Second Batch of Reader Feedback: Beijing Olympic Swimming Finals in the Morning Still a Mistake

Left Sidebar

PHOENIX, Arizona, October 30. EVEN after having a weekend to dwell on the fact that the International Olympic Committee has changed swimming finals to the morning, our readers still question the decision.

For a look at the first set of responses, click here.

Here is the second batch of reader responses from over the weekend (please keep checking back, as we will update this list as more feedback rolls in):

Doesn't the IOC realize that by bowing to the US media and money they are fueling the rest of the world's perception of Americans as bullies with no understanding of anywhere else? Iraq, Olympics no sensitivity just impose their views. Bill, England

It's very disappointing that the IOC has not made the decision based on the best interests of the athletes competing. However, I'm sure the swimming community will respond in a positive way as this is in their character. I must admit though that I have lost some respect for the IOC and the values that they are meant to stand for. Barry, Australia

I find it totally against Olympic ideals that the swimming programme can be turned around simply to suit one countries financial interests and day time hours, whilst the rest of the world gets up in the middle of the night to watch. The athletes should be the main consideration but it seems they are only commercial items to be bought and sold. Robyn, Australia

It is all very well for the American executive to think this change is good for promoting the sport in the USA. The fact is, that it is a purely commercial and greedy decision that is based on this as a higher priority than the performance or comfortableness of the athletes. Unfortunately, it may promote the sport in the USA, but in Australia, where we would have seen finals in more-or-less prime time, we'll now see them at 4 am in the morning. Thanks IOC and thanks NBC. Steve, Australia

A couple of things to consider: 1) We all (US and World) want our great sport of swimming to prosper. 2) Swimming is dying in the US. Is it thriving anywhere? 3) Money (sponsors, scholarships, salaries) is critical to whether a sport lives or dies. So, if morning finals is the way it needs to be in order to receive the billions of dollars, than that's the way it has to be. We all need to think outside the box and embrace some changes if we want to save our sport and someday put it on the same pedestal as soccer, football, basketball, etc. Sean, United States

We can´t accept that a decision made because of commercial reasons affects the performance of our athletes. Imagine if the IOC decides to hold an Olympic Games in a city located 4000 meters above the sea level. It´s not the same thing as finals in the morning, but is the same mistake: affect the athletes performance. There´s nothing more beautiful in swimming than watching a world record being broken, and it will be much more difficult in Beijing. I think the top swimmers in the world should unite and make a huge pressure over the IOC, something very radical, like "if the IOC doesn´t change the decision, we will not compete in Beijing". I think IOC couldn´t handle the pressure of seeing Thorpe, Hoogenband, Hackett, Manaudou, Klochkova, Cseh, Kitajima, Lenton, Henry, Jones and others out of the Olympics. I bet my money on it. It would be the same thing as a World Cup without Brazil. Denis, Brazil

I feel that the athletes are going to be seriously disadvantaged purely to satisfy television programming. If the Olympics are meant to be the pinnacle of sport shouldn't the athletes be given every opportunity to perform at the best of their ability and in the manner that they have trained for many years? It is unfortunate that money can dictate over tradition and common sense! Merilyn, Australia

If a competitor is good enough, they will adapt the situation to "swim well" at any time. I know Australian swimmers are good enough, why not just get on with the job? ON THE DAY IT WILL BE EQUAL FOR ALL SWIMMERS. Carol, Australia

There are times when I am embarrassed to be an American and this is one of them. Ignoring the greater good of the athlete in favor of corporate dollars makes me sick. Arguments (pro and con) for the morning finals decision can be handed out right and left. Theories of how this will affect the athlete either psychologically or physiologically can be bandied about even AFTER the Beijing Games have concluded. The bottom line is that the rest of the viewing world and THEIR television time frame has been ignored in favor of the financial power of the United States viewing audience. I don't blame those who are angry. I am angered by this as well. Fair is fair and this ain't fair. This is just one more reason for anti-American sentiment around the world. Rick, United States

I was disappointed with the IOC's decision to have the swimming finals in the morning. Obviously, it was a commercial decision. The money should go to the athletes. As an Aussie, we have had to endure watching swimming finals in the middle of the night instead of sleeping, thus going to work with our eyeballs resembling road maps. Having every second Olympics in America should satisfy American broadcasters, it's not their Olympics, it's a world event and they should cop midnight viewing on a rotational basis. It's not like it happens every Olympics. I think the swimmers will adapt to it, it's the viewers that will miss out. Julie, Australia

This is a backward step for the sport of swimming. Research has proven that swimmers perform at their optimum level in the late afternoon/early evening and this is what the Olympic Games are all about. All elite athletes want to perform in front of their family, fans and countries at not only peak fitness but also want have the opportunity to produce a personal best performance. This is going to make it much harder for the swimmers. We have to think of the athletes first. Paul, Australia

