A Closer Look at Olympic Gold

Four years ago in the Olympic Games held in Athens, Polish swimmer, Otylia Jedrzejczak, won the gold medal in the 200 meter butterfly in women’s swimming. During the pre-Olympic trials in Athens in June, Otylia had declared that if she won a gold medal in the Olympics, she would auction it off and hand the proceeds to a charity helping children.

The results of the internet auction were announced in December 2004 with Victoria Cymes, a Polish food company, acquiring the medal with a winning bid of $82,437 USD. The money was handed over to the Oncology and Haematology Clinic of Wroclaw's Children's Hospital (in Poland).

In many ways, most of us would agree that the Olympic Games are good for the collective human soul. They let us step away from the stress that international boundaries can bring and allow us to look at the gift of life and talent. And in Otylia’s case, they allow us to look even more deeply into our own souls.

Over the years, I’ve heard so many people say, “Oh, if 'they' would take the money that was spent on making those medals and give the money to the poor, the world would be a better place.” Well, maybe not. Let’s learn a lesson from Otylia ...

... Olympic gold medals are not solid gold. In fact, they are worth about $175. The silver ones cost about half that. That’s it. Now, imagine if each of us -- even those of us who are NOT athletes -- sent $175 to our favorite charity ... what a difference THAT would make. Otylia did more than give up a chunk of gold medal. She gave up something that she had worked hard to earn. She gave up something of value to her. And in the end, others realized it too ... and a medal worth about $175 became a gift of $82,437. Maybe that’s the lesson to be learned.

Darfur: Peace at any cost?

Last week, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution to extend its peacekeeping mission in Darfur. The resolution passed overwhelmingly, with all countries in the council voting for it, except for the United States. A U.S. representative did not cast a vote, citing concerns about the wording of the resolution.

"The U.S. abstained in the vote because language added to the resolution would send the wrong message to Sudanese President Bashir and undermine efforts to bring him and others to justice," Alejandro Wolff said. "This council cannot ignore the terrible crimes that have occurred throughout the conflict in Darfur."

The alleged crimes stem from a brutal counter-insurgency campaign the Sudanese government conducted after rebels began an uprising in Darfur in 2003. The government armed and cooperated with Arab militias that went from village to village in Darfur, killing, torturing and raping residents there, according to the United Nations, western governments and human rights organizations. The militias targeted civilian members of tribes from which the rebels draw strength. The U.S. has characterized the campaign as genocide.

About 300,000 people have died in Darfur, the United Nations estimates, and 2.5 million have been forced from their homes. Many are languishing in desperate conditions in refugee camps. http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid716091889/bctid716320015

In many ways, such language and resolutions are reminiscent of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s (Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1937 to 1940) agreement with Germany’s Third Reich more than 60 year ago. Albeit on a much larger scale, in 1938 Chamberlain was duped by Hitler into believing that peace would reign in Europe . . . that Europeans would not be threatened. Chamberlain was forced to resign as Prime Minister when Germany invaded Belgium, The Netherlands and France in 1940.

Is Sudan President Omar Hassan al-Bashir a war criminal? Will there be “peace in our time” as long as hundreds of thousands of Sudanese suffer in refugee camps? Can we who live in the free world turn away from those who are still enduring the horror of life in the Sudan?

"The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat!"

Years ago when it seemed that ABC News was the only television network in the U.S. to offer coverage of the Olympic Games, the network opened its sports segments with a video montage showing various athletes winning or losing in their respective competitions. As the images of the athletes played across the screen, the voice of the late Jim McKay would announce, “Spanning the globe to bring you the constant variety of sports . . . the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.” Without a doubt, these words accurately depicted what so many athletes experience on the road to the Olympic Games. But no doubt many of us have often wondered not only where these men and women came from, but what happens to them after the games are over . . . after they return home?

For those athletes who hail from many of the African nations represented at the games, returning home can mean a return to poverty that is often a part of every day life. For others like Lopez Lomong, the Olympics will have affected them so much that their lives will be forever altered.

When watching the games this summer, look for Lopez. Lopez Lomong was one of the “Lost Boys of the Sudan” who walked more than 1,000 miles -- fleeing for their lives from those who would have killed them and so many others in Southern Sudan. After spending more than a decade in a refugee camp in Kenya, Lopez was re-settled in the U.S. by a humanitarian agency. But even here, he and so many other young men like him struggled to settle into this new country and surroundings. Now, life is quickly changing again. As a runner in the 1500 meter event, Lopez will be “running for gold” in Beijing. It is hard to say just who he is “representing” . . . the people of his new home in the U.S. -- or some of the thousands of other “lost children” who are still searching for hope . . . or maybe all of us?