Question: What could possibly be guts-ier than piloting a bobsled down a treacherous track at over 90mph while the whole world watches?
Answer: Not doing it.
What happened today at the Olympics will be talked about during NBC’s broadcast of the Games tonight, lamented on sports-talk radio tomorrow, and debated around water coolers for days to come. Dutch bobsled pilot Edwin van Calker has informed his coach and his team that after watching crash after crash, and crashing himself in practice, he does not have the confidence to pilot his team safely down the track, and pulled his team out of the competition.
It must have been a deeply personal and impossibly difficult decision to make, one that will likely define his legacy in the sport and among his countrymen. Many will be disappointed. Many will call him a coward. But standing at the starting gate of a track that has already killed one athlete during these Games, he’s thinking about his kids, and whether he’ll still be there for them five minutes from now. It’s like that opening scene from Top Gun, where the fighter pilot gets rattled in combat, loses his edge, and knows that he must turn in his wings.
He could have made a different choice. He could have followed the example of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili, who faced a similar fear, but decided to go for it anyway. It is widely reported that, during a phone call to his father prior to his practice run, Kumaritashvili prophesied that he “would either win or die.” He was right. He never even saw the finish line.
So what are we to make of Mr. van Calker’s decision? Bravery or cowardice? Has he let down his team? His country? Which choice would you make?
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 26, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Tani Hanes
Mike, I’ve been saying this for DAYS. I know I’m not objective, so I apologize to true sports enthusiasts in advance. For me, the phrase is and always will be “Just Sports”. It has always stuck in my craw that my kids had to learn basketball or football in school for PE. I’m not against PE, which we all know stands for Physical Education. I’m really in favor of physical FITNESS, which important for health, longevity, etc. But contact sports teaches things that I didn’t want my kids to know, things about aggression and grabby-ness. OK, so that’s my background. At the Olympics, I watched person after person hurtle down a hill, sometimes FACE first (yikes!), and all I could think was, “WHY?” Why do this to yourself? To what end? I’m not saying they’re not physically fit, and I admire anything or anyone which performs to that high standard of excellence. But risk for its own sake is pointless. I love swimming, and both my kids swim. To me, it’s the perfect sport, because it bestows physical fitness, stamina, etc., without teaching aggression, or taking something away from someone; ultimately, you’re trying to beat yourself. And you don’t risk life and limb. Some people seem to think that if there is no risk, it’s not sports. This is ridiculous. I’ve heard sports commentators speak of the “bravery” of this or that player when he’s played injured, of “playing through the pain”, and all I could think was that if I were that man’s spouse or child, I’d be PISSED. But this is elementary, I suppose, esp. as far as relevance to your original question, because I wouldn’t want someone I loved to risk his/her life for Just Sports. Would I want him/her to get on a risky plane and take a risky flight to London for a piano competition? Hell yes. Does that make me a hypocrite? Maybe. But the older I get, the more I realize that everyone is a hypocrite and an ass at one time or another (except you, Mike, of course
). As far as I’m concerned, Mr. van Calker is a hero, risking the contempt and ridicule of his teammates and countrymen to ensure he’ll continue to be around for those he loves. The only caveat I’d place is this: I’m perfectly willing to concede that, if he had these feelings, it wouldn’t have been terrible if he’d realized/acknowledged these feelings BEFORE he made the Olympic team, so that perhaps some Yahoo who didn’t feel his doubts or compunctions could have made the team in his stead. I’m certainly not saying we should stop people from doing the dangerous things they do, just that maybe we shouldn’t glorify it as much as we do. The person who tries to climb the dangerous peak could be considered brave, but the person who has to go up and rescue him is brave, too. There’s a cost for everything, and van Calker didn’t want to pay it anymore. Good for him.
February 27, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Michael
I’ve been buried the last couple of days and thus haven’t heard much in the way of public reaction on this. I agree that, if the guy wants to be a family man above all else, he might have been well-advised to choose a different hobby. Regarding kids and sports, aggression, etc, I think the experience really depends on the coaching and the parental guidance. I know many teens that are superior athletes – dominating even – yet have an amazingly cool, confident composure. And off the field they’re some of the nicest kids I’ve ever known. One of these days, I’ll get around to posting about my experience as a volleyball coach, and observations from the sidelines of several other sports.
March 2, 2010 at 3:04 pm
david paradis
I don’t think someone skis down a mountain for risk for its own sake. They do it because they want to test themselves, against their own inner apprehensions and doubts, against the mountain, and against their competitors. Risk just happens to be part of the equation. Getting out of bed everyday has risks. Humanity would not have survived had no one embraced calculated risk.