Read other letters about this article

• Sunday, November 4, 2007 09:28 AM

  And what's wrong with broadening a sport's participation?

  It gets tiring when 'elite' athletes, get pissy about the masses ruining their sport. Even high school varsity types with a decent winning record are almost always the product of sheer genetic luck, then early positive social reinforcement, later augmented by hard training. The truth is, most people can eat, train, and strive 24-7-365 an never win a competitive event...although they'll get much, much healthier in the process.

  Granted, narcissistic celebrities like Oprah, and their attention-starved antics, often come across with all the appeal of biting down on tinfoil. However, high level competitive sports are every bit as narcissistic as any Oprah stunt, but with much less outreach. 'Look, I shaved .02 off the world record! Bemedal me with gold, endorsements, and adulation!"

  Sports are - or should be - about participating in healthy activities, not worshipping the lucky and talented. If you weren't born tall and thin, with a genetically high VO2 max, then the 'fancy equipment' of good running shoes and decent clothing help move sweat, decrease joint stress, and get you out running/jumping/excercising more often. I have a very hard time seeing a problem with that.

  While McClelland writes well and touches on some interesting points, for the most part he's just displaying the typical subject 'conceit' necessary to capture the attention of magazine editors. It's basically the cynical manipulation of reader emotions. Effective, yes, but not relevant to any real issue.

  —atlas spanked Read atlas spanked's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel