Dear Editor,
I do believe that every person is entitled to his or her own speculation. But we who are exposed to such opinions must attempt to discern and separate fact from fiction, reality from conjecture. One fact is that we exist in an environment in which the worst motives are attributed to the noblest of men and their virtuous actions.
I am specifically referring to Mr Pemberton’s published postulate (Stabroek News 10.2.09) that Shawn Crawford’s giving of an Olympic silver medal (which he felt was incorrectly awarded to him) to Mr Churandy Martina was a “publicity stunt.”
May I humbly suggest that Mr Crawford has no need to project himself into the limelight nor engage himself in status enhancing performances via publicity manoeuvres. Mr Crawford has stood on the highest Olympic podium before. He was the 2004 Olympic 200 metre champion; he was the 2004 Olympic 4 x 100 metre silver medalist. In addition, he was the 2004 World Indoor 60 metre silver medalist; the 2001 World Outdoor 200 metre bronze medalist; the 2004 US indoor 60 metre champion; the 3-time USA Outdoor 200 metre champion (’01, ’02, ’04); the 2001 World Indoor 200 metre gold medalist; the 2001 Goodwill Games champion; and the two-time NCAA Indoor 200 metre champion. These achievements and so many others have ensured for Mr Crawford a constant flow of accolades in the USA and internationally. Mr Crawford does not need “publicity stunts.”
In passing, I should mention that Mr Crawford’s coach and role model is Bob Kersee − another athlete/trainer who is renowned for instilling both the competitive spirit and decency into his wards, not lastly those who pass through the portals of the Jackie Joyner Kersee Boys and Girls Club of East St Louis. Mr Pemberton then interjected the “Rules” argument. There is much I can say about “Rules” and “Laws” in everyday life, and especially as they relate to sport. But, for now, let us wait and see what the Court of Arbitration for Sports will say about this matter − specifically how the court will handle the “Rules” (and appeals) that govern the late filing of protests, rules that have been established by the International Association of Athletics Federations. One thing is for certain, the history of the Olympics is replete with examples where “Rules” (and loopholes contained therein) have been exploited to the benefit of athletes who have not earned the medals awarded to them. As I said in my original letter, Mr Crawford made that which persons seek to complicate very simple: “Me being an athlete, I know how he feels, so I feel like it was up to me to give it to him.” I maintain that there was no duplicity involved here − rather a noble gesture of one athlete to another, irrespective of whether the custodians of the “Rules” change the record books or not. Yours faithfully, Steve Surujbally
