Courrier des lecteurs
Quote in “poor taste”
To the editor:
The purpose of this letter is to take strong exception to the quote attributed to Harry Jerome in Harry Jerome: committed, outspoken (Champion, June 1982). The quote advocates the removal of Dr. Geoff Gowan from television track and field productions.
Firstly, let me say that I find it in extremely poor taste that you would permit such a comment of such a personally derogatory nature to appear in print. Such low-grade commentary is not in keeping with editorial excellence and has no place in a government-funded sport information publication. Is Champion to become a forum for personal slander?
Secondly, I personally believe the quote is untrue and not in keeping with reality. Dr. Gowan is one of the most energetic and enthusiastic supporters of excellence in Canadian sport to be found anywhere in the country. He works tirelessly for the Coaching Association of Canada and for improved performance by Canadian coaches and athletes. He is internationally recognized as an outstanding contributor to amateur sport development and a fine goodwill ambassador. Dr. Gowan brings both exciting commentary and expert knowledge to his broadcast of sport events. His contribution to television broadcasting is the very anthithesis of the comments appearing in the article.
Gerald B. McCready, Vice President,
Coaching Association of Canada, Ottawa.
Comment a “cheap shot”
To the editor:
I must respond to Harry Jerome’s reference to Dr. Geoff Gowan (Harry Jerome: committed, outspoken) in your June 1982 edition.
Mr. Jerome makes it clear that he is less than enthralled with Dr. Gowan’s performance as a television sports comentator. That I and many others happen to consider Dr. Gowan an astute, interesting and enthusiastic commentator is beside the point. Mr. Jerome has every right to express his opinion. What he undoubtedly has no right to do is to dismiss Dr. Gowan with a cavalier slap of the back of his hand. One must remember, of course, that Mr. Jerome has always believed in speaking his mind. One must also remember that few people have contributed more to Canadian sport than Dr. Gowan; he deserves better treatment.
I realize that as editor of Champion you are faced with a dilemma here. On the one hand, Champion is primarily produced with public funds. On the other hand publicly funded or not, you cannot jeopardize your integrity — something which I feel you have in abundance — by refusing to print criticism of the sport “establishment”. Perhaps the key to dealing with that dilemma is this: although one is certainly justified, in the pages of Champion or elsewhere, in taking “shots” at a person in Dr. Gowan’s position, one is never justified in taking “cheap shots”. I believe Mr. Jerome’s comment was just that.
Frank Ratcliffe, Manager of Communication Services,
Canadian Olympic Association, Ottawa.
Reader disappointed
To the editor:
As a professional physical educator, I have found Champion to be a valuable publication. Not only does it keep me informed of the activities of our administrators, coaches and international competitors, it includes stimulating articles. On the whole, I believe that Champion meets its objective of providing “information of athletes, coaches and other individuals and institutions concerned with high performance sport programs.” However, an article by Rob Paradis, Mixed memories of Moscow, (Champion, February 1982), does nothing to meet the above-stated objective.
The Canadian Gymnastics Federation receives approximately $370,000 per year from federal tax funds to carry out its programs. A portion of this budget pays the salary of a technical director whose mandate it is to upgrade coaching and skill levels of Canadians in the sport. This position is currently held by Mr. Paradis. It was with a good deal of interest, therefore, that I turned to his article. After all, he had just returned from Moscow and the 1981 World Gymnastics Championships.
Imagine my disappointment to read the prejudices of a man who demonstrates enormous ignorance of the history and cultural traditions of the Soviet Union; who, rather than addressing any coaching/training problems, provides us with a formula for isolating us further from the Soviet Union generally and the USSR Gymnastics Federation specifically.
His patronizing tone scarely warrants serious comment since it has no relation to gymnastics. But for the sake of fairness, some of his observations should be discussed. For example, Mr. Paradis relates the slow and inefficient service he experienced at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport. One wonders how often he travels, for if he finds entering the USSR time-consuming, let him enter Washington, D.C. from an eastern European country or experience the ‘friendly’ attitude of Customs officers towards foreigners arriving in Toronto, now that our unemployment figures are well over a million.
He implies that somehow the Holiday Inn chain is the ‘universal’ standard of accommodation which all countries should have. Situated in Ottawa as he is, it is surprising that he has not read any of the North-South dialogue speeches of our Prime Minister. He might have discovered that the North American standard of living is maintained at the expense of Third World countries and that most countries, including the Soviet Union, cannot afford the luxury of Holiday Inns.
Nor should anyone expect to find the ‘Canadian’ way of doing things when visiting a foreign country. Mr. Paradis should try to transcend his enthnocentric bias and see things, not as ‘better’, or ‘worse’, but different. Surely that is the first step towards respect and mutual understanding.
What is needed is a less prejudiced view of the world from our paid sports officials and more sincere attempts to build greater understanding between the sports nations of east and west. Surely that would also be of greater benefit to Canadian gymnastics.
Hart A. Cantelon, Ph.D., Assistant Professor,
Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario.
ED. NOTE: Rob Paradis was asked by Champion to share with our readers the experiences of a Canadian travelling in the Soviet Union. He was not asked to comment on USSR cultural traditions or athlete training programs.
Heritage article welcomed
To the editor:
I was delighted to see an article on our sport heritage, Heritage venture breaks new ground, (Champion, June 1982). Having followed the initial developments of this programme area with great interest (being a professional historian by training), I wish to congratulate you on the exposure which you have afforded this interesting and vital area of sport endeavour.
With the efforts of individuals such as Heather Harris and Peter Webster in British Columbia, as well as Dr. Sandy Young and Tom Sweet (of Sport Nova Scotia) in Nova Scotia, the foundations have been truly laid and the challenge extended to the rest of the nation to explore and publicize their athletic roots. Certainly such endeavours deserve the support of all Canadians.
Elizabeth A. Chard, President,
Canadian Interuniversity Athletic Union.
Athlete the core of sport
To the editor:
I am writing to express my concern and opinion about the content of Champion. When I started reading this paper two or three years ago, I believe there was more coverage of the athletes, their training, potential, etc. It seems that the policy of your paper has turned towards relaying to the public the mechanics of the bureaucracy surrounding amateur sports in Canada. I am referring to more recent issues and specifically to the June 1982 issue in which there was a preoccupation with funding, budgets, book reviews, and other side issues. Of course this is apart of sport, but is contingent dn the core of sport, the athlete.
Peter David Stubbins,
Willowdale, Ontario.
Modern sport “dehumanizing”?
To the editor:
With reference to Paul McLaughlin’s article, Drug use provokes an ethical dilemma (Champion, February 1982), I found it interesting, thought-provoking and it brought to the surface the many complexities of the drug issue in Canadian sport. However, I have reason to believe the problem is not as pervasive as the article seemed to imply and, more importantly, is not the drug question only a category of a bigger issue, that of the morality of the whole modern sport movement?
How different are blood doping, high altitude training, electrostimulation, and all the modern sport medicine and training techniques? These are employed more or less to affect performance and they are in some way artificial and, in almost all cases, have the potential to produce harmful side effects. Can there be any doubt that many aspects of modern sport are dehumanizing?
Fortunately for most of us in Canada, we have the opportunity to assess the implications of trying to compete against those who endorse or employ the latest advancements in sport technology. Let us be thankful that we have the convenience of critical evaluation to decide for ourselves if the ends justify the means!
Mel Laforme,
Hamilton, Ontario.