lock your door, ban your race.
February 1, 2009
Two promising young athletes are banned from competitions, reason being they locked themselves in a hotel room during overseas compeition last year. The Triathlon Association of Singapore alleged that the pair had infringed a rule, which forbides male and female athletes to share a room. Admist all that pomp and circumstance of Singapore hosting the first ever Youth Olympics in 2010, such absurd rules must be abolished.
In my opinion, there is no wrong in two opposite gender sharing a room during competition. Firstly, both the athletes are adults, hence any form interaction between them should be a mutual agreement. What they do or don’t in the room, is their privacy and who is the authority to question or forbid them?
After a search in the TAS website, there are no specific reference on the code of conduct. So I searched for a international reference of the triathlete code of conduct from the British Triahtlon Federation. Upon reading, there is no such ruling which “forbids male and female athletes to share a room and requires the door to be kept open when there is a visitor of the opposite gender” the as allegation against the two Singaporean athlete. All it is stated is that to “conduct themselves in a professional, decent, honest and legal manner”.
So which word did the two athletes infringed? Is it decent? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, ”decent” means conforming to standards of propriety, good taste, or morality. Hence, who is to say that the mutual agreement between two adults is indecent and illegal? Also, what if that the two athletes are spouses? Is the TAS going to forbid a married couple from sharing a room together and keeping an eye on what they do in the room?
Why is it that the TAS defines their code of the conduct in such a narrow aspect? Singapore is a global city. Some of our traditional and rigid mindsets should change, so that we can be more flexible in our dealings. Such should be the way in the sporting arena as well.
The International Olympics Committee (IOC) revises their athlete contracts and their code of conduct regularly to ensure fairness and promote sportsmanship, so should local clubs as well. The focus should be atuned to sniffing out athletes who abuse substances that defiles sportsmanship and not punishing athletes who lock their doors.
My first reaction was exactly like yours. The rules sound ridiculous and should be reviewed to see whether they still serve the intended purpose and the purpose was right to begin with.
Two years ago I was in Hanoi. I was expecting an envelop to be delivered to hotel room. I told the courier just come straight to the room when he arrived. The hotel stopped him from coming up. I called the front desk to confirm that I was expecting him. And the answer was still no – no one other than hotel guests and staff are allowed in the guests areas.
Till today I fail to understand the rules laid by the hotel. I wrote in but received no acknowledgement. Since that incident, I have avoided the hotel chain altogether – be it in Vietnam or Malaysia or elsewhere.
I would think it’s pretty obvious what’s going on behind closed door, and that this is what the others have thought. I guess it’s a matter of team interest, and self interest, rather than what’s on the books, or not. If they are there to compete, then that should be their primary objective, and as much as possible, let little things come between that’ll affect their chance of a good performance at the race.
Though I think the authorities were foolish and being unnecessarily harsh, but it is not without reason.
devil’s advocate here. they knew the rules, they should have been more careful.
but i do agree that such rules are absurd. what if the guy was gay? what if there were only 2 athletes and they needed to comfort each other for a loss? what if they were only watching TV? you wonder what dirty minded official thought that the only thing that a guy and girl will do in a room is to have sex.
I think the ban is valid and reasonable.
If athletes will to go to a foreign land for a competition, they represent the nation and are required to maintain the reputation of the homeland.
And by do things behind closed door will increase your energy for a short moment and thats why steroids is banned. not too sure too =p
the competition should be a fair one without any intervention.
Whilst I think the punishment is unfair, it isnt too much to ask two adults to refrain from spending time together over a short period of time. I mean, yes, they are adults but to ask them not to be in each other rooms for a week or two is not that bad.
The idea is to protect younger athletes from the outside worlds inlfuence during comeptition, which is not a bad thing. I think that the two should have been reprimanded but not punished.
I do agree that the ban is valid and reasonable, as they were informed of it prior to the incident. However, I have my reservations with regards to the rules laid down. There’s nothing wrong I feel to have the doors closed. Aren’t athletes human? If so why aren’t they accorded the same amount of privacy as normal humans are? How would you feel if you were supposed to leave the door open to others, allowing them to invade your privacy just because somebody of a different sex is present in your room? Honestly there’s nothing wrong with 2 grown adults engaging in some form of a healthy sexual activity isn’t it?
Eg1. Ronaldo of Brazilian fame openly admits to have sex before a world cup match.. Anything wrong with that? blame his hormones if you must but seriously that has nothing to do with the athlete’s professionalism. Clearly the athlete know’s what’s best for him no?
Eg2. Norwegian youth team bridge players(U-26) they called for prostitutes prior to a key match.. Honestly who are we to judge if sexual activity actually impairs athlete’s ability to perform?