I was astounded to learn about the IOC and VANOC's decision on Jan. 21 to ban Right to Play from any Olympic venues in Vancouver and Whistler.Right to Play is a Toronto based non-profit that uses sports and play programs with disadvantaged youth in third world nations to improve health, develop life skills and foster peace. The organization, which was created by Olympic athletes at the Lillehammer Olympic, has grown steadily and maintained a stellar reputation around the world.Many Canadian athletes are ambassadors of the organization including speed skater Clara Hughes who, after winning the gold medal in the 5,000-metre event at the Turin Games,made quite an impression by donating $10,000 of her savings to the organization.So why would the Olympic movement cut ties with this organization? Well, as with most things associated with the IOC and VANOC, it comes down to money and sponsorship. The central issue is that Right to Play is sponsored by Mitsubishi, and the Olympics has GM as its official Olympic sponsor.Although VANOC denies this is the problem, in sportsillustrated.com Canadian IOC delegate Dick Pound acknowledged that sponsorship is at the core of the conflict.But almost 100 prominent Canadian athletes (including Clara Hughes) made us all proud last week when, on the day the one-year Olympic countdown was announced, they issued a statement objecting to the IOC and VANOC's decision.In their statement, the athletes say: "The decision by the International Olympic Committee to exclude Right To Play from the Olympic village...has been met with profound disappointment and regret." The organization, they say, offers them the opportunity to live "the Olympic values and ideals...through humanitarian efforts and assistance to those in the world who are most in need."Powerful stuff. And those are the ideals we all want our Olympic athletes to embody. Unfortunately, our Olympic organizing committees seem to follow a less idealistic creed.I'm not much of an Olympic cheerleader, but I am proud to cheer on our principled athletes."So why haven't I heard anything about this?" you may be asking. That's another interesting angle of this story. I stumbled across it doing a Google search, and almost no one I've mentioned it to had heard about it.There have been a few small items on the CBC, Gary Mason wrote about it in his column in the Globe and Mail, but apart from a short column in The Province on February 13, our two large dailies have ignored the controversy.In makes one wonder if the tiny Inukshuk identifying CanWest (the Sun and Province's parent company) as an official Olympic sponsor has a place at the editorial table. Are our local dailies not running stories for fear of offending their Olympic masters? Curious stuff, and an important question to consider when reading and listening to media reports.You can read the complete athletes' statement and see the signatories at http://multimedia.thestar.com/acrobat/5d/26/0ac7af4446368d126b64ca309ed1.pdf.
