As I mentioned in my first post-Olympic comments, I spent time during the second week of the Games in the company of Americans sports fans watching handball on TV. Almost without exception, it was their first opportunity to get familiar with our sport. So it entailed an opportunity to do some ‘preaching’ and explaining, while also listening to often quite amusing comments from the handball novices around me.

The comments included a mixture of the type of reactions that I have constantly encountered during my soon 40 years in the U.S. and some more surprising observations. Generally speaking, handball met with the approval of the people around me, and their reactions showed that this was not just the result of politeness. As often happens, people got excited even without having any prior knowledge of the teams and without being able to appreciate the fine points. “This is such a typically American sport”, was a comment that I have become used to over the years. And “why are we not good at this”, is then the obvious follow-up question.

What people tended to appreciate was the amount of physical contact, especially the fact that this is very much part also of the women’s handball. “This would be something for women who like American football”, was one comment, and “it is nice to see a ball game where you can be successful without being extremely tall”, was the reaction of someone watching the Koreans. Having a goalkeeper, instead of just a basket, was a feature that some viewers felt added a dimension. And the continuous action, without a lot of time-outs, met with approval, as did the existence of the ‘advantage rule’, which some recognized from soccer.

It was also seen as helpful that the structure and action of the game is so straight-forward that it is easy to follow and enjoy also for a beginner. As someone commented, you can easily anticipate when a critical moment is coming up so that you have to focus a bit extra. But then some felt a bit lost in their appreciation for what constitutes an ‘offensive foul’, and I had to admit that the referees did not always manage to show the desired consistency. Similarly, I got comments to the effect that “the decisions about when to give a 2-minute punishment seemed a bit capricious”. This came from basketball or icehockey fans, who are more used to the notion that ‘a foul is a foul’.

Several of my ’emerging handball fans’ seemed to assume that an Olympic sport such as handball “surely already was well established in the U.S.” and that it was their ‘fault’ for not having gotten to know it before. But they assumed it must be a relatively new sport at the Olympics, such as BMX or beach volleyball. They were astonished when I explained the longstanding traditions in Europe but also the comparatively feeble evolution in our country.

Someone offered the astute reflection that “of course soccer has a huge advantage, because so many of our immigrants these days bring that sport with them, while that does not seem to apply to handball”. I also heard the observation that the name ‘handball’ is a problem and ought to be changed. I gently reminded that this might not be so appropriate for Americans to suggest, considering our stubborn insistence on confusing people by referring to a certain sport as ‘football’ although 98% of the ball handling is with the hands… Others noted that the size of the court is a handicap, “as it does not fit into school gyms and would discourage schools from picking it up”. But ultimately, some of my new recruits noted that “as usual, it is likely to be a matter of money and good management”. Perhaps it will one day appear that at least one of my fellow viewers turns out to be a major philanthropist with a weak spot for handball…!

You may recall that my main reaction to the men’s handball competition was one of disappointment. Unfortunately, I must say very much the same thing about the women’s tournament. In fact, the similarities are quite amazing. The 2008 champions, on the women’s side Norway, managed to defend the title without really impressing anyone while doing so. Just like in the case of the men, it happened because none of the other team’s showed their normal strength, which would have been enough to deserve to win and to manage to do so. Just like the French men, the Norwegian women were on their way to disaster in the quarterfinal, but their opponents kindly let them off the hook!

The main difference was perhaps that the final for the women had more real drama and excitement, in comparison with the men. Once they managed to qualify for the final, it was not surprising that the team from Montenegro would put up a real fight for the gold. In fact, they were a bit unlucky in losing the final, and it is my background in refereeing that inhibits me when it comes to explaining why I think so… Women’s handball in Montenegro is perhaps the best parallel to men’s handball on Iceland. The population is twice that of Iceland, moving towards 700.000, but the pool of talented handball players is small.

The focus in Montenegro is on team sports, but football and basketball are clearly ahead of handball, and even volleyball is a strong rival for athletes and spectators. But in recent time it is handball that has given the headlines. Buducnost won the EHF Champions League just a few months ago, and now Bojana Popovic, their perennial world-class player led them to the silver in the final match of her career. She had previously won World Championship bronze with Yugoslavia in 2001 and five earlier Champions League titles for Danish clubs. Montenegro hardly looked like a team for the final in the early going. They lost to both Brazil and Croatia, before they managed to tie Russia. But the breakthrough came in the quarterfinal, where they knocked out the equally tough and combative French team, one of the favorites.

The Koreans are always giving priority to the Olympic Games, so they tend to build up their team in four-year cycles. This time, the team showed many of their traditional strengths in terms of speed, energy and tenacity. But somehow they never looked as sturdy as their colleagues from the past, so their style combined with injury problems seemed to make them run out of steam after they knocked out Russia in the quarterfinals. Talking about Russia, their veteran coach Trefilov urged them on during the games in his well-known loud and ‘desperate’ style. But this time his team did not respond to his emotions and efforts. At times they seemed to play in ‘autopilot’ fashion, without their usual spark. So Trefilov was bitter afterwards, announcing his retirement and predicting a bleak future for Russian women’s handball. Indeed, handball is a much more modest sport at the national level in Russia than their international achievements over the years would suggest.

