The decision to send Andrew
Symonds home from England resulted in a storm of discussion over at twitter. Discussion, spirited discussion. Not
argument, but a good old fashion enjoyable discussion. It was a pleasure
Moko, Dr Yobbo and Lobes.
The point of contention seems to be around what is a reasonable
expectation of
behaviour from our sporting
hero's. There are a few keywords that get thrown around during these discussions and here are my views on some of them:
Role model: This is a
doozy. Apparently everyone that plays professional sport has to be a role model to the kiddies. In my day, my parents were my
role models and they would give me the moral framework to be able to select
role models from other areas of society. Sports people could be role models, but all that was demanded of them was to perform in their chosen sport and if they provided a good off-field example then that was celebrated.
Professionalism: Being a professional sportsman means that you make your
lively hood from your sport. So by extension, professionalism would refer to the standards maintained by that player to perform at a level that warrants payment. So in my view, you are acting in a professional manner if you turn up each game/training session in a condition to perform at the standards required.
Sponsorship: The big problem is that to pay sportspeople lots of money, that money has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is sponsors that want to be associated with the sport or individual. They want to be associated with winners first and foremost, but then also demand that their stable also project an appropriate image outside of the sport. You may think that is a fair request, here is a stack of cash now go out and win and also behave like this corporate robot. I don't think that's is really fair. My life is my own and I will live it how I choose. Judge my character before you sponsor me and if you don't like it or it doesn't fit your marketing plan, then keep the cash.
Media: The new catchphrase for the media is "it's in the
public's interest". Just because you say something doesn't make it true. Why is it in my interest to know how many schooners Roy has put away or what Ben Cousins is doing hours before a game? The phrase is "in the
public's interest" not "what the public is interested in".
So in conclusion to me sport is sport and what matters is how you perform on the field. Your life is your life and you deserve to be treated in the same manner as the rest of society. Some sportspeople respond to a life of
discipline and dedication (Tom
Hafey, Michael
Shumacher) while others perform best when their personal life is chaotic and provides a distraction (
Warnie, Keith Miller).
Sport people are people not corporate cardboard cutouts.
Now someone ask me why I don't think sportspeople should be tested for
illicit substances.