In full disclosure, I did not think it was right that Oscar Pistorius, the "blade runner," was allowed to compete in the Olympics. Two forces combined to permit his inclusion. One was the Olympic Committee's decision not to exclude him. Clearly, I have no idea what argument was made to them, but I suspect that whatever it was, part of their accession was based on some sense of political correctness. It would be wrong to exclude Pistorius just because he was at a disadvantage, and he did what he could to compensate himself for it. After all, he only wound up with two lower extremities, as everyone else has, and there was no proof that his two lower extremities were any better than anyone else's. And wasn't he at some sort of disadvantage anyway, because of the unnaturalness of his condition? I think the Committee was wrong, but I imagine this was part of what influenced them. On the other hand, since no one knows for sure what prostheses like Pistorius' do, there was also the concern that they created an advantage for him.
The other force was Pistorius himself, and the fact that he had Olympic ambition, and decided he had an argument to make. He's had quite an athletic life, and has been a multi-sport athlete. So he's very competitive. Sadly, as we learn more and more from many arenas, and not at all just sport-related, competition is not always fair. Some competitors cheat. Athletes who take performance-enhancing drugs are trying consciously to arrange for themselves an unfair competitive advantage. And if they don't reveal the fact, or try actively to conceal it, they're dishonest about it. Did Pistorius himself think he had an unfair competitive advantage, in having his "flex-foot Cheetah" prostheses? (Not exactly an unassuming name for these appliances.) Frankly, it's a hell of an act of self-promotion to want to be in the Olympics, and to press actively for it, against standard regulations, securing legal representation, takes a very good deal of competitiveness, even cockiness. Never mind the question of whether Pistorius was cheating. The question is, did he think he was cheating.
For the same reasons that moved the Olympic Committee, it may have been hard to see cheating in Pistorius, or to think of him as a cheater. We only had to look at him, with the orthopedic version of puppy dog eyes, to see what a sympathetic character he was. He could easily have looked more heroic than sociopathic.
But do we have to reconsider how honest and honorable, how decent and hard-working, are people whose greatest attribute is their fierce competitiveness? There's almost a reflex tendency to assume the worst about Barry Bonds or Ray Lewis. Should that skepticism be held back when it comes to Pistorius? Or is Pistorius, with those glaring and pathetic (or are they intimidating?) appliances, just as bad an actor as those we are more comfortable loving to hate? His competitiveness isn't in his prostheses. It's in his head, just like the competitiveness of Rodney Harrison, and James Harrison, and Ron Artest, and pitchers who roughen baseballs, and hockey players who are prone to fighting with their opponents, or sticking them in the face. If these people were ruthlessly competitive in another direction, they'd be cheating on tests.
So now, Pistorius has murdered his girlfriend. He shot her to death. There are also separate incidents of domestic violence perpetrated by Pistorius. Not exactly the picture of the honest and hard-working competitor some wanted to imagine. And whatever was behind his decision to murder her, he reportedly tried to excuse himself with some tale of having mistaken her for an intruder. If this scenario seemed weak at the outset, it got a lot weaker when neighbors reported having heard shouting and arguing before they heard gunshots.
Political correctness can be a good thing. It can keep citizens honest. It can also be dangerous, like an opiate.
No comments:
Post a Comment