the gospel truth. But now I wonder: Was there really that much difference between how those bad old communist countries trained their olympic hopefuls? Or was this just a convenient sour grapes excuse to explain why they so often kicked ass?


I have heard there are several lawsuits pending in Germany due to the now middle aged athletes from the 70's who were told they were getting vitamins when really they were being seriously doped with steroids and other performance enhancing chemicals. Many are having health problems now.

Who knows. Steroid use was common in the U.S. as well. All I know is that female swimmers are hot now. Back then the looked like they needed a shave.

[sailor]

I just recently read online an article detailing all the excesses of East Germany in this field and (of course) now I cannot find it. Yes it was very bad and people were give drugs without being told etc.

All I could pull up was this http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25013-2000Sep6.html about China which has been doing pretty much the same for many years. They think the end (the glory of the communist system) justifies the means.

[friedo]

In China, anything less than a Gold medal is unnacceptable. A lot of coaches were fired last olympics for bringing home bronzes.

[Biotop]

Originally posted by friedo
In China, anything less than a Gold medal is unnacceptable. A lot of coaches were fired last olympics for bringing home bronzes.



Were they really fired for not bringing home gold medals?? This at first seems absurd, but I guess we see the same things in our own country--in college and professional sports.

On the other hand, does anybody really connect Olympic gold with a country's or a people's worth? How long could an Olympic victory rally the countrymen around the government in bad times? If things are going well in a country, how much of a damper would losing an Olympic medal bring? Maybe if you're preaching a "master race" doctrine, you'd lose some credibility if your country got whupped in the Olympics, but all in all, who remembers who won what when?

I recall that in my youth that we were told that Olympic losers in the Eastern Bloc countries became outcasts. I find this hard to believe. Wins are nice, but what's the big deal?

[sailor]

Biotop, communist countries lived on propaganda. That's all they had to offer their people. mybe to you it is no big deal but for them it was a VERY big deal. They could say they had gone abroad and won over capitalist countries. Somehow this was a reflection on their own internal affairs. The people need not be told the real differences between how people lived in other countries.

China has opened up a lot in the last few years but there's still one thing: nobody can report news except the official state agency (Xinhua). I have not seen any negative news about China reported by Xinhua. It is kind of funny because they report everything is going fine all the time and then something like a few top level bureaucrats have been executed for being corrupt. (But they will not allow anyone to report there is corruption). It is like the positive news is they are getting rid of corruption that did not even exist.

Anyway, if this is so today, you can imagine what it was like 25 years ago in the height of the cold war and the Cultural Revolution. Millions of chinese perished as a result of the Cultural revolution. It took much less than leaving your country in a bad place in view of the world to get yourself executed those days.

[Manda JO]

Slightly off topic, the childhoods of American Olympic hopefuls are also far from normal-to train a body to do the things an olympic athelete can do doesn't leave much time for anything else. The parents of a fifteen year old Olympic hopeful in Americal alsop have to get used to not seeing thier child much, and they finace it themselves. This is not the same as slipping a ten year old steriods, by any means, but still worth mentioning.

[Biotop]

Originally posted by sailor
Biotop, communist countries lived on propaganda. That's all they had to offer their people. mybe to you it is no big deal but for them it was a VERY big deal.

Sailor,
I'm not saying propaganda is no big deal. Much propaganda can be insidiously effective. I just fail to see how a gold medal in the javelin toss or track and field makes the communist hold over it's people more powerful. It's a nice news story, and countrymen no doubt feel pride, but are the people really so fired up over the Olympics that winning a gold medal for the country has any long-lasting positive results for the leadership?? So much so that it is worth the government's time to spend years and years compulsively forging athletes out of their promising youth? Hmmm...

No doubt positive nationalistic stories create a common bond for the people and therefore would be promoted by the government. But to go to such an extreme for so little results ...this all seems a bit exaggerated to me. Could perhaps there be just a tad of anti-communist propaganda in all this?

[Steve-o]

Originally posted by Biotop


...But to go to such an extreme for so little results ...