The Spanish team never looked like a candidate for the gold. They were solid and consistent, just as their performances in recent years have suggested, with a third and a fourth place in the 2011 and 2009 World Championships. But there seems to be some ingredient missing that would get them to the top. By contrast, Brazil lived up to the expectations that they might be the ‘dark horse’ this time. They had the advantage of fielding a team that has been playing together for a while now, also through the agreement with the Austrian club team Hypo. They seemed ready and determined to battle for a medal and the performance in group play was impressive. While they lost to Russia, the wins against Croatia and Montenegro were enough to put them at the top of the group standings. They appeared to be riding this wave initially in the quarterfinal, having an amazing 15-9 lead against Norway after about 38 minutes. But it seems they got carried away, suddenly feeling too confident and losing concentration. After too many mistakes and a seemingly casual attitude, they lost the game they almost had won.

Finally, before the event, one of the discussions involved the lop-sided draw resulting from the strange seeding. Who would be the two teams, among six strong ones, who would not make the quarterfinals from the ‘group of death?’ Not so unexpectedly, this fate was shared by Denmark and Sweden. In the past year, Denmark’s women had suddenly but clearly come down from their traditional level, missing out on a medal in 2011 and not being very impressive in the preparation games this year. Sweden got a direct path to London, not because of their performance in 2011 but as runner-up in EURO 2010. But there were doubts about their team strength that now became confirmed. It seems that Sweden may need to rely on reinforcements from a new crop of talents, the winners of this year’s junior world championships.

Most people who follow sports might have expected that there would be frequent headlines about doping during the Olympic Games. And indeed there were some instances, although some of them involved revelations that dated back to previous Olympic Games. Testing methods have now improved, although they always seem to lag behind the skills of the perpetrators and the experts helping them. But this meant that some samples that had been kept since previous Games were now tested and led to positive results. But the number of new cases during the competition in London thankfully seemed smaller than expected.

Instead, anyone who followed the Olympics must have heard about the stories that seemed to create such outrage and astonishment: athletes who manipulated the rules to gain an advantage. Of course, much of this depends on the nature of the respective sports. In handball and football, for instance, players will constantly and intentionally use methods that go beyond the rules, in the hope that the referees will allow them to get away with it. What goes on, literally below the surface, in waterpolo is perhaps best not to discuss. And a small nudge in an 800-meter race or sneaky move in a bike race seem to part of the normal competition.

But it is very different, when someone is accused of intentionally trying to gain an advantage by not winning a game or by causing something within the rules that is meant to force the judges to do something that is in their favor. To make it worse, some of the athletes do not seem to be the slightest reticent about openly telling the world afterwards about what they did, that it was intentional, and what they hoped to gain. In such cases, it is hard to know whether someone’s admission of guilt is really desirable… However, what is also sad to see is that, in many instance, naïve or thoughtless rules and competition formats play into the hands of those who want to get an unfair advantage, In other words, in many cases the problem could have been avoided if they sports federation had been a bit smarter.

The case that has received the most publicity is that of some badminton players who conspicuously tried to outdo each other in avoiding to win the game between them. The situation was that it was known to both the doubles teams involved that they would get an easier opponent in the next round if they lost the game. So it became a ‘game of chicken’, in the sense that both teams were guilty of action that was intended to make them lose points and then the game as a whole. The judges and the spectators were furious but helpless. But afterwards, because of the public outrage and the image problem, the players were kicked out of the tournament; and now after the Games, they have been given a more drastic suspension than the worst doping offender.

In team sprint cycling, a team fell behind from the start, whereupon one of the members fell intentionally and caused a restart under the rules. Moreover, he openly admitted afterwards that this had been part of their plans all along. The team went on to take advantage of the restart. In another case, the real issue was more a bureaucratic mistake, but it became a hot topic as it involved a gold medal winner in a high-profile event. One of the favorites in the 1500m race for men had also been entered in the 800m competition. But when he realized that this might be too much for him and reduce his chances in 1500m, his federation forgot to withdraw his entry. So to avoid disqualification he was forced to come out ready to start; but when he limped off the track during the first lap, the jury members got incensed and wanted to get him thrown out of the Games. A medical certificate, friendly or honest, resolved the matter, and his start in 1500m was rescued; whereupon he showed his class and won the gold medal!

Women’s football attracted attention, as in one of the groups the teams seemed to calculate that it was better to be a runner-up than a group winner, in order to have a supposedly easier path afterwards. With much less attention, there was some talk about the same thing possibly having happened on the final day of group play in women’s handball. Speculation was heard about a calculation on the part of the defending Olympic champions Norway, that it might be just as well not to fight too hard to win the final game, as a defeat might get them a less experienced opponent in the quarter-final. Of course, such an accusation would be very awkward, giving the virtual impossibility of ever showing what the intentions were. But then the topic lingered a bit, especially after Norway did win the quarterfinal.

