Shunned for competing, Moscow 1980 Olympians welcomed home at last
The world was deep in the Cold War when the Soviet Union, due to host the Olympics in some seven months, invaded Afghanistan. US president Jimmy Carter announced America would boycott the Games, sending shockwaves around the world and prompting other nations to follow suit. In all, more than 45 countries withdrew in protest.
Then Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser called on the Australian Olympic Federation to join the boycott, despite continuing to trade with Soviet government. Although the AOF (now the Australian Olympic Committee) voted 6-5 to reject such a move, the Fraser government pressed on with a campaign that pressured athletes to make the decision themselves, offering individuals $6000 payments to stay home.
'How many lives is a medal worth?' Fraser asked at the time. 'How many people have to be killed by Soviet armies before we will have total unity in this country on whether or not to compete in Moscow?'
Some did stay home, finding the pressure all too much, while the entire hockey and equestrian teams withdrew. The 121 athletes remaining from the original team of 273 were effectively smuggled out of the country. 'We were like thieves trying to get away, not [even] allowed to tell our parents,' says Ford. 'We became political pawns in this game, and I think that weighed heavily because we didn't know what the game was.'
Ron McKeon, the swimmer and father of Australia's most decorated Olympian Emma McKeon, was 19 and contesting his first Olympics. 'A lot of us were kids, and trying to fathom and navigate our way through that was certainly difficult,' he recalls. 'People started to take sides politically. There were protests … it was confusing. But I think back and it was like, well, it would be un-Australian not to fight to go.'
Emma says her dad's Olympic experience was 'extremely different' from her own, and that she and siblings David and Kaitlin never heard the in-depth story about what happened – a deliberate move by Ron to keep his children's view of the Olympic movement positive.
'[I'm] very proud,' Emma said. 'We've always been inspired by the fact that he went to the Olympics and we wanted to do the same thing. It's something that's so special.'
The Australians returned home from Moscow with nine medals and Max Metzker, the team's flagbearer, likened the experience of being ostracised to that of returning Vietnam veterans.
Loading
Ford joined fellow athletes Metzker and Peter Hadfield in lobbying for Wednesday's recognition in Canberra, which was attended by 50 Moscow Olympians, their families, team officials and coaches. For some, the past remained too painful even to go.
'The returning athletes were met at a nearby cold silence or cruel comments,' Albanese acknowledged. 'Today we fix that. Today, on the 45th anniversary, we recognise all that you have achieved and acknowledge all that you have overcome.
'Take pride in both. You are Olympians. You are Australians and you have earned your place in the history of the game and our nation. Welcome to parliament and welcome home.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
7NEWS
an hour ago
- 7NEWS
Olympic hero Cam McEvoy pays heartfelt tribute to wife Maddi and newborn son after winning historic world title
Cam McEvoy has carved more slices of swimming history with a powerhouse victory in the men's 50m freestyle at the world titles. McEvoy, 31, triumphed on Saturday night in Singapore to become Australia's oldest gold medallist at a swimming world championships. His feat overshadowed fellow Australian Kaylee McKeown completing her golden backstroke double with a victory over 200m. Exactly 12 months after both won Olympic gold in the events, the repeat was particularly compelling for McEvoy, the first Australian man to twice win 50m freestyle world titles. Following his 2023 victory in Japan and silver last year in Qatar, McEvoy clocked 21.14 seconds in Singapore to prevail ahead of Great Britain's Ben Proud (21.26) and American Jack Alexy (21.46). McEvoy became a father for the first time three weeks ago when his wife Maddi gave birth to a son, Hartley. 'It has given me a new light on the sport, on life, something new to navigate,' McEvoy said. 'And I'll see where it takes me in the future. 'It's unreal. It's been a pretty hectic preparation, I'm just glad that I got my hand on the wall first in a great time.' McEvoy almost quit the sport in 2022 but after much soul-searching he continued, vowing to do things his way and creating his own revolutionary training regime. Now he doesn't know when he'll swim again. 'But I'm not stopping,' McEvoy said. 'Imagine telling myself in 2022 this is where I'd be — you couldn't write a script like that. 'The dream lives on, right? My story just goes for a while.' McEvoy paid tribute to his wife, who watched the final with their son wearing a 'go Dad' T-shirt. 'Shoutout to Maddi at home, I couldn't be here without her; shoutout to Hartley, my three-week-old son,' he said. 'I'm going straight to the newborn trenches. 'I'll start to do the night routines, help Maddi, and just enjoy the bubble, really. 'It sounds cliche, but win or lose, I'm going home a winner. 'It has given me a new light on the sport, on life, something new to navigate. 'And I'll see where it takes me in the future.'
