Columnist Dean Juipe: Olympics have lost some luster

Dean Juipe

Tuesday, Sept. 19, 2000 | 10:34 a.m.

Dean Juipe's column appears Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. His boxing notebook appears Thursday. Reach him at juipe@lasvegassun.com or 259-4084.

The Summer Olympics have never been more easy, nor more difficult, to ignore.

As a result, factions are already developing. There are those who love the Games and there are those who have come to despise them, and never have the poles been more clearly defined.

One thing about it, Sydney is not your grandfather's Olympics.

Although always political, there was a time when the Olympics were heralded for the spirit of competition and as a showcase for the amateur athletes who were participating. Today, however, they have evolved into a massive festival that accentuates not only the athletic events and the pride of representing your country, but also into a big-money spectacle in which avarice appears to play an increasingly detestable role.

There are many among us who are informally boycotting the Olympics and who will never revert to a more receptive course. To them, the Games have shortcomings that cannot be ignored.

Others find the events breathtakingly fascinating and know full well why U.S. television network NBC paid $705 million to broadcast them.

But the early TV ratings were down 30 percent from 1996 and NBC runs the risk of having to air make-good ads if the numbers stay below expectations.

It would be too simplistic to believe the trouble is Sydney and its 15-hour time differential from New York, as devoted fans of the Olympics apparently are not put off by having access to the results prior to the events being shown in the United States.

For those who are inclined, there is a wealth of printed material available on the Olympics each day. Never has a sporting event being held outside this country been covered in such depth.

Yet editors wrestle with a subjective bottom line: How many Americans really care and to what degree do they relish page after page of Olympic results? It has been a subject of debate at this newspaper and, likely, every other one.

Those who advocate a lessening of attention toward Sydney can cite money, drugs and the personality quirks of some of the prominent athletes as legitimate reasons to down play the Games' importance.

Money-wise, not only are the athletes paid these days but agencies such as the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee have been exposed for bribery.

Drug-wise, despite increasingly vigilant testing methods there is widespread suspicion that athletes are less and less clean; in the week just prior to the opening ceremonies at Sydney, 31 athletes withdrew after positive drug tests administered by their home countries, signifying a serious trend in that only 29 total athletes produced positive drug tests in the five previous Olympics combined.

And as for the stars' personalities, the practice of humbly accepting a victory and basking in the glow of achievement and pure sportsmanship appears long gone; see U.S. swimmer Tom Dolan for an example already on the books in Sydney, with the world's preening sprinters still to come.

Zealots may see it otherwise, but the educational and emotional feel-good value of the Olympics may be in decline.

At the very least, to embrace the Olympic concept today requires looking past its many flaws.