This may seem like an extreme to you and me, but think about it this way... Issuing an order for little BamBam Rubble to be trained as a weight lifter is of no consequence to the person who would have the authority to give that order. This would be because that person would not ever have even met any of the Rubble family. He would not see how the day to day life of this child has been affected by his order. The only thing this official will see, is the end result. A gold medal or 4 for his country. What was the cost to the official? One teensy-weensy little order he issued several years ago. Even if we assume that the benefit to this official's career and his country are small in the grand scheme of things, the return on investment (from the POV of the official) was fantastic. Remember, there is no press that can pull on the heart strings of the people by showing the story of the forced saccrifice made by the Rubble family. The only thing the press will be showing the people, is BamBam standing on the top tier of the podium set with a gold medal hanging around his neck.

At least that's my take on things, and I've been known to be wrong once or twice per year.

[theuglytruth]

-China, a notorious Olymoic doper, has backed off in an attampt to get the 2008 games

-In 1952, after the Americans barely edged out the USSR for Olympic Gold Medals, the head of the USSR Olympic committee was heavily questioned by Beria, Stalins' henchman, and according to the book, "War of the Century" he was convinced he would be shot until Stalin let him go.

[sailor]

Biotop, maybe you have not been exposed to other cultures. Think of any culture that hates the USA like Irak or Libya. What do they gain by beating the USA at a sports event? To you it may mean nothing. To them, even if it were not sponsored by the government it would mean enormous pride. Like Argentina beating the UK at soccer. If you do not understand it I think you just need to be exposed to other cultures more because I cannot explain it better.

The fact is communist countries did force their athletes to the limit and you ask why. I am trying to explain it to you but you do not understand that reason. Well, can you come up with a better one? I can't. The one I have explains it pretty well for me.

By the way, Cuba also does the same kind of thing. It goes out of its way to try to win at sports. The people there mostly do not know the standard of living abroad is way higher because they get no news from outside. They cannot be told Cuba has any achievements in the outside world because there aren't any. But if they send an athlete somewhere and he wins it must be a sign of Cuban superiority. It is propaganda by association and it works with selling soap or with selling ideology. Al Gore kisses his wife on national TV and his popularity goes up. Does that mean people conciously are looking for a good kisser to be the next president? It just means they associate him with something they like.

But getting back to Cuba, it spent a ton of money it didn't have to build sports town in the outskirts of Havana for the PanAmerican games in 1990 (or thereabouts). They built all these buildings and stadiums to impress the world (meaning other latinamerican countries) but now they are all run down out of lack of maintenance. I stayed at what used to be the apartments for athletes and you should see the place. They have converted them into apartment-hotels for foreigners so they are maintained much better than any home and yet half of the stuff doesn't work, the place is filthy etc. You have to see it to believe it.

By the way, the name of the place is Cojímar and it is where hemmingway used to go fishing. They absolutely love Hemingway there and you see his picture everywhere.

[sailor]

Manda JO, I tend to find immoral how some kids are pushed. The difference of course is that here it is the parents who do it and in the Communist countries it is the government. IMHO it is wrong in both cases but in the case of the government it is doubly wrong and they will abuse the kid much more.

Another thing that has not been mentioned is the blatant cheating by all countries in the aspect that olympic athletes are supposed to be amateurs.

In communist countries this takes the form that they are officially given a post as army officers or something of the sort while in reality they are full time athletes.

[RickJay]

Originally posted by theuglytruth
-China, a notorious Olymoic doper, has backed off in an attampt to get the 2008 games

Huh? No, they haven't. Beijing is THE front runner for the 2008 Games, and it's generally believed the decision's already been made via lots and lots of bribe money.

[Biotop]

Originally posted by sailor
Like Argentina beating the UK at soccer. If you do not understand it I think you just need to be exposed to other cultures more because I cannot explain it better.



It's not quite like Argentina beating the UK at soccer. Soccer is an huge worldwide sport, obsessively followed by millions upon millions of fans. Weightlifting, track, and fencing however, as well as many other Olympic sports, have comparably few followers. Hence I can see the nationalistic value in soccer wins much more so than in, say, curling.

Did communist countries "force their athletes to the limit" as much as has been claimed--and more so than other countries at the time? I'm certainly willing to believe it if the evidence is presented to me, but where's the proof of this supposedly commonplace and widespread activity for those of us so culturally challenged.?

[sailor]

Never mind, it probably *is* just anticommunist propaganda. It's all in the news but it could well be just anticommunist propaganda made up by the capitalist exploiters. You just don't know who to trust these days do you? It seems even your parents were part of the evil plot.

