The Man That Lovelock Couldn't Beat

On Friday I went to see The Man That Lovelock Couldn't Beat at Circa 2. It was a well-acted and well-written play that combined fact and fiction, imagining that there was a Maori lad called Tom Morehu who beat Jack Lovelock, but didn't make it to the history books because he was from the wrong side of the tracks. Jack Lovelock won New Zealand's first Olympic gold medal in the 1500m at the 1936 Olympics.

The play itself was pretty good, although I found the character of the narrator extremely annoying - just so smug and schoolmarmish. The staging was simple and effective, the acting was consistently good and the running scenes were actually very well depicted, avoiding the risk of being terribly cheesy. There's a good review of the play on the Theatre view site.

But what interested me was some of the issues it raised. There was a suggestion that Jack Lovelock should not have gone to the Olympics as there were more important global concerns and the Games were just a showcase for Hitler's Nazi party. For one thing, it is easy to criticise with hindsight: at the time, many were impressed with Hitler's economic reforms to strengthen his country and his commitment to health and exercise, which saw people trying to physically 'be the best they could be'. Sound familiar?

As to the issue of boycotting the Olympics, there is a similar call to boycott those in Beijing later this year. I don't believe they should ever have been granted to China with its appalling humanitarian record. However, they have been. To ask athletes to forgo the opportunity to compete at a world-class level and in the greatest sporting arena in the world, is to ask for the supreme sacrifice. This is what they train for: weeks; months; years of dedication, hard work and sacrifice which most of us could never achieve. And unless they are of the ilk of Sir Steven Redgrave who managed five successive gold medals (that's twenty years at the top of his game) this may be their only chance to achieve their life's ambition.

Easy for us to say with our feet up in front of the television, but would you give up your dreams - your entire life's goal - for a political situation you didn't make? And are you sure you are not contributing more to the desecration of human rights by buying cheap plastics and clothing from China manufactured in sweat shops? Can you honestly say you are prepared to disadvantage yourself even a little financially to support your ideals? This is in a country which has just brokered a free trade agreement with the country they protest against. It only seems to matter if it costs you money.

The other point that made me think was the suggestion that Jack Lovelock was 'lucky' - he won a scholarship to Oxford, broke world records in athletics and embarked upon a glittering medical career. As far as I'm concerned, all of these things take hard work and dedication. Anyone can turn up on any given day and run fast (well, not anyone, but you know what I mean) but to do it day after day, to get up every morning for a four mile run before a cold shower and a day's work doesn't sound easy to me. If someone is prepared to do that, then they deserve all the 'luck' they get.

When I was a child, there was a high profile media fuelled stand-off between Coe and Ovett. Coe was the privileged one; Ovett the scruffy oik. You were supposed to support Ovett; he was the darling with the impetuous gestures. As an adolescent, I did prefer him and his swagger over Coe's calm dignity. As I grew up, I realised that Coe was the one who cared about the sport; who never belittled anyone else's achievements; who made no secret of the fact that he had to combine painstaking dedication with natural talent; and who had to battle the media perception that he was the 'lucky one'.

By the same token, I don't automatically support the underdog anymore. I have great respect for a champion who defends their title; they have to contend with everyone else wanting to knock them off their perch. They are in the media glare, and if they 'fail' to win again, the microphones are thrust in their faces and they are asked to comment on 'what went wrong?' For those who are able to smile and praise their newly crowned vanquisher, I have nothing but admiration.