I'm a practical guy. the amount NBC paid for the Olympics is a function of advertising dollars. The amount we consumers pay for a product is a function of cost, advertising included. when NBC raises billions for the Olympics by charging high advertising dollars which causes higher consumer costs. I'm a fan! I get to see finals of swimming live, which means I'll actually watch. In the past, I knew the result so I never watched. It's about time I get to enjoy something that I've already paid for in a sense. This will help swimming in this country, so way to go NBC! Kurt, United States

It seems that the vast majority of the swimming community has been outraged by the decision of the IOC to acquiesce to NBC's request for morning finals. While I will admit that I, as an American, would enjoy watching the finals every evening on TV, I am also embarrassed by such blatant Ugly-Americanism, which is the last thing our country needs at this particular juncture. It is also highly unfair to the athletes, and will hurt their chances for records for all the physiological and psychological reasons that have been elucidated elsewhere. There have also been a few voices that have pointed out that NBC has paid a lot of money for the right to broadcast these Games, and that anybody else had the right to make a similar offer, but no one did. The IOC does need money to function (though perhaps they would need a little less without the rampant featherbedding its members reportedly engage in), and it doesn't want to discourage networks from bidding similarly large sums in the future. It is also true that NBC wouldn't be fulfilling its fiduciary obligations to its corporate parent GE's stockholders if it didn't attempt to maximize advertising revenue by encouraging more people to tune in by having prime time finals in the U.S. This is a cold hard economic fact of life which no amount of idealism will change. There's an obvious solution to this problem: boycott NBC and GE. This may be somewhat harder to do with NBC (if you're partial to Jay Leno, David Letterman simply will not do). But it is easier to do with GE: most of us are much less picky when it comes to the selection of household appliances. If enough of your readers participate, we can have an effect. If you want, you could go even further and propose a boycott of whoever advertises on NBC during the Olympics. If such an initiative received enough publicity, it could certainly deter sponsors. Once NBC/GE is faced with this cold hard economic fact of life, it will probably make the rational economic decision to switch back to evening finals. Such a boycott is likely to have more supporters abroad than in the U.S. (after all, we American spectators do benefit). But it should have supporters throughout the world swimming community, which numbers in the tens of millions, and which is composed primarily of middle class people who would normally buy GE appliances and other products advertised on NBC. I hope you will consider this suggestion. John, United States

I find it interesting that the IOC only moved half of the events that NBC requested. What exactly were the criteria used to determine which sports should be moved and which shouldn't? Popularity? Politics? Viewers? The well being of the athletes? I would assume that because NBC requested their move that Gymnastics, Swimming, Athletics, and Basketball are probably the most watched Olympic sports in the U.S. Why was Track and Field spared the morning final and not swimming? I would argue that the 100 meter dash is probably one of if not the most watched event on TV and certainly one that requires the least amount of recovery time. (compared to swimming events) Wouldn't the push to have that in prime time in the U.S. have been more than swimming races? Wouldn't the IOC take into consideration that the sprints in track and field require less recovery time than events in swimming? Perhaps the folks in track and field fought harder to keep their finals at night, knowing it would be better for the athletes? Who was fighting on behalf of swimmers to keep the finals at night? How do the actual Olympians feel about this? Are they allowed to comment? Would it be better for our sport if finals were in primetime live so viewers could see them? Would that many more people really watch if it were live and not a tape delay? Would the majority even know the difference? How many people except the hardcore swimmers are going to get on Omega and watch it live? Won't they also watch it tape delay? If the same amount of people would watch it tape delay as would watch it live, wouldn't it make more sense to keep the finals at night in Beijing as to maximize performance for the athletes? Whether we like it or not, the lights are the brightest at night and that's when people get fired up and get pumped up and thats when major sporting events take place. They called it "Friday Night Lights," not "Saturday Morning Lights." Super Bowl = Under the lights. NBA Finals = Under the lights. Baseball, world cup soccer, volleyball, dodgeball, wiffle ball, hockey, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc… Think back to Sydney and the PM finals. Honestly, would it really have been the same atmosphere if the finals were AM ??? My last point. My youth was spent dreaming about playing football in front of thousands under the lights on Friday night… I got the chance in high school and I took it. There are few better feelings in life than playing high school football in front of 5,000 people every Friday night and that is something I will never forget. Would it have been the same if my school didn't have lights? Absolutely not. My heart goes out to those poor souls who had to play high school football on Saturday afternoons. My final final point. Penn State is an absolutely amazing place. The atmosphere here is incredible. My first ever Penn State football game was against Michigan this year… 8:00 p.m. Saturday night.. 110,000 people.. the perfect place for college football. It was unlike anything I had ever experienced before in my entire life. The next weekend was a noon game against Illinois. It was still exciting but it just wasn't the same. You can ask anyone that has experienced it, there is something about a night game in college football that brings out a little bit more juice, a little bit more excitement, and a little bit more energy. The same is true for swimming and I think we are only hurting the athletes in '08 by not having the finals at night. Jake, United States