Sky News AU
3 hours ago
- Sky News AU
'It's Covid all over again': Labor bending at the knee to eSafety Commissioner's advice on YouTube ban while turning blind eye to our freedom, education
There is nothing in politics more ominous than a government that wants to be seen to be 'doing something'. A government that feels something must be done on a controversial topic is likely to act so boldly and so quickly that they don't have time to consider the consequences, and those who suffer are left to pick up the pieces. The popular thing to do these days is find an expert on an issue and outsource all responsibility on policy to them. Trusting an expert sounds nice - they know a lot and often have a reassuring 'Dr' at the start of their name. It's never the case that this expert is democratically elected or answerable to the people that their decisions affect. They are there for the government to hide behind - don't look at us, we had to do whatever the expert told us to. This was all the rage during Covid. Various state governments' preferred experts would recommend all sorts of bizarre restrictions - shutting South Australia down over a pizza box, for instance - but the government could tell their voters they were taking the issue seriously, because they were listening to the experts. I thought after Australians were told not to touch a football if it came into the stands of the Adelaide Oval that Australians were done stomaching the idea that we should listen solely to the experts. But Labor's talking points over the social media ban - especially its backflip on an exemption for YouTube - is a test for my theory. Social media use in teenagers is an area the government really wants to be seen as 'doing something'. It's a hot topic and for good reason. Mental health in teenagers, particularly among girls, has nosedived since smartphones and social media became widespread. Parents feel helpless. They know that social media will hurt their child, but also know depriving them of social media when all of their friends have them harms them as well. The government has jumped on this and come up with their social media ban. They also found their expert and outsourced responsibility to her. Enter the eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant. The level of deferral from the government to this public servant is galling. In Question Time on Wednesday, Minister Anika Wells referenced the commissioner four times in her one answer about the social media ban - including saying she 'was required by the law to seek advice from the eSafety Commissioner on the draft rules, and the eSafety Commissioner's advice was clear'. That's all well and good - but the Australian people did not elect the eSafety commissioner. They elected Anika Wells, and they elected her to do far more than ask Julie Inman Grant what to do then listen politely. The eSafety Commssioner's duty according to the government is to ensure Australians 'have safer, more positive online experiences.' But that is just one piece of the puzzle when it comes to forming policy about the online world. Safety must be balanced with freedom, educational possibilities, economic concerns and a whole raft of other factors. We'd all be free of harm from social media if we never went on the internet again - but we'd also lose all of the wonderful benefits it gives us too. It's Covid all over again. Then governments outsourced responsibility to Chief Health Officers whose primary concern was safety and stopping the spread of the virus - because that was their area of expertise. Other concerns like students' education, mental wellbeing, individual freedom and the economy - issues that should have been considered with the same seriousness as the virus itself - were swept aside in the narrow view of stopping the spread. And now other factors are being swept aside in the narrow view the government and the eSafety Commissioner are taking when it comes to social media, and particularly YouTube. The government this week reversed its commitment to exempt YouTube from their social media ban for people under the age of 16. The problem with that is that YouTube does not behave in the same way as Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook or the other social media networking sites. Those latter sites rely on users sharing information with each other, such as photos and updates. Teenagers spend hours cultivating their profiles to make their lives look idyllic, and spend further hours seeing the photos and lifestyles of people they know look even more idyllic - a vicious cycle that harms mental health. YouTube does not act like that. There is not as much person-to-person sharing as there are in the other social media networks. People watch videos and move on to other videos. In fact a survey released by the eSafety Commission itself found that YouTube is one of the safest social media websites for teenagers in terms of the risk of grooming, sexual harassment and bullying. Teenagers are more likely to be targeted over text message than over YouTube. The 'safety' concerns around YouTube are less about bullying and comparative lifestyles and more about what content is popular on YouTube, such as conservative opinions. Julie Inman Grant told the National Press Club this year that she was concerned YouTube's 'opaque algorithms' were 'driving users down rabbit holes they're powerless to fight against'. That's a whole different reason for enforcing safety and completely removed from the original conversation around protecting children online. But it's not unexpected considering the eSafety Commissioner's remit is to ensure online safety. It's up to the government to balance the desire for safety with other effects a ban on YouTube would have - especially education. Oxford Economics this year found that 72 per cent of parents agree that YouTube helps their children learn and 79 per cent of parents agree YouTube provides quality content for their children's learning. In an interview on Sky News this week, YouTube personality Leo Pugilsi said his teachers upload videos of themselves explaining what was discussed in school to help children out with homework. This is what the government is impacting when it listens solely to the eSafety Commissioner. An unforgivable sin from Covid was our governments letting experts tell them the education of children was a secondary concern. By listening solely to the eSafety Commissioner and ignoring the educational benefits of YouTube, Labor is making the same mistake again - all in the name of "doing something". James Bolt is a Sky News Australia contributor.
