IAAF, USA and Canada demand Russian athletes represent "no country" at Olympic games

[Sean Lynch]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:47 AM Sean Lynch <seanl at literati.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:09 PM Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
>
>> So you're American, and some rogue trainers, agency guys and atheletes
>> have been doping, like say your cyclists, sprinters and the odd swimmer.
>>
>> Since this doping scandal is "systemic" in North Amerika, it is
>> evidently appropriate to ban all American's from participating at the
>> games, unless they can prove their innocence.
>>
>> Oh, and just to teach a lesson, those atheletes that have never been
>> involved in doping, if and only if they can prove they never doped their
>> bodies, well they can participate in the upcoming Olympics, but they are
>> not allowed to represent North America, and if the get a gold medal, the
>> American national anthem will NOT be played - since Russia is hosting
>> the Olympics, the Russian national anthem will be played instead.
>>
>> That is definitely fair and appropriate to the North American athletes
>> who have always done the right thing - a little bit of healthy
>> national and personal punishment before any trial and before any
>> conviction.
>>
>> Yep, that's how a democratic world should definitely work. Just the way
>> I thought of it too there Sean.
>>
>
>
> I am pretty sure I understand your position, and I'm sympathetic to it,
> but as an unpatriotic (in the sense that I do not support the government
> and I feel physically ill when I see people waving flags) American, I'm
> afraid that swapping America for Russia helps me see it better.
>

Err, *doesn't* help me see it better.


>
> I think this points out a fundamental flaw in the Olympics, and in fact in
> the entire international system: Individuals do not exist as entities in
> the international system. There is absolutely nothing democratic about
> the Olympics. The games exist to glorify states over individuals. The
> Western media do highlight superstars, but for the most part only American
> athletes get highlighted in the US.
>
> I gave up on the Olympics years ago. It is a fundamentally corrupt and
> hypocritical institution. And as you can see, it's being used as a tool of
> the West to try to punish Russia.
>
> So I totally agree with you, that's not the way a democratic world should
> work. But I'd add that the Olympics are not the way a democratic world
> should work. In a democratic system, states exist to serve the people. They
> should be at the bottom, not at the top.
>
> Not!
>>
>>
>> Western schooled persons (no point calling them humans) have lost touch
>> with empathy, justice, don't even comprehend the rule of law and checks
>> and balances, innocence until proven guilty and all that democratic
>> "rubbish".
>>
>
> I agree, though I think most people have always just followed the herd.
> Most people have always thought "rule of law" has meant "order", and that a
> powerful government unconstrained itself by law, as long as it was tying to
> do "the right thing" was the way to maintain "rule of law." Never mind that
> precisely the opposite is true.
>
> Which means the line has been being held by... what, exactly? Inertia,
> probably. The West has been essentially coasting on the inertia of WWII and
> then on the Cold War, which kept lots of people employed in a system that
> is unsuited to anything but mass construction for mass destruction. The old
> corporate/crony capitalist system is breaking down because the only thing
> it's good for is war. The "war on terror" is the wrong kind of war to keep
> it going, because high tech weapons are for the most part useless.
> Terrorism requires political, policy, *human* solutions. But the system is
> not evolved to put the kind of people in power who are capable of creating
> those kinds of solutions.
>
> Ironically, as undemocratic as it was, the system that existed in Europe
> prior to WWI was probably better suited to small scale conflicts than our
> current system. The French Revolution introduced the concept of "total war"
> to Europe, and the old system was not adapted to that.
>
> Now "total war" would likely destroy us all, but we're also pretty shitty
> at small scale wars. As you've said before, we need to have a multipolar
> system again. Such a system would reward diplomacy over saber-rattling.
> Doesn't matter so much if there's still a lot of tension, as long as it
> doesn't escalate to war. As long as individuals don't get too caught up in
> the tension, because the only reason to have states in the first place is
> to let individuals conduct their lives in relative stability and peace.
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 6109 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20160720/5de3a6fc/attachment-0002.txt>