Basic HTML Version
Olympic
qualification
is
necessarily complicated and each
sport needs to take a different
approach.
Basically,
sports
with a time component have a
minimum time requirement that
the applicant needs to beat at
an officially sanctioned meet.
From there, the nation gets to
choose between two and three
competitors per event.
Many
events
may
include
“universality” or “invitational”
places. These are extended by
the IOC to athletes who may not
reach the qualification markers,
but their inclusion means that
the countries represented in the
Olympics are more rounded.
Without diminishing the ability
of the talent of these athletes,
this system can be equated to
community service. So already,
the Olympics is not a meeting
of the best in each sport. It is
a competition that culls many
fine athletes in the spirit of
internationality.
The IOC introduced the slots
system back in the 70’s to
protect the internationality of
the Olympics as a response to
Japan cleaning up in gymnastics.
It figured that if only two athletes
from each country were allowed
to compete, then it would
broaden the appeal of each sport.
This system had the obvious
downside that many of the best
proponents of a particular field
would be left at home, while
inferior athletes would take
their place, albeit from different
countries.Broadly speaking, most
associations see the logic behind
the decision and abide by it. Only
in certain circumstances does this
become a matter of controversy.
At the time of writing, the two-per
rule was stirring up the American
gymnast team. In the All Around
competition, three gymnasts
from the USA team swept up the
top three positions.
Simone Biles, Aly Raisman and
Gabby Douglas were so good
that third-placed Douglas was
a full four points above the
fourth-placed qualifier. They are
currently the three best in the
world but Douglas will not be
given the chance to compete in
the finals.
While the system might be
logical, it is easy to empathise
with Douglas’s disappointment at
sitting out an event that she has
every chance of winning.
The same imbalance has cast a
shadow over the re-introduction
of golf to the Olympics. Last seen
as an Olympic sport in 1904, the
golf tournament was in trouble
from the start.
American golfers dominate the
courses, but because of the slots
system, some of the best in the
world have been passed over for
less able players from a different
country.
According to the rules, the top-15
ranked players are eligible, but
each country is limited to four
players. The field will be filled out
by players ranking beyond the
top-15, with countries limited to
two players.
Seems fair? Golfers are slightly
unimpressed. Some top names in
the men’s competition are staying
away, such as Louis Oosthuizen,
Charl Schwartzel, Adam Scott and
Vijay Singh.
Some of them, such as Singh,
cite fears over the Zika virus
as the reason, but this seems
disingenuous.
There
are
rumblings that golf at the
Olympics with its skewed ranking
system is not on a par with the
majors.
THE GENDER IDENTIFICATION
CONTROVERSY
Another qualification controversy tarnishing the
Olympics involves intersex athletes. The problem
comes down to testosterone.
Some athletes simply don’t fit into the male/
female binary that underpins how the games are
organised. There is nothing new about this, and it
has caused headaches for the IOC for decades.
In the 1980s, champion Spanish hurdler Maria
Jose Martinez-Patino was gender tested for
high testosterone. She was found to have XY
chromosomes and internal testes. She was booted
off the team and lost everything.
Today, the most notable intersex (a term which has
replaced the more loaded hermaphrodite) athlete
is South Africa’s Caster Semenya.
Physically imposing and quick as lightening,
Semenya has repeatedly defended her right to
privacy in terms of her biological physicality. Before
Rio, she smashed the 800 metres record.
Back in 2011, she was partly in mind when the
International Association for Athletics Federations
tried to legislate for human difference. They claimed
that female athletes exhibiting testosterone in the
male range would have to medicate it back to a
more “female” level.
In 2014, Indian sprinter Dutee Chand disputed
the finding as an imposition on human rights
and won her challenge. Henceforth, athletes with
“hypoandrogenism” would be allowed to compete
in women’s events without hormone treatment.
Routinely, these intersex athletes perform 5 to 6
per cent better than the women in their fields. This
compares with the 11 per cent gap between male
and females at the top of their respective sports.
Naturally, the controversy has caused a great
deal of consternation. Many female athletes are
concerned that they are competing against people
with a seemingly unfair chemical advantage, yet
to deny these women the right to compete, or to
force them to change their bodies to comply is
almost an abuse of human rights.
In both creating the slots rule and in allowing
Semenya to compete, the IOC has been
squeezed between issues like sporting purity,
internationalism, fairness and human rights.
Some difficult decisions - no wonder they have
trouble getting it right.
THE SLOTS CONTROVERSY
Touchline issue 24 | September 2016 | 19