Without doubt William Chetcuti deserves all the support that he can get from the MOC, the government and any other quarter as he certainly has the potential to win a medal for Malta in future major competitions, including the Olympics.

Now and again it is not uncommon for a star to emerge from a country, even a small one, who goes on to make sport history. Yes, I believe that Chetcuti is that star and that he has the potential to obtain Malta's first Olympic medal.

But, having all agreed with this statement, do we stop there? Does one put all eggs in one basket? The crucial questions that should arise are: Which way are we going? What is the strategy that we are to adopt for the future?

Heaving read a series of articles, I believe that some of the contributions deserve to be commented upon lest these be taken as fact.

In a commentary box on another newspaper, it was suggested that an analysis be carried out on the results of the other six athletes in whom a "hefty amount of money was invested".

The author was definitely out of his depth here. As president of the MAAA, I do not know what funds were invested in the other athletes (nor do I consider myself qualified to take over the mantle of the other associations to defend their athletes) but I do know that the amounts invested on athletics were anything but "hefty".

The athlete who showed more promise a year ago and on whom the MOC had invested most did not make the grade and Darren Gilford was selected only a few months before the Olympics. But that is a natural thing to happen in most sports particularly athletics.

Regarding funding, the president of the MOC himself clearly explained, during the press conference given after the contingent's return from Athens, that neither the associations that participated in the GSSE nor the MOC itself had any funds left to assist the athletes in their preparation for the Olympics.

Pierre Cassar started his article "What went wrong in Athens" this month by producing a table (assuming that it was correct) showing the number of athletes representing GSSE countries who participated in the Olympics. He goes on to admit that none of them won any medals. What he does not mention is what these countries invested in the preparation of their athletes.

Malta was represented by seven athletes and when one compares the population of these other countries I do not think that we were out of proportion at all.

Cassar concluded his article by suggesting that we "invest in those who have the true potential to make inroads where it really matters". Are we investing in other athletes? What do we mean by investing in an athlete? How much (Lm?) are we prepared to invest to achieve the medal standard?

I contend that all or most of our associations, all manned by voluntary workers, are doing a great job, if not an impossible one.

I understand that the role of the associations is to raise the standard of the sport and they are doing just that. This was amply manifested by the results obtained in the 2003 GSSE and the one before that.

High expectations

When it comes to the Olympic Games, this is a totally different matter.

But, considering our limitations, the size of our country and population why should we raise our expectations to levels that are higher than those of countries with populations of millions of inhabitants and who budget millions of Liri in facilities, equipment and preparations?

What is really going wrong? Our preparation or our expectations?

I concur very much with what the president of the MOC said when he stated quite clearly that "we need to climb the stairs one at a time".

We did well in the GSSE last year, he said. We now need to focus on the next steps which are the Mediterranean Games and then the Commonwealth Games.

Where I do differ is that after the Commonwealth Games he sets his sights immediately on the Olympics.

That still leaves us with a great gap here. He excluded the 'European Games' and the 'World Games' from his reckoning. Perhaps this is because these competitions are not organised by the International Olympic Committee, true. But we must not forget that the same athletes who run in the GSSE are those who run in all major competitions including the Olympics.

The interest of the MOC must not wane but on the contrary it must continue to be involved, to support and monitor our athletes when they participate in all the competitions that the respective associations enter them for.

Perhaps the MOC needs first to decide its main objective. Whether its role is to help raise the standard of the sport or to win medals and honour in the Olympics.

In my humble opinion one needs to decide on one strategy since, it seems, our present resources are unlikely to aspire for both.

If it were to decide on concentrating all our resources on say four or five athletes and forget the rest then it cannot continue to claim that it is helping raise the standard of the sport - any sport!

When any of the selected athletes decide to hang up their shoes, racket or their shotguns (or - god forbid - simply sell their passport to another country) then we would need to start afresh, won't we?

Finally, I cannot agree with a sweeping statement in one commentary that "it is useless to participate against world class opponents".

If we were to accept this most of the associations might just as well close down.

If all the participating countries had to adopt that dictum, the Olympic Games would be depleted down to one third of its present splendour and glory. The Olympic Games must remain the athletes' ultimate dream, the scope and the hope of millions - to some day represent their country at the highest forum of sporting competition.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.