In the opinion of one Charlotte Davis it was `awesome'. What was? News that the International Olympic Committee officially approved the re-addition of the duet event in synchronised swimming for the 2000 Games in Sydney. Great.
"The fact that the IOC is gradually adding back the events it took away for 1996 is a sign bigger and better things are to come for the sport," said Davis, who is the national director of the US synchronised swimming team. "Hopefully, we'll have the solo event back by the 2004 Games."
Why, you may (or may not) ask, was the duet event dropped in the first place, having only been introduced to the Olympics in 1984? Well, the powers-that-be concluded after the 1996 Games that only the team event in synchronised swimming was `television-friendly'. What changed their minds? When the United States' team won gold in 1996 they attracted one of the highest rated prime-time TV segments of the Games and the IOC went `wey, hey, advertising dollars - we'll have more of that'. So now they can't get enough of synchronised swimming and, voila, the duet event is back.
A "desire to better promote women's sports" was, actually, the official reason for re-introducing the duet competition, according to IOC director general Francois Carrard when the announcement was made. (Just to prove how earnestly they want to promote women's sports, women's trap and skeet shooting will also be added to the menu for the 2000 Games. One suspects they're much the same as lads' trap and skeet shooting, only the women apologise to the trap and skeet before they shoot them).
Now, to be fair, it's not synchronised swimming's fault that it's included in the Olympics - and it's too easy a target for those who wonder if the people who define what is and what isn't a sport are living on a diet of magic mushrooms. But. A few months back I happened upon coverage of a synchronised swimming event on Eurosport (where else?), just in time to see Canadian Kasia Kulesza begin her routine. With clothes peg clipped on nose and big cheesy grin in place, she flung her legs in the air and leapt from the side of the pool. Arms flailing, she splashed around a bit and then her head disappeared under water. Then nothing. LIFEGUARD! A ripple rippled on the surface of the pool and then her feet popped into view. She was upside down but, apparently, this was intentional. There was something eerily familiar about this routine and it took a while before I realised that it was just like my first swimming lesson in a Celbridge pool many years ago. The big toe appearing above the surface brought it all back to me. Little did I know then that I was swimming in a synchronised way, even if I was actually drowning at the time.
Kasia (whose feet were still the only bit of her visible) was, the commentator informed us, using the "egg beater movement" for threading water, which made her look very much like an upside duck. It was all very pretty indeed, but one had to ask oneself: is it sport? And should it be an Olympic sport simply because it's telly-friendly? (And why is it telly-friendly . . . one wonders. One can only guess). Is squash a sport? Of course it is. But is it an Olympic sport? No. Why? Because it doesn't look good on telly - it's too fast and is played on too small a court, it is argued. No other reason. For years now the Professional Squash Association has been lobbying the IOC in an attempt to have the sport included in the Olympic Games. Visit their internet site and you'll be asked to sign their Olympic petition, which they hope will collect enough signatures to help their cause.
There's an outside chance their campaign might finally prove successful in time for the Athens Games, but the sport is so used to the IOC's `you're not television-friendly' argument they're not cracking open the champagne just yet. Yes, television rules sport these days but it still seems extraordinary that, ultimately, it should determine what is and what isn't an Olympic sport. And few sports need a boost, such as Olympic inclusion, more than squash. In truth, the professional game is dying on its feet. After the heady days of the 1970s and 80s, when squash clubs just didn't have enough courts to accommodate all who wanted to play the game, sponsors have lost interest. Already this year the British Open, the professional circuit's most prestigious event, has been cancelled for the first time since World War Two, because it couldn't attract a major sponsor, and only this week October's World Open was put in doubt for much the same reason.
So, professional squash players, such as Ireland's Derek Ryan (ranked 12th in the world), are hardly in it for the money. When Ryan won the Hartford Open in Connecticut last year BBC's Ceefax reported that he won $24,000. Ryan chuckled heartily when he was told. The total tournament prize-money was $24,000. He picked up a cheque for $3,000 for winning the final.
On Monday, 21-year-old Lee Beachill was selected to make his senior England debut against the `Rest of the World' in a test series in Sheffield tomorrow. The news completed a remarkable story. Fifteen months ago Beachill, a regular visitor to tournaments in Ireland, crushed two vertebrae in his back in a car accident and was initially told he might never walk again. The prognosis improved - he'd walk again but he could forget about playing squash. Six weeks later he was the only player to battle through six rounds of qualifiers at the British Open to reach the first round of the main draw. Now there's a sportsman who deserves a crack at Olympic glory. No offence to television-friendly synchronised swimming but I'd rather watch Derek Ryan or Lee Beachill chasing gold any day.