For those who do not quite share your skepticism I would point out that a web search turned up hundreds of articles on this topic. For example http://www.canoe.ca/SlamOlympicScandal/may2_ewa.html

As for me being anticommunist, yes, you are 100% right. I am also antiNazi, antiFascist, antiChildabuse, antiCHildporn, antiracism and anti a long list of other things I consider evil.

[Doug Bowe]

"Frontline" on PBS did a story on this a few years ago.
To the old Soviet Union and some of it's Iron Curtain friends (like East Germany) the Olympics were a very, very big deal. It was international battle that showed the superiority of their systems. Kids that showed special talent as early as kindergarden would be recruted. Gold medal winners were Heros Of The People.
As to "pushed to the limit"....well, let's just say those kids got the best coaches available. Nothing dark and sinister about that.

[Biotop]

Originally posted by sailor

As for me being anticommunist, yes, you are 100% right. I am also antiNazi, antiFascist, antiChildabuse, antiCHildporn, antiracism and anti a long list of other things I consider evil.


And I'm right up there with you, sailor. I am well aware that the communist bloc countries were terrible places for their people. Giving steroids and other dangerous drugs to athletes without their knowledge is despicable.

It would be interesting to find out just which other countries have abused their athletes in search of gold medals.

[sailor]

Well, this opens up an entirely new can of worms. I do not think western countries (and by this I mean governments) have done this for the simple reason that they can't. The US government is not in the business of training athletes to win gold medals for the greater glory of Yankeeland. If they were I have no doubt they would do such things because it is human nature.

But there is no doubt that individuals will also cheat and abuse themselves to win. Since I do not care about sports I don't care about this either.

What I do find disturbing is parents who will push their children way too hard in sports like gymnastics where you see young girls who have pretty much been deprived of a normal childhood. IMHO this is child abuse and I would try to take some measures to curb this kind of thing. Still, I do not think it comes anywhere close to what the communists were doing.

This behaviour from parents happens not only in sports. When I see the video of Jon Bennet Ramsey in those pageants it makes me sick. I do not understand what kind of parent would do that to a little girl.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by sailor
Think of any culture that hates the USA like Irak or Libya.

Those are governments, not cultures. Nonetheless, the Olympics did play an outsized role in Soviet era propaganda -- as someone else mentioned, symbolic of the new Soviet man (or woman) defeating the perfidious capitalist weakling etc. etc. Abuse greater than our atheletes, well insofar as its rare in the West to have government sponsored programs, of course it was greater? Greater than some abusive pressure in our private sector sports...... Well who knows.

[tubagirl]

I'm sorry, but with all this talk about "western countrie's" practices, we shouldn't forget how the united states trains their own atheletes. I remember many biographies during the last olympics regarding our gymnasts. Many of those girls either left their parents completely to train, or the family split up to be there with her. It applies to our figure skaters too. How many stories have been told about parents mortgaging their houses several times over to pay for their daughters training. All the while, their little girl is hundreds of miles away practicing for 10+ hours a day.They suffer stress fractures because their little bodies can't take the pressure on their bones. And school! it is a second priority to their "career". I think we are just as demanding as those western countries. The only difference is, it is the parents, not the government pushing these children.

[sailor]

>> The only difference is, it is the parents, not the government pushing these children

That is a *huge* difference in my book. I do not want the government telling me how to raise my children even if it means other parents might raise theirs in ways I do not like.

Also the OP was asking specifically if communist countries really did this of was it propaganda. The answer is, yes, they did this. We are comparing governments here, not parents.

But I do agree what some parents do borders on child abuse. The price we pay for freedm is that some people may use it in ways we do not like. I'd still rather live in a free country though. As we have seen, having the government tell people how to run their lives is not the answer.

[magdalene]

Originally posted by tubagirl
The only difference is, it is the parents, not the government pushing these children.

Not to mention the coaches. Anyone watch the "women's" gymnastics last night? Bela Karoli disturbs me. All of the competitors had had multiple stress fractures, surgeries, titanium rods inserted in their bodies, recent injuries, shoulders popping out, yet they were competing anyway.

But let's not discount the fact that often it is the athlete pushing him or herself, with the parents as willing enablers.

