Pierre de Coubertin

There is perhaps nobody in the history of sports so much misunderstood than
Pierre de Coubertin. His name has been used for many years to exclude
professionals from the Olympic Games. In fact, he never had any objection to
paying sportsmen for their performances. On the other hand, he was dead
against something else, and that was training. For sure, he accepted that an
athlete would train a few hours a week to learn some of the basic skills of
his sport. But according to him training for several hours a day was
cheating. The philosophy behind this opinion was simple: people should
compete with each other in their "natural" state. Excessive training was
"unnatural" and would give an athlete an unfair advantage over his
competitors. Doctors claimed that it was detrimental to their health.
Coubertin was not the only adherant to this philosophy. On the contrary, the
idea that it was morally unacceptable that athletes should enhance their
performances in such an artificial way was quite common.For instance, when
Pierre Giffard organized Paris-Brest-Paris in 1891 he hoped that the
extraordinary conditions of the race (1100 km) would neutralize the
differences between "natural" and "trained" athletes (he was wrong, of
course). Coubertin would have loved to set strict rules for training in the
charter of the Olympic Games, but had to admit there were too much pratical
problems. How was it possible to pick out cheaters? Supervising athletes day
and night? Of course, nobody even thought of blood- or urine-tests. Even if
they had been effective they would have been considered contrary of the
human dignity of the athletes.
Gradually the objections against training disappeared. And now, after
hundred years, we can only smile of the ideas of Coubertin, Giffard and so
many others.Not only because they have become completely obsolete, but alos
because they were completely harmless. Unfortunately, the philosophy of the
"natural" athlete with all its consequences hasn't disappeared at all. On
the contrary, the sports world - and especially the cycling world - seems to
be obsessed with it. The only difference is that the objections are not
anymore to training, but to other "performance-enhancing" means.
I'm quite sure that in fifty years these ideas will have become as
obsolete as those of Coubertin. But I'm not so certain that people will
smile the way we do now. Because contrary to hundred years ago, they are
wrecking careers, spoiling lives, discrediting the sports and doing a lot of
other harm.

Benjo

benjo maso schreef..........


BRAVO !!!!

benjo maso wrote:

There is perhaps nobody in the history of sports so much misunderstood than
Pierre de Coubertin. His name has been used for many years to exclude
professionals from the Olympic Games. In fact, he never had any objection to
paying sportsmen for their performances. On the other hand, he was dead
against something else, and that was training. For sure, he accepted that an
athlete would train a few hours a week to learn some of the basic skills of
his sport. But according to him training for several hours a day was
cheating. The philosophy behind this opinion was simple: people should
compete with each other in their "natural" state. Excessive training was
"unnatural" and would give an athlete an unfair advantage over his
competitors. Doctors claimed that it was detrimental to their health.
Coubertin was not the only adherant to this philosophy. On the contrary, the
idea that it was morally unacceptable that athletes should enhance their
performances in such an artificial way was quite common.For instance, when
Pierre Giffard organized Paris-Brest-Paris in 1891 he hoped that the
extraordinary conditions of the race (1100 km) would neutralize the
differences between "natural" and "trained" athletes (he was wrong, of
course). Coubertin would have loved to set strict rules for training in the
charter of the Olympic Games, but had to admit there were too much pratical
problems. How was it possible to pick out cheaters? Supervising athletes day
and night? Of course, nobody even thought of blood- or urine-tests. Even if
they had been effective they would have been considered contrary of the
human dignity of the athletes.
Gradually the objections against training disappeared. And now, after
hundred years, we can only smile of the ideas of Coubertin, Giffard and so
many others.Not only because they have become completely obsolete, but alos
because they were completely harmless. Unfortunately, the philosophy of the
"natural" athlete with all its consequences hasn't disappeared at all. On
the contrary, the sports world - and especially the cycling world - seems to
be obsessed with it. The only difference is that the objections are not
anymore to training, but to other "performance-enhancing" means.
I'm quite sure that in fifty years these ideas will have become as
obsolete as those of Coubertin. But I'm not so certain that people will
smile the way we do now. Because contrary to hundred years ago, they are
wrecking careers, spoiling lives, discrediting the sports and doing a lot of
other harm.

Benjo



Great stuff!

Happy New Year!

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

"benjo maso" wrote in message
...
There is perhaps nobody in the history of sports so much misunderstood
than
Pierre de Coubertin. His name has been used for many years to exclude
professionals from the Olympic Games. In fact, he never had any objection
to
paying sportsmen for their performances. On the other hand, he was dead
against something else, and that was training. For sure, he accepted that
an
athlete would train a few hours a week to learn some of the basic skills
of
his sport. But according to him training for several hours a day was
cheating. The philosophy behind this opinion was simple: people should
compete with each other in their "natural" state. Excessive training was
"unnatural" and would give an athlete an unfair advantage over his
competitors. Doctors claimed that it was detrimental to their health.
Coubertin was not the only adherant to this philosophy. On the contrary,
the
idea that it was morally unacceptable that athletes should enhance their
performances in such an artificial way was quite common.For instance, when
Pierre Giffard organized Paris-Brest-Paris in 1891 he hoped that the
extraordinary conditions of the race (1100 km) would neutralize the
differences between "natural" and "trained" athletes (he was wrong, of
course). Coubertin would have loved to set strict rules for training in
the
charter of the Olympic Games, but had to admit there were too much
pratical
problems. How was it possible to pick out cheaters? Supervising athletes
day
and night? Of course, nobody even thought of blood- or urine-tests. Even
if
they had been effective they would have been considered contrary of the
human dignity of the athletes.
Gradually the objections against training disappeared. And now, after
hundred years, we can only smile of the ideas of Coubertin, Giffard and so
many others.Not only because they have become completely obsolete, but
alos
because they were completely harmless. Unfortunately, the philosophy of
the
"natural" athlete with all its consequences hasn't disappeared at all. On
the contrary, the sports world - and especially the cycling world - seems
to
be obsessed with it. The only difference is that the objections are not
anymore to training, but to other "performance-enhancing" means.
I'm quite sure that in fifty years these ideas will have become as
obsolete as those of Coubertin. But I'm not so certain that people will
smile the way we do now. Because contrary to hundred years ago, they are
wrecking careers, spoiling lives, discrediting the sports and doing a lot
of
other harm.

Benjo

Nice piece! I can't speculate on the next 50 years, and I will only be
around another 30 or 40 max, so it doesn't matter that much to me and I
don't think I will be that interested in cycling aftern the next 20, and its
not likely to change too much by then hopefully. I like it the way it is now
for ladies. They haven't nearly as many of the same problems as the men and
I don't see it getting better and bigger then the mens events anytime soon.
Less money, less drug use, makes for cleaner competition so you can really
tell who the real iron women of cycling are, instead of the flares that
shoot out brightly with the men and die suddenly.

B-