As I see it, in the cases of badminton, football and handball, the real problem is related to the competition format. So for me it is an absurdity to punish the badminton players in the way that has now happened. Speculation about the advantages of not always winning a game or using the strongest line-up in a particular game happens routinely in many sports throughout all levels of competition. The job of a federation that wants to reduce the likelihood of such gamesmanship and the negative PR that goes with it, is to ensure a tournament format and schedule that reduces such opportunities. I know from experience that, precisely in the Olympic Games, the individual sports federations do not have free hands in the same way as in a World Championship. But some flexibility surely does exist.

And there may also be conflicting considerations. In handball it is clear that a format with groups of six will be more likely to create situations where manipulation may be tempting. The chances of having meaningless games, or games where neither team cares much about winning, are greater. The issue is to keep such games at a minimum, through smaller groups or more emphasis on direct-elimination games. This might lead to fewer games for the weaker teams, but (unlike the situation in a World Championships) this might be tolerable in the Olympics. It may also be preferably to use a draw to determine opponents when moving from groups to the next stage, rather than relying on a predetermined format. And of course, it does not help if, as in the case of handball this time, the draw and the seeding were knowingly flawed from the beginning, with one stronger and one weaker group for both the men and the women…

During many Olympic Games, the format and scheduling of the TV broadcasts by NBC and their counterparts have caused a sometimes irritated debate about what the Games are all about: are they a pure sports event, should they be seen as news reporting, or are they primarily a show/entertainment. Many viewers want to see the events in detail as they happen, without too many background stories. Others want to see the key moments of the competition, combined with the underlying ‘human interest’ stories. Yet others see it simply as an entertaining alternative to less exciting summer programs on TV. Now, of course, it is possible to view it in any way you want, assuming you can get instant news through the internet and, as was now the case from London, ‘live streaming’ from any event that you want to follow in detail. So you do not need to depend on the main NBC show that comes many hours later and is very much a show.

Then there is the question of ‘for whose sake’ do we have the Olympics. Are they organized in order to enable athletes to have an opportunity to display their abilities and to gain fame and financial benefit; or do not these athletes already have sufficient events in their respective sports? Sometimes one gets the impression that the Games are held to provide the host country/city an opportunity to show off their ability and to draw a larger than usual number of visitors from abroad. More awkwardly, one also senses that the Games serve largely as a chance for sponsors and other advertisers to gain a captive audience, and that the commercial interests overwhelm the sports considerations.

If one follows the media coverage, one could almost get the impression that it is a fight between nations, albeit it in a less friendly format, to show their power and compete for global dominance. More than anything else, the table with the medal count is what stands out. Of course, this is discouraged by the International Olympic Committee, which at one point refused to release information about the official medal count. (The IOC Charter even emphasizes that it is supposed to be a competition between athletes and not between countries). But this does not work, as media simply then would do the work themselves, moreover in several conflicting versions. Personally I am ‘sick and tired’ of this focus. For me it would be more appropriate to have countries compete on the basis of accomplishments in education, health care, technology, governance and other more fundamental aspects of life.

But it seems inevitable that countries, both the largest ones in the world and the small, emerging ones, will want to use the Olympic Games to show off. It even goes quite far in terms of efforts to ‘recruit’ athletes to reinforce the population. Many countries attract immigrants and refugees, in which case a change in nationality is natural and the acquisition of a star athlete is incidental and unquestioned. But there also seem to be some countries, including the 2012 host country where, perhaps due to lingering colonial traditions or simply a financial edge, systematic efforts are made to find reinforcements in time for the Olympics. Immigration laws sometimes seem designed to facilitate such methods. One prime example in London was a female participant in triple jump, who now participated with her third nationality in four Olympic Games. It seems that globalization also tends to create a ‘mercenary corps’ of athletes. Ironically, this is in a sense what fits the notion I mentioned from the IOC charter, but unfortunately it fits even better with the actual nationalistic fervor that countries display.

My own ideas may be ‘old-fashioned’, but as you will have understood, I do not care to see the Olympic Games as a venue just for top athletes to increase their market value, for countries and their National Olympic Committees to show off, or for global conglomerates to do far-reaching advertising. For me the main consideration is to have the Olympic Games serve as a source of INSPIRATION. This could mean many different things. It could obviously involve the inspiration for young, budding athletes to make the effort to become future stars. But it could also involve the notion that it simply encourages a broader participation in sports and physical activity instead of less healthy alternatives. It could provide illustrations of how a determined and sustained effort can lead to remarkable achievements. It can show how handicaps and a difficult living environment can be overcome. (I do not much admire a ‘dream team’; I cheer the ‘underdog’ who is able to defeat the odds). And it can remind us that fair play and a sporting spirit do not need to be sacrificed in the pursuit of medals and results. So for me, the Olympic Games can (and should) be a source of inspiration that goes well beyond the world of sports.