Have you ever witnessed a sport event in which a relative was participating?
If so then I bet you would have been jumping up and down, rooting for that person to win. You probably would have been engulfed by mixed emotions; afraid to applaud your relative’s opponent in case they would think you were supporting the other person yet not wanting to appear partisan.
We all have our favourites. We have all, at one time or another backed a sprinter, boxer, and cricket or football team to win.
But were we to be placed in a position where an opportunity to give a team of our choice an easy passage through to the next round existed then, in most cases, our conscience which decides whether (in our opinion) an act is morally right or wrong would probably kick in.
Of all the ills associated with local sport the plague of nepotism ranks amongst the most dangerous.
It is a plague that affects local sport more often than one can imagine and can cripple a sport easier than lack of sponsorship.
Most times persons who are affected turn a blind eye for fear of some sort of victimisation down the line while others feel that it is not their problem but someone else’s.
Nepotism can rear its ugly head when persons whose offspring are directly participating in a sports discipline are put in charge of coordinating tournaments.
If that individual is wholly and solely responsible for doing the draws and such like, then an opportunity is there for that person to take advantage of the situation.
Such a situation exists at the moment.
Draws are done in secret and one sports official once told me that he did the draw for a singles tournament at home.
That official seemed unconcerned about the fairness of the process not to mention the question marks surrounding the integrity of the process and of that person.
Recently, a young player under 10 years of age, reached the last 16 of an Open tournament, a tremendous achievement.
At face value, it seemed that this individual was tremendously talented – a child prodigy – worthy of some government scholarship as a future world beater it seemed, lay in our midst.
However there is more to this situation.
The draws were done by the athlete’s father.
Now it is not impossible for anyone to benefit from a draw where they might reach much further than they should. This has been known to happen.
But in this case, investigations revealed that stronger players were placed in one group while the youngster, who should not even have been seeded, was allowed to reach the last 16 simply because most of the seeded players were removed from his path.
Where, one might ask, are the seeded players that this young athlete defeated to reach the last 16?
The answer is none.
Because it was the father of the athlete in question who was responsible for the draws the suspicion of manipulation of the draw rather than luck of the draw has been raised by some senior players who felt hard done.
Until the relevant association mounts an investigation into the matter, the questions as to the fairness of the draw will remain and players will lose faith in the fairness of tournaments run by this individual.
What has happened generally is that associations/organisations have allowed individuals instead of committees to run tournaments.
Associations that have this problem should immediately move to stamp it out by reenacting the Competitions Committee and appointing persons of integrity to serve on such committees which will plan and oversee all tournaments staged in this country.
Additionally, there should be an appeals committee where athletes who feel that they have been victimized by associations or officials can lodge an appeal to be heard by an independent tribunal set up by the Guyana Olympic Association (GOA)and the National Sports Commission.
There should also be instituted a Fair Play Committee aimed at promoting fairness in sport.
Last year, there was a situation involving two athletes where officials from the two clubs were involved in the judging with farcical results.
That matter Sportscope understands has been sent to the GOA who have ruled on the issue.
One would hope that this and other situations concerning favouritism, spite, and other such negative traits are stamped out.
Associations should also strive to ensure that their constitution be changed to debar persons whose close relatives are participants, to being wholly and solely in charge of such tournaments.
It is time too, that associations develop a database of their athletes with the correct ages of the players and an up to date ranking system so as to bring some degree of fairness to the tournament situation which exists in Guyana.
Anything less will be akin to sporting with sport.
