In December Australia’s East coast was swathed in a blanket of smoke, from the devastating bushfires that swept the country.
This smoke suddenly put many sporting events and individual fixtures in jeopardy. In December, Sydney’s air quality soared as high as 12 times what is regarded as a hazardous level.
A W-League fixture went ahead between Sydney FC and Melbourne Victory, and fans were advised that the Football Federation of Australia were monitoring the Air Quality Index (AQI).
After the match USA International Sofia Huerta playing for Sydney FC told the Guardian Australia “I really noticed it in my throat; it gets super, super dry. But there’s not really anything we can do about it, so I try not to think about it too much. I definitely notice it, it’s not even a question.”
She was then quoted as saying, “We’ve talked about how it’s probably not very good for us, but no one has really said anything to us about it. I don’t know if we’re not supposed to practise. In the US this happened, and in some states we didn’t play; games were potentially going to be cancelled and so were practices. So I’m a little shocked that nothing has been brought to our attention or there’s no conversation about it because there’s a huge difference when there are no fires compared to when there is.”
As the fires continued into January it was the turn of the Tennis players to start to suffer. Tennis Australia postponed play and practice at tournaments being held in the Victorian towns of Bendigo and Traralgon due to the smokey haze hovering over the venues.
The South African Kevin Anderson, who was a drawcard as a Wimbledon and US Open finalist, decided not to play in the Kooyong Classic because of the smoke. While Slovakian Jana Cepelova retired mid-match at Melbourne Park. The reason given was the heat and humidity, but many believed the air quality was a contributing factor.
At The Australian Open the organisers halted play for three hours due to the air quality on the first Wednesday of competition. The starting time was pushed back to 1pm but it was said that the air quality at that time was similar or only slightly better than when matches had been played the day before. Clearly this was a case of the show must go on.
Suddenly sporting bodies across the country were putting out statements on their policy towards Air Pollution, Many others were going a step further by cancelling events completely. This was an unprecedented situation in Australia, and medical experts were dominating the sports pages.
It has long been a known fact that for Athletes to perform in polluted air, it is not only uncomfortable, it can be dangerous and even fatal. Those who are most at risk are those who suffer from asthma and other lung or respiratory diseases. Some athletes may be unaware of any problem, but the pollution could bring it on. The air is also dangerous to spectators, especially the young and the elderly.
Australia takes great pride in its sport, its athletes and its sporting teams, so it came as no surprise that the Australian Institute of Sport stepped in and the Chief Medical Officer Dr David Hughes asked all sports to be vigilant. They also published guidelines available to all, Smoke Pollution and Exercise.
Dr Hughes also explained in that statement that “The impact of bushfire smoke can vary significantly based on an individual’s current health and previous medical conditions as well as the current air pollution levels, so we understand that it is not a one size fits all approach but hopefully this will be a helpful resource for sports and individuals.”
The AIS stated that for healthy individuals, “if the AQI reading is above 150, outdoor training should be rescheduled indoors and exposure minimised as much as possible. Asthmatics should not compete or train outdoors if the AQI is between 100 and 149.”
There are a number of apps that will advise you of the AQI where you are located one good site is Breathlife2030.org where you can see in real time the Air Pollution in cities across the globe.
Just two days ago it was revealed that “Globally, seven million people are estimated to die each year from breathing in toxic air particles – 650,000 of them children.” This data from the World Health Organisation showed that “more than 90 per cent of the world’s population are forced to breathe polluted air.”
So is the Air Quality Index relevant? Is it relevant when it comes to sport and the majority of us being entertained?
Sport loves an athlete who overcomes adversity to be victorious. One such athlete who is remembered for a truly gutsy performance in difficult circumstances was Dean Jones, the Australian cricketer in a 1986 Test match in Chennai.
This match is remembered as one of only two tied Tests but also because of a double century made by an ailing Jones. Jones was making a comeback after a two year absence so wanted to perform well. He began feeling nauseous through dehydration soon after scoring a century in a match played in near 40 degree heat. After that he began vomiting on the side of the pitch. Jones famously said that he wanted to retire hurt, but skipper Allan Border was having none of it.
Jones ended up losing seven kilograms and in hospital on a saline drip. The heat was a big issue, so too according to the players that played the air and the smell in the air. The stench coming from a canal that snaked around the ground.
Subsequently former Australian Captain Steve Waugh told the ABC “I don’t think they would play today in those conditions, I’d say they would claim it was harmful to your health.”
So where does that leave sporting bodies and athletes today? If they are going to pick and choose where they play, many cities and countries will be deprived top level sport. The Beijing Olympic Games may never have taken place. Certainly the rowing at the Olympic Games in 1920 would not have. This was contested on a canal in Antwerp where raw industrial effluent flowed under their sculls!
Today many individual athletes participation in major tournaments is linked to an appearance fee. If they were to pull out would they be open to litigation?
What about a team sport where the governing body has committed to a tournament and the AQI is higher than that recommended by the AIS or a similar national body? Do the individual athletes have the right to put their own health first and withdraw? Who is ultimately responsible?
Having consulted a lawyer Not The Footy Show was advised that ultimately the responsibility falls with whoever has sanctioned the event. This could be an International sporting body or a national sporting body. They have a duty of care to all participating athletes, even though this could well be, as in the Bushfire situation, circumstances beyond their control.
No doubt they want the event to go ahead as they have sold tickets, they also have television commitments and contracts with those broadcasters. Would they be in breach of contract if they made the decision to not play due to the Air Quality and in order to protect the athletes?
The lawyer said that it would be very hard for the television station to pursue this line, as the law is there to protect people. They believed that in most cases the ruling would be that the organisers were acting in the best interests of the athlete and the sport in the long term. They also felt it would not reflect well on the broadcaster.
Certainly the Bushfires raised a whole new question when it came to athlete safety in relation to air quality. This was a whole new situation for Australia which is very fortunate that its air quality is usually very low when it comes to the ratings. However it did raise the issue in relation to Australian teams and athletes competing overseas.
Now that this issue has raised its head well and truly above the parapet, are we going to see established athletes more discerning? Are we going to see in years to come athletes suffering ill effects possibly related to that exposure looking to sue Governing bodies for exposing them to such pollution, or will it be deemed that no one forced them to play? Will Sporting bodies now be more cautious before agreeing to compete at certain tournaments, or play in certain cities?
Should the World Health Organisation produce a list of countries or cities that are suitable to host International sporting events, and those that are not? If left to each individual sport this will never happen. If left to the International Olympic Committee it will never happen, as these organisations are driven by the mighty dollar and the money Governments will pay to host key events.
So who will make the first move? Will anyone? Or will it simply be business as usual until the next out of the ordinary event causes a disruption? After all sport is, we are now told, a business.
.
