Flawed Olympic process highlighted by golfers’ Zika fears

Those of us who harbour scepticism about golf’s inclusion in the Olympics have been provided with decent arguments to the contrary.

If Olympic involvement tightens up drugs-testing procedures within golf, for example, that would be an undeniable positive. Evidence from tennis – when there were early doubts – suggests golf can become more global in terms of participation when on the Games stage. It also seems reasonable to link the altered approach to membership policy by Augusta National and the Royal & Ancient to a realisation of fresh standards of acceptability. Golf can no longer behave in blissful isolation, as pressed home by the R&A last week when it made a firm and instant stance on Muirfield at the Open.

And yet, golf and the Olympics have existed in an almost constant alliance of disharmony. The venue in Brazil was subject to legal wrangling and delays which had the renowned course designer Gil Hanse visibly exasperated. The choice of format, a simple four-day stroke-play competition as per every other standard week on the Tour, was castigated. That element was slightly unfair; Peter Dawson, the International Golf Federation president and a key proponent of this Olympic return, always stated that earning Games status was pivotal, with scope to alter the format for future years. Providing an immediately different, or contrived, competition style could have been troublesome.

Mumbles of discontent from players were apparent from the moment in 2009 when a decision was made over inclusion. Adam Scott took that a step further and has refused to participate. Louis Oosthuizen, Charl Schwartzel and Vijay Singh have followed suit. The stated reasons? A mix between schedule and the Zika virus.

This week, matters threatened to take an even more negative turn when Rory McIlroy admitted to concern over the Zika virus threat to Rio. McIlroy’s demeanour seemed more telling than his words; this looks a genuine dilemma for the four-times major winner. Alarm bells should be blaring at the International Olympic Committee; McIlroy is the individual who ideally links golf and athleticism, who endorses this as a sport and not a game.

Any notion that McIlroy is seeking a soft option here would be flawed; not only did he face a nationality debate head-on by declaring for Ireland’s team at an early juncture but very recently spoke about his fear that the Olympic narrative could be damaged by scenarios such as Scott’s. Far from being seen as a summer nuisance, the Olympics had evidently grown on McIlroy to the point where he was a keen advocate. McIlroy is one of a clutch of players for whom the commercial crossover between Olympic demands and his own, lucrative contracts would be another legitimate cause for annoyance.

By Tuesday the Masters champion, Danny Willett, conceded that he also has a decision to make on the grounds of health alone. Pieced together, there is no chance McIlroy and Willett are the only ones harbouring such thoughts. And pieced together, should they believe non-participation the safest option, Olympic men's golf will quickly regress into the realms of farce.

It is at best unfortunate and at worst scandalous that sportsmen find themselves in this position, where the health of themselves and their families is a serious concern before an Olympic trip. They will also be perfectly aware of the burden of expectation, where the pressure to play and thereby offer golf its best Olympic return weighs heavily. As things stand, golf is scheduled to be in the Olympics only in 2016 and 2020. The vote on whether to extend this is to be held next year.

The recurring, glaring factor in the comments from McIlroy and Willett was that they appeared genuinely unsure about the scale of the Zika problem and dangers therein. Somewhere, somehow, the communication process between Games organisers and athletes has broken down. With that in mind, it is little wonder attention is drawn towards Amir Attaran’s report insisting the Olympics should simply not proceed because of the spread of the Zika virus. Within that article, one sentence leaps out: that which asks “but for the Games, would anyone recommend sending an extra half a million visitors to Brazil right now?” The answer barely needs stating.

The level of tournament-ready courses elsewhere, even within close reach of Brazil, means the Olympics could move this sport with minimal disruption. Other than to reputation, that is, not least among others competitors who could rightly bemoan preferential treatment.

The very debate as to whether golf should be in the Olympic equation also applies. Athletes who have pushed for four years – or more – for a shot at gold don’t compare to those featuring in major championships or Ryder Cups with far more regularity. Which group would take the greater risk? Which would feel less inclined to flirt with illness?

The IGF’s stated position is thus: “The IGF recently issued a constituent letter regarding the Zika virus and continues to monitor the situation through regular communication with the IOC and Rio 2016, who in turn are keeping advised by the World Health Organisation, on the steps and measures being planned.

“We are also working with the National Olympic Committees of the countries where our athletes are from to assist in the education and ongoing information about the virus that is being developed.”

Admirable words, but the testimonies of McIlroy and Willett highlight a flawed process. Confusion and concern can only be allowed to reign for so long.

(Guardian service)