During the Cold War, Olympic supremacy was a big deal for both the U.S. and the major socialist countries: U.S.S.R. and China. Americans felt good when they watched American athletes kick Communist a-- and vice versa. We didn't have quite so much national pride riding on the whole thing, but we missed no chance to talk about the brutal training regimes, steroids, full-time subsidized training & coaching - if we won it was the triumph of American spirit and individualism over their "machine", if we lost we could say "what did you expect?"

It's not just a Cold War or Communist thing - there are other national rivalries afoot. Former colonies LOVE to see their colonizers get beaten. All of the former Soviet republics and the countries of Eastern Europe LOVE to beat Russia, the country that dominated them for so long.

In answer to the original post - the brutal, full-time training regimes beginning in childhood you've heard described are real. My friend Olya started in the Russian gymnastics system when she was 5 years old, but had to leave when she grew too tall at 5'5" - wasting YEARS of training. But before you feel too sorry for the children & their families, think about what a huge opportunity this was in a place largely desolate of opportunities - these kids and their families were envied by others. The mix of opportunity with exploitation, tragedy, and personal sacrifice is not unique to athletes in communist countries - it pretty much applies to everyone.

[TampaFlyer]

> A lot of coaches were fired last olympics for bringing home bronzes.

Is that fired as in they lost their jobs, or faced firing squads? The latter would not surprise me considering how they treat their own people.

[friedo]

Originally posted by TampaFlyer
> A lot of coaches were fired last olympics for bringing home bronzes.

Is that fired as in they lost their jobs, or faced firing squads? The latter would not surprise me considering how they treat their own people.

Fired from their jobs. I think gymnastics was a particularly nasty category.

I don't have a cite handy, but I read about it in a couple papers.

[Doctor Jackson]

To get back to the OP, yes. Not only did it happen in the former USSR, but it is still happening in communist countries today - most notably China. Chinese children who show an aptitude for gymnastics are identified at 3 years of age. They government does not, AKAIK, take the children from their parents but rather the parents present the chidren to the training program. From that point forward parents and child are allowed to visit twice a year for one day at a time. The rest of the time the child's life revolves around gymnastics. Patriotism certainly is a big factor but so is a shot, albiet slim, at a better life. Olympic trainees have access to foods and privileges unavailable to most citizens. Olympic champions are assured of a comfortable life.

The "one child" only policy in China makes this an even bigger sacrifice for the parents. To give up your only child at age three for what could be 20 years, knowing that you can have no more children, is a huge gift to the state. It's also very hard on the child, as evidenced by NBC's bios this year of several Chinese gymnasts.

I don't know whether the coaches are "despotic", but I do know they are single minded. Each of those 3 year olds are pushed to their limits to determine which may have what it takes to bring home the gold. To be accepted into the program is a huge honor for child and family. One mother of a Chinese gymnast recalled the day her son was accepted as the happiest and saddest day of her life.

One cultural difference that allows this system to flourish in communist countries is the citizens' view of government. Communist governments position themselves as the provider and protector - a parental figure to all citizens. The prospect of a child being raised by the "all benevolent" government does not generally strike a communist citizen as odd or unusual. Instead the government is often seen as the ultimate parent. Quite a different view than is held by most citizens of a democracy.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by Doctor Jackson
One cultural difference that allows this system to flourish in communist countries is the citizens' view of government. Communist governments position themselves as the provider and protector - a parental figure to all citizens. The prospect of a child being raised by the "all benevolent" government does not generally strike a communist citizen as odd or unusual. Instead the government is often seen as the ultimate parent. Quite a different view than is held by most citizens of a democracy.

Perhaps you should revise this to speak of American views of democracy, which is not the only game in town of course.

[tubagirl]

The opinions of the parents are somewhat different over there. They find it to be an honor for the goverment to deem their child trainable to be a national hero. These children will be well fed and taken care of in the ahnd of the government, wheras the parents cannot guarentee that life. They become elevated in status because their child is gifted with a olympic level talent.

Wheras you carry the maternal instinct to have your child with you, in your home. You must also realize the difference in society, that honor and superiority are key. That patriotism is a feeling that precedes maternal feelings. Due to their projection of society on the rest of the world.