Herald Sun
3 hours ago
- Herald Sun
Victoria's racial vilification laws under fire as anti-Semitism soars
Victoria's Office of Public Prosecutions has not approved a single charge under the state's racial vilification laws amid soaring multicultural tensions and the worst spike in anti-Semitism Victoria has ever seen. The state's legal defence against bigots who racially or religiously vilify an individual or group has been labelled a 'catastrophic failure' after attempts by police to charge potential offenders were thwarted by the state's Director of Public Prosecutions. The Herald Sun can reveal the DPP has rejected potential charges proposed by Victoria Police under the laws over six incidents since Hamas' barbaric October 7 massacre in Israel – followed by Israel's deadly bombardment of Gaza – sparked a cultural and religious firestorm. The charges are understood to be related to the Jewish community and other multicultural communities. The Office of Public Prosecutions said another five requests for criminal charges were still being investigated. It comes as racial and religious tensions reach boiling point once again. Among the cases still being considered is a shocking neo-Nazi protest which occurred on the steps of parliament on December 20 last year – seven months ago. The black-clad white nationalists who chanted 'the Jews must go' and held up a sign reading 'Jews hate freedom' are yet to face charges. Victoria Police confirmed that they had referred charges under the act to the OPP. The group responsible, the Nationalist Socialist Network, has since gone on to stage multiple offensive protests, including one at Northland in which they promoted a racial slur towards African-Australians. Jewish community advocate Menachem Vorchheimer said the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act – which has been in place for more than two decades – was 'inoperable'. 'This is a catastrophic failure,' he said. Under the rarely used legislation, police are forced to seek approval from the DPP in order to press charges against a someone they believe has incited or encouraged hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule against an individual or group because of their race and/or religion. Following a last minute deal with the Greens, under the state's new anti-vilification or hate speech laws — which comes into play next month — police will also have to seek approval from the DPP in order to lay charges. The extra hurdle for police has raised concerns that the upcoming laws, regularly spruiked by the state government as the answer to the anti-Semitism crisis and rising extremism, has raised fears relevant charges may take months or be blocked altogether. Jewish Community Council of Victoria chief executive Naomi Levin said failing to lay charges meant potential offenders were given the green light to continue their offensive behaviour. 'An important aspect of the justice system is deterrence, but when no arrests are made for months and months that deterrence is eroded and individuals act with impunity,' she said. 'No one wants to see racist radicals roaming the streets and terrorising local communities.' Victoria Police's Operation Park, launched in response to increasing acts of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, has led to 149 arrests, with some dealt prison sentences. A police spokesman said the force regularly seeks advice from the Office of Public Prosecutions in relation to potential charges under the Act. He said a number of active matters, understood to be for lower level offences, were before the courts. A spokesman for the Director of Public Prosecutions said evidence from police, including all relevant statements, footage, interviews and other evidence obtained, can take several months to collate and hand to the OPP. 'Once the evidence has been collated and provided to the OPP, a careful assessment of the prospects of conviction for the RRTA charge can be undertaken,' she said. Opposition police spokesman David Southwick said police being blocked from taken swift action was a 'fundamental failure of Labor's so-called hate crime laws'. 'At a time when anti‑Semitic and racial hate has surged, police are doing their job with one arm tied behind their back,' he said. A Victorian Government spokesperson said charges were a matter for Victoria Police and the OPP. She said the new anti vilification laws included tougher penalties, including up to five years imprisonment, which would act as a deterrent. 'This hateful, extremist behaviour and the cowards who push it have no place here in Victoria,' she said.