I am not at all in favor of morning finals. What is the difference if the finals are shown taped or not? The Olympics is a big draw to the TV anyway. I cannot believe that the format of a major meet is being changed for a television company's benefit. As far a performances are concerned, I am not sure what to make of it. Will we see faster times? I think that will depend on the swimmer. Some are morning people, some are not. When I was a competitive swimmer, I definately felt better in the afternoon workout than I did in the morning workout. What about the event timing? Swim the 1500 in the evening, and then again the next morning? The shorter races are going to be interesting too. Morning prelims, evening semifinals and finals the next morning? I can't wait to see the event list. Good luck to all swimmers. Oh, I heard that the gymnastics teams have to deal with the same thing. Todd, United States

I'm not surprised how the most of the Americans react and how the rest of the world reacts. The reason the Olympics rotate is, this way everyone has the chance to host the Games or watch them at a "normal" time. And this is only fair. If NBC was stupid enough NOT to bring the games LIVE but with a delay in the USA in the past years, it's its own problem. Did they expected that an athlete will show us his/her butt and did they want to have time to censor it?! *laughing* However, don't tell me swimming is dying in the US, because USA is one of few, where swimming is popular. And the IOC just wan to see money and do not care about anything else! All the so called reasons for morning finals are a bad joke. Shame on you!!! Rebecca, Brazil

Great responses by everyone. I find it hilarious that we think the Olympics are about the athletes and their performances. Sports is about public entertainment and the IOC's need to profit as much as possible on the Olympics. I'm sure in NBC's bid to televise the Olympics that promised so much money to the IOC and other entities, they are only doing what they think is necessary to earn the most money possible from their broadcast. Am I wrong in my perception that swimming (world wide) is trying to enhance our perception through the media and thus gaining more money to run our programs and pay our top-level athletes? If we want professional athletes, then we need to bow to where the money comes from. If we want to stay a so-called "amateur" sport, then keep on complaining about morning finals. Dennis, United States

I can't believe all of the people that are blaming the USA for this decision. The decision was made solely by the IOC. The IOC could have said no. NBC is a business (as are the Olympics themselves), and are entitled in the free world to do what is in their best interests. Guess what? All of you out there who have jobs, in any country, can be darn sure that the company you work for is doing what is in their best interests, too. Perhaps those of you who haven't read "Lords of the Rings" and "The Great Olymic Swindle" should do so, you might learn something about the IOC. For now, grow up. The IOC's decision has nothing to do with the USA or it's public. It has to do with dollars. It's not like the American people as one lobbied the IOC to change the schedule. How can people be so stupid that they don't realize that this is the IOC's decision and theirs alone? NBC just asked the question. By the way, I am totally against finals in the morning. I really don't think it will affect the swimmers that much though. While I am not an elite athlete, I always find that I have much more energy when I exercise in the morning than when I do in the evening. Maybe we will actually see faster times in the morning. Cary, Australia

The most disheartening thing about moving the finals of both swimming and gymnastics to make it live in the US is that I think most of know that it will not really make much of a difference in terms of the viewing audience. This decade, ratings for all sorts of formerly top live events have plummeted — from the Oscars to the World Series. In this day and age there are just too many choices, which means that not only have they run roughshod over the Olympic ideal and what might be best for the athletes or the rest of the world, they've ultimately done it for probably nothing — swimming in 2009 will find itself just as popular in the US as it is now in 2006. If NBC truly cares about growing the sport of swimming, maybe they should trying airing a Nationals or World Championships once in awhile. Even more ridiculous is that it doesn't even really benefit the US — it only benefits the East Coast of the US. The West Coast will still get taped coverage. Even the Salt Lake Winter Games were on tape in Salt Lake itself — while certain events were forced into the early afternoon in order to make prime time coverage in the east. Here's hoping that by 2016, they've handed the whole thing off to ESPN. Ryan, United States

SwimmingWorldMagazine.com wants to know our readers' thoughts on this move. Please e-mail Jason Marsteller and include your first name and location as well as permission to publish your response.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

Welcome to our community. We invite you to join our discussion. Our community guidelines are simple: be respectful and constructive, keep on topic, and support your fellow commenters. Commenting signifies that you agree to our Terms of Use

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x