The Sledge: Ian Thorpe is Not a Role Model (and other matters)

Given the history of this website’s ongoing criticism of Ian Thorpe*, you’d think we’d be happy at the abject failure of his bid to return to the London Olympics. You think that we’d be pleased that he doubled his humiliation by getting special treatment (extra money, rules being bent) in the process of his failure. But no, we are not about kicking a man while he is down. No matter how slow, fat and self-indulgent that man may be.

Contrary to expectations, the emotion that abounds at the Making the Nut Offices today is not happiness, but rather a slow-burning anger: anger that this nonsense was allowed to go on for so long; and anger that this fraud was allowed to take a bite out of the Australian taxpayer and insult all those young Olympic hopefuls in the process. This whole debacle has set a horrible precedent for prima donnas past their prime.

For Ian Thorpe to be given 150k to support his training while the other swimmers in the team receive a paltry 10k is outrageous. He (Thorpe, the millionaire) required this massive tax-payer subsidy because he apparently had to train in Switzerland. I guess he wanted to practice saying ‘surrender’ in a French speaking country. I just don’t understand how he can’t be expected to train in Australia, with the Australian team, to compete for Australia in the Olympics.

But let us cast our minds back to where this comeback started. Ian Thorpe is, you will recall, the only sportsperson in Australian sporting history who had their career comeback launched by a sponsor. Remember that god-awful Virgin airlines press conference? The CEO of Virgin Blue, John Borhetti, saying Thorpe was "the man that will win many, many gold medals for Qantas” (meaning to say Virgin, of course).

So it is understandable that some commentators over the past few weeks have argued that Ian Thorpe did it for the money. I’m not sure. I can’t read the man’s mind. All I can say is this: when you get a sponsor to announce your comeback, it certainly looks like you are doing it for the money.

It don’t think it sets a good example for young athletes to have Richard ‘golden mullet’ Branson obtaining such a special place in the Thorpedo comeback. I’m pretty sure Branson wasn’t there when Ian Thorpe was 14 years old, getting up at 4am every morning to go to training. I tell you who was there though – the Australian taxpayer, in spirit, with funding through the AIS. Presumably Thorpie’s family and was there, providing moral and financial support. So it would have nice to have his comeback press conference centered on these things, not the dickheads from Virgin.

But this is all in the past. Much like Thorpe’s credibility, swimming career and designer underwear line.

While I’m angry at this mess, I’m trying not to direct it at Swimming Australia. While they did not handle this perfectly, in the end they were trying to draw publicity to their sport and attract sponsors. This, to some extent, is understandable. I’ll only start to blame Swimming Australia if, with Thorpe out of the way, they fail to promote the young and up-and-coming champion swimmers, like backstroker Emily Seebohm, trying to win gold for Australia at her first Olympics. Or indefatigable veterans like Leisel Jones, who, with a heart like Phar Lap, will be swimming in her 4^th Olympic Games in London.  

Stop saying Ian Thorpe is a role model. Role models don’t separate themselves from their team mates and demand better terms and conditions. Role models – who have made millions by representing Australia – don’t announce their comeback under the flag of their British sponsor. They do it under the Australian flag. Role models don’t get special treatment. Role models don’t quit.

Margaret Whitlam is a Role Model

To paraphrase Mick ‘Crocodile’ Dundee: “That’s not a national treasure” (cue picture of Clive Palmer); “this is a national treasure” (cue picture of Margaret Whitlam). If anything makes a mockery of the elevation of the odious conspiracy theorist Clive Palmer to status of ‘national treasure’, it is the fact that it would put him in even the same ball-park as Margaret Whitlam.

Margaret threw herself into working for the Australian community. She was a strong, lifelong advocate for woman’s rights, social issues and the arts. Quick witted and down-to-earth, she refused to take on the role of quiescent ‘first lady’ and became outspoken advocate of social justice and in so doing, became a true role model for women in this country. Vale Margaret.

I’ll finish with a reader’s comment I saw under an obituary to Margaret in one of the national newspapers: “…for us she was the Light on the Hill”.
 

Feuding Billionaires Gives me Great Joy

It was with much joy that I watched Gina Rinehart and her brood publicly knifing each other these last couple of weeks. The tawdry inner workings of the Rinehart family were laid bare for all Australia to see. It was an edifying and quite entertaining insight into the nature of the wealthiest family in the country.

Briefly, the dispute revolves around the ‘Hope Margaret Hancock Trust’, set up by Lang Hancock in 1988. The Trust owns a quarter of the shares in Mrs Rinehart's primary company Hancock Prospecting, and as such is estimated to be worth between 2.4 and 4 billion. The children were entitled to bust open this giant piñata of dollars when the youngest daughter – Ginia – turned 25 on September 6, 2011.

Got all that? Well, here is where it gets fantastic. Three days before the kids where going to get their hands on the Benjamins, Mrs Rinehart had secretly extended the date at which they were to receive their share of the trust to 2068 – effectively denying them a share for 57 years. Gina will be 112 by then. You’d think she’d be a bit old to enjoy all those billions at 112, but maybe she thinks all her money will buy her immortality. Maybe Gina will pay to have her head placed in a glass jar and nurtured by some sort of advanced life support system, like in Futurama.

Three of Gina’s four children responded to this act of extending the vestment date of the trust by (I think this is the legal term) ‘going apeshit’. The brouhaha that followed has tapped an apparent well of greed and loathing that makes Imelda Marcos look dignified. The kids are now seeking to remove their mother as trustee, alleging she had engaged in "serious misconduct". They have also said that Rinehart "breached her duty to act honesty and in good faith; acted with gross indecency in her dealings with the beneficiaries of the Trust and acted deceitfully in her dealings with the beneficiaries of the Trust”. Snap. The kids aren’t happy.

But look, in all fairness to the Rinehart children, they were two days from being billionaires. Any of us would be pretty pissed if mum “acted with gross indecency” and blew the wheels off the gravy train.To add insult to injury, the one daughter who didn’t rebel against mummy, Ginia, said it was a "destructive display of greed, jealousy and a selfish sense of entitlement on behalf of my siblings", and that they “were not fit and proper persons to be trustees”.

‘Greed’ hey? This from the woman who received a received a 1.2 million Rolls Royce for her 25^th birthday. Which is sort of like Paris Hilton criticizing Kim Kardashian for being a skank.

Her brother John rather pointedly replied, “I'd love to have inherited projects and royalties to work with – instead I've got to rely on the skills I possess in economics and business management. I won't be able to replicate my youngest sister Ginia in 'earning' the achievement of a Rolls Royce at 25” and then went on to point out he made his money by actually working for it.

In a further delightful twist, Australia’s village idiot Barnaby Joyce rushed obsequiously to the rescue, pleading with the children not to fight their mother on this, telling them that "lawyers get people to say nasty things" and "before it really gets out of hand, I would try to get it back in house and out of public view”. He later explained this weird intervention by saying that he was just trying to smooth things over with the family. That he just wanted to spare their reputation from a public spat. That’s awfully civic-minded of Barnaby, getting involved in the private family business of the Rinehart’s, just, you know, because family fights can be such messy business. Which reminds me, Barnaby, my sister borrowed my lawnmower and won’t give it back: want to send her a quick email for me?

Anyway, this has only just begun. Recall that Gina fought Rose Porteous in the courts for 11 years. And less money was at stake there.

Get your popcorn.

 

 

*I know what you’re thinking – another Thorpe article. This is the last article on Ian Thorpe, I promise (unless he tries to compete at the Rio Olympics, and then all bets are off).