Olympic Obligation – Is Slopestyle Ethical?

Talk of the Olympics is all around us; it’s in coffee shops, malls, tree houses, newspapers, on Twitter, Facebook, and online magazines.  It's become obvious that I can’t avoid it, so I may as well add to it. 

The worldwide snowboarding community has a laundry list of complaints for the slopestyle course in Sochi: the jumps are too big, the landings are too flat, the rail setup is sketchy. Not to mention an attrition rate that sounds more like trench warfare than snowboarding—the course has claimed Torstein’s clavicle, given Alexey Sobolev a concussion, forced Marika Enne to be carried off the course, and tweaked, the legend, Shaun White’s wrist!

Due to the complaints and injuries the course is now being changed, which is nice to see. However, the average snowboarder and non-snowboarder’s response to these injuries and complaints are, quite frankly, shocking.  In response to Torstein’s complaint that “the jumps are too big,” one person responded, “it’s the Olympics, what did he expect?” Can the Olympics really justify these injuries and putting riders lives in danger? If you want to be literal, Torstein probably “expected” jumps that would be safe for riders (as safe as 65ft jumps can be) and jumps that riders can perform without fearing for their lives.  Riders are already almost killing themselves by doing triples; do we, the couch-bound critics, need to put more pressure on them? 

Moreover, if we  justify insane courses and injuries by saying “it’s the Olympics, what did he expect,” where will this justification lead us? Sure, maybe the explanation can cover a broken leg, arm, clavicle, or a concussion—injuries occur by accident when athletes push their bodies and abilities to the limits. But what if the search for Olympic grandeur leads consistently to accidents? Can the excuse be used then? (An accident is not really an accident if it happens all time).  If this pattern continues, Olympic athletes will become modern day gladiators, facing impending doom and possible death—all  for our  entertainment!  Will Olympic snowboarders have to defend themselves from trident wielding competitors?  Will they have to jump over man and woman eating animals?  Do we really want  snowboarding turned into a blood sport, into a form of legal and internationally accepted manslaughter—a mix of Fear Factor, X Games, and Spartacus—and all in the name of progress, competition, and nationalistic pride! Ok, I went a little to far there, but you get my point.

Athletes, at the end of the day, have the final word —no one is forcing them to compete. And this is true. No one has a gun to their head or a knife to their gut; they are, as far as I know, not biologically determined or forced to be there by a supernatural power.   But is backing out actually an option?  After considering the sponsorship repercussions, the government funding, the dedication of parents, coaches, and friends—not to mention national pride and the weight of a country—could a boarder actually back out?  I don’t think so. Therefore, saying that athletes have the ability to remove themselves from the Olympics may be true, theoretically, but not in practice. It’s more than a decision between competing and not competing. It’s a decision between risking your life or being nationally shamed and becoming the world’s biggest wussy (look at some of the ridicule Shaun White is receiving)—but I mean, “it’s the Olympics, what did he expect?”