A week ago or so I wrote an article about the IOC’s misquoting Yuna Kim. That incident, first reported by the Wire Magazine, apparently drew attention from other medias, including Philip Hersh from Chicago Tribune.
In an article titled “In this word game both the IOC and Yuna Kim lose” Hersh criticizes both the IOC and Yuna Kim.
According to Hersh, Kim appears to have given such an interview in which she complimented Adelina Sotnikova, and then later retracted it through her agency.
It is not clear in that article how verifiable Hersh’s claim is.
However, for the sake of argument, let us assume that Hersh’s claim is accurate that Kim indeed gave a few quotes as alleged.
In fact I too initially thought that Kim could have given such an interview after the game. Kim might have given a few compliments on Adleina Sotnikova given the situation.
But I disagree with Hersh.
It is not difficult to imagine in what circumstances Kim could have said a few words on Sotnikova if the quotes were actually given by Kim.
Kim, heartbroken and still dazed by that heinous event, was gracious enough to comment on the competition.
But did Kim ever mean to concede to the result or endorse that scheme of fraud? Do you have to ask that?
Any person with a grain of sanity could tell it’s fraud; any unbiased viewer would writhe at the barbarism in a full swing.
Kim’s courtesy was nothing but her tribute to the sportsmanship that just died and the ethics of athlete that was too rare to find in this day and age.
What follows is the IOC’s shameless propaganda tactics to gloss over the worst figure scandal, attempting to make a great skater’s dignified gesture to their advantage.
Hersh appears to point that after the IOC’s article with Kim’s quotes surfaced, Kim’s agent protested claiming that they were not Kim’s words. Of course not.
She didn’t mean her good will to be a puppet of that fraud and a spokesman of hypocritical lie.
There are only two possible answers: either she gave something similar to that, not actually meaning to indicate or evoke any concession to the result, or she didn’t say anything like that at all.
But let us be reasonable, shall we?
A reasonable conclusion is that if the interview was conducted in English, it is likely her choice of words might have been limited to or overly simplified by linguistic generality so that her courtesy could be manipulated or misrepresented.
But what is inexcusable is that the IOC knew well enough of Kim’s position amidst the international uproar, and still had a gut to use her quotes to cover their nakedness.
So what did Kim exactly do wrong? Isn’t it obvious that Kim didn’t want to look conceding to the result except being gracious even in that fabricated competition.
Are we expecting Kim to voice her cynicism or a bad joke about Sotnikova, who apparently skated her heart out, to show the world how ill treated and displeased she was?
Kim cannot, shall not concede to the result, because it’s fraud. Conceding to fraud is worse than committing the fraud itself.
What do we expect from Kim? Pulling off Surya Bonaly in 1994? Or showing the judges her middle finger?
Wasn’t she so gracious enough not to betray her own displeasure in front of the live audience, well come to think of it, I don’t know if they are particularly called audience, and accept the result for the moment?
Complimenting your foes is the greatest virtue as an athlete in the middle of what amounts to inexcusable savagery in the sport fraud.
At the same time, you are not supposed to concede to the crime committed. And that’s what she refuses to do.
Kim may think she does not need that gold medal, but I do not think even Kim has right to say that she doesn’t care any more so that people stop protesting, because crime shall not be tolerated even if the victim wants leniency. It is still crime and punishable and punitive action must be in force.
Moreover, Kim is not the only victim of Sochi fraud.