[Doctor Jackson]

OK, Collounsbury, if you can provide one example of a democracy where the government positions itself as the all benevolent parental figure to the citizens I'll make my last remark specific to the USA.

Of course, if you want to get really picky, I could ask you what you meant by "America" not being the only game in town. Would that be South America, Central America, or North America? Let's not be USA centric while subtly accusing another of being USA centric. ;)

[labdude]

Originally posted by sailor
Biotop, communist countries lived on propaganda.


Free countries need a propangada system, unfree countries dont need one. A unfree country can use the club to get the people to do want it wants. See the book "maunfacturing consent."
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679720340/o/qid=969463474/sr=2-1/103-3162977-0738217

For a link on US style olympic training see below
built a gymnastics factory that produced a few brilliant gymnasts and broke everyone else. Most top gymnastics coaches punish their adolescent students, .......They worked out eight hours a day, six days a week—a schedule twice as rigorous as sports docs advise for teens. He prodded them to train despite stress fractures and ligament damage. According to Ryan, he belittled already petite girls as "fat cows" and "pregnant goats" to get them to cut weight. Some of them drank laxatives to get thinner; others were bulimic.

http://slate.msn.com/Assessment/00-08-25/Assessment.asp

[sailor]

>> Free countries need a propangada system, unfree countries dont need one.

Huh? Oh!... yeah ... sure... whatever...

I have to go now... I think the chip in my brain is acting up again. Or maybe I am receiving propaganda ...

[sewalk]

Originally posted by labdude
Free countries need a propangada system, unfree countries dont need one. A unfree country can use the club to get the people to do want it wants.

Excuse me. Did you ever read Pravda? I used it as a Russian language primer when I decided to learn more about my sworn enemy (I was in the US Army at the time, and Ronald Reagan was President). Show me a comparable Western publication. There was never, in the year and a half I regularly read it, a disparaging word about the Soviet government. Soviet communism was entirely dependent upon propaganda and naked force to keep the people from revolting.

Now what propaganda system do you refer to in the US, Canada, UK, Australia, Germany, France, or any other free democracy? The BBS, CBC, etc may be state-owned, but when did they ever "softball" the government like Pravda and TASS. Hell, Pravda and TASS didn't even play softball, they didn't even pitch; The Soviet government just tossed em up and hit away.

The club cannot be used by itself to keep the people in line. Oppressive regimes have to speak loudly and carry a big stick (apologies to Theodore Roosevelt).

[sewalk]

Originally posted by sewalk
The BBS, CBC, etc

Oops, I meant BBC.

[Punoqllads]

Originally posted by labdude
Free countries need a propangada system, unfree countries dont need one.


Double-plus unright, citizen.


A unfree country can use the club to get the people to do want it wants. See the book "maunfacturing consent."


A totalitarian country will use any tools it can, including propaganda.

You're spot-on about girls'-I-mean-women's gymnastics, though.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by Doctor Jackson
OK, Collounsbury, if you can provide one example of a democracy where the government positions itself as the all benevolent parental figure to the citizens I'll make my last remark specific to the USA.

Of course, if you want to get really picky, I could ask you what you meant by "America" not being the only game in town. Would that be South America, Central America, or North America? Let's not be USA centric while subtly accusing another of being USA centric. ;)

Quite right on the last part, but your restatement above is more restrictive. I invite you to compare the role of the French state with that of the USA.... Benevolent parental figure for the citizens, yes. I'd say the same for many Western European social democracies which don't have the USA's (perhaps well-founded but often exagerated) paranoia regarding government.

[labdude]

Originally posted by sewalk
[QUOTE] Soviet communism was entirely dependent upon propaganda and naked force to keep the people from revolting.


That's my point. In a country where you can use force propaganda is unnecessary. Of course, in the real world no countries use only force or propanganda, but propagnada is MORE necessary in a country where the use of force is restricted.

Sailor,
The computer chip comment was unnecessary. We have had many discussions on this board about the use of propaganda in the USA. The most well known example being the WW1 propaganda machine.

[Doctor Jackson]

I invite you to compare the role of the French state with that of the USA.... Benevolent parental figure for the citizens, yes. I'd say the same for many Western European social democracies...

