Question
Do countries with Soviet-style sports training systems like China spoil the intended spirit of the Olympic games?
Answer
Your premise is completely flawed. How "organic" do you think sports in the US is? It's pretty much all top-down: leagues, sponsors, university athletic programs, YMCA, NCAA...how autonomously do you think kids "choose" their sports? You think the sporting culture at Morrill Land Grant universities just "happened"? Or universal free public high school with a strong sporting component?
All sport is effectively state-sponsored, directly or indirectly, often starting with the military. Individuals and corporations have no real incentive to get involved until the culture is mature enough that a few of the more spectator-friendly ones can sustain big-money entertainment business sectors. The amateur/professional distinction is laughably unimportant compared to general state spending on supporting a sporting culture.
Absent the state support, you don't get "organic" sport. There's no such thing. You get nothing. Case in point: the entire country of India has won fewer Olympic medals in its history than Michael Phelps alone will have by the end of London 2012. Even with India's completely pathetic sporting culture, Phelps is not THAT good. Cricket in India has thrived due to some anomalies, but otherwise state apathy equals lousy Olympics performance.
As for sports as state jingoism, it is much better than the alternative: a physically dismal culture. And all countries that win big display the pride, just in different ways. The Chinese brag officially, Ryan Lochte wears a red, white and blue grille. Potato potaahto.
Edit: for those who want an entertaining and sad example of what happens when state-backed support of sports fails, consider the bizarre story of Paan Singh Tomar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paa...
In a different country at a different time, he might have been a great track star. In India, he went from (Army sponsored) national steeplechase champion to a Jesse James style outlaw. There is an excellent Hindi movie about him.
All sport is effectively state-sponsored, directly or indirectly, often starting with the military. Individuals and corporations have no real incentive to get involved until the culture is mature enough that a few of the more spectator-friendly ones can sustain big-money entertainment business sectors. The amateur/professional distinction is laughably unimportant compared to general state spending on supporting a sporting culture.
Absent the state support, you don't get "organic" sport. There's no such thing. You get nothing. Case in point: the entire country of India has won fewer Olympic medals in its history than Michael Phelps alone will have by the end of London 2012. Even with India's completely pathetic sporting culture, Phelps is not THAT good. Cricket in India has thrived due to some anomalies, but otherwise state apathy equals lousy Olympics performance.
As for sports as state jingoism, it is much better than the alternative: a physically dismal culture. And all countries that win big display the pride, just in different ways. The Chinese brag officially, Ryan Lochte wears a red, white and blue grille. Potato potaahto.
Edit: for those who want an entertaining and sad example of what happens when state-backed support of sports fails, consider the bizarre story of Paan Singh Tomar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paa...
In a different country at a different time, he might have been a great track star. In India, he went from (Army sponsored) national steeplechase champion to a Jesse James style outlaw. There is an excellent Hindi movie about him.