Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by mattie_p on Tuesday February 18 2014, @07:30PM   Printer-friendly
from the and-now-for-sports dept.

CoolHand writes:

"Sci-Tech Today talks about the role of technology in the Olympics from a unique perspective:

Every advance in the ever-accelerating juggernaut of sports technology threatens to widen the divide between Olympic haves and have-nots. Well-sponsored teams and rich governments pay top-end scientists and engineers to shape their skis, perfect their skates, tighten their suits, measure their gravitational pull.

I'm no luddite, but this seems to make these sports more about who can afford the best tech, and less about the true spirit of the games: bringing the best athletes from all countries together to compete. How can it be about the athletes, when some of the best athletes may never win due to lack of funding/tech?"

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by istartedi on Tuesday February 18 2014, @09:02PM

    by istartedi (123) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @09:02PM (#1907) Journal

    How do you solve the Jim Thorpe []
    problem? There was a guy who had one little fly in the ointment with respect to amateur
    standing. They stripped his medals. The problem of requiring amateur status back then
    was the same problem as unpaid internships today. The children of the wealthy can afford
    to be amateur athletes at the Olympics, or unpaid interns at Goldman Sachs. Poor people?
    Not so much.

    Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
  • (Score: 1) by bucc5062 on Wednesday February 19 2014, @02:24AM

    by bucc5062 (699) on Wednesday February 19 2014, @02:24AM (#2096)

    It is not perfect, but it still was better then the two tier system we have where the haves (Professionals) get the attention and the have nots (amateurs) do not. I had to read about Jim Thorpe (thank you for the reference), and don't see the issue. The Olympics (in 1912) had strict rules, he admitted to taking money for playing baseball, they stripped him correctly. It serves my point that the Olympics should be for amateurs. After he was "outed" he wound up with a great career as a professional.

    This is why while we can talk about the technology, it is the money that drives...corrupts the event.

    The more things change, the more they look the same