I disagree that the French government or other social democracies are seen by their citizens as a parental figure. France is certainly more "benevolent" than the US from a redistribution of wealth point of view (as are Sweden, Denmark, Britain, Canada, and others for that matter). But I still do not perceive the citizens of those countries as looking to the government as the 'ultimate parent', as is fairly common in communist coutries. There is no stigma, and indeed a good deal of honor, in China when one's child is seen as good enough to be raised by the government. The same applied in the former USSR and still applies in communist dictatorships like Cuba. The whole premise of communism is that the good of the state outweighs the good of the individual. Even social democracies have not gone that far, yet.

[Lance Turbo]

Who's ready for some annecdotal evidence?

In the summer of '87 I was fortunate enough to attend gymnastics camp. Three of the coaches there were former Chinese Olympians. Li Xiao Ping, Xiao Xiun, and Li Xiao Ping's wife who often laughed at my clumsy oafishness. They were worked very hard from their childhood, but generally they felt honored. They were under tramendous pressure to beat the USSR at gymanastics. However, after their glory days passed Li Xiao Ping and his wife settled down to raise a family. When their child learned to walk, Chinese gymnastic coaches stopped by to watch, and measure his potential. That's when the decided to get the hell out of China. Xiao Xiun had simple overuse injury that could have been fixed with a little rest. Instead he was pushed and pushed until his injuries ended his career. After a lengthy rehabilitation, he was assigned a job in a factory.

Another couple coaches at that camp were Boris and Svetlana Verhofsky. They were former Soviet Olympians, but they were much less forthcoming about their past so I don't know all that much about the Soviet program.

Poster's Note: There is a large probability that all the athlete's names mentioned in this post are misspelled. Sorry.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by Doctor Jackson

I disagree that the French government or other social democracies are seen by their citizens as a parental figure.

As you like, it all depends on one's definition I suppose. Subjective.

snip


I still do not perceive the citizens of those countries as looking to the government as the 'ultimate parent', as is fairly common in communist coutries. There is no stigma, and indeed a good deal of honor, in China when one's child is seen as good enough to be raised by the government. The same applied in the former USSR and still applies in communist dictatorships like Cuba. The whole premise of communism is that the good of the state outweighs the good of the individual. Even social democracies have not gone that far, yet.

I think you exagerate. I lived in East Germany when it was still East Germany. Can't say from my limited experience I had the impression many loved the extreme kinds of intervention which the Stalinit state engaged in. The degree to which the populace felt honored by the government raising children seems to me to depend on the underlying culture and the circumstances. China -- I would attribute their attitudes to culture far older than the Communist state. I very much doubt that Cuba society justifies any such programs through genuine appeal to Communism. Nationalism is another matter, and in fact far more motivating. I always found that to be the case in the good old East Bloc.

(By the way, the premise of Communism is that the good of the majority outweigh the good of the individual, the Statist orienttion is more properly a Leninist and especialy Stalinist addition. Nationalism with some Communist frills and good old fashioned social security feature added always worked better in terms of getting people on board.)

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

This is a fact that may be pertinent to the discussion. I think I heard on NPR today that the entire Bulgarian weight team has been disqualified for drug use (one presumes steroids or something similar). Did anybody else hear this report?

[sqweels]

Slight hijack: Whatever happened to the the requirement that Olympians be purely ametuer athletes? We all know the story of how Jim Thourpe was stripped of his medals when it was discovered he had made a paltry sum playing baseball years earlier. But then a few Olympics back, the US put together the obscene basketball "dream team" of the best players from the NBA and of course they kicked ass.

What were the circumstances of the change?

[Shodan]

What happened was that the whole 'shamateur' idea got so silly that even the IOC bureaucrats caught on.

Now the national governing board for each Olympic sport can decide whether professionals can compete. Now we have the American Dream Team in basketball, Lindsey Davenport in tennis, etc.

Not that the athletes were anything close to amateur in the old days. The USSR, East Germany, and so forth, were well known for giving their athletes jobs that did not involve showing up or doing anything other than train. Vasiley Alexieyev has a couple of dachas on the Black Sea, for heaven's sake. It is said that he never wanted to break a world record by very much, because he was paid a bonus for each record broken, and he wanted to milk that for all it was worth. And American athletes had scholarships, or often accepted money under the table.

At least now we have the best athletes competing.

Now if we could only see something on NBC other than gymnastics and swimming four hours a night.