23/07/2012 Newsnight Scotland

builds in spite of questions about security and commercialism, what --

we wonder what cintheens like Eric Liddell would make of what sport

he's done. We -- are elite athletes and their sponsors too privileged

to make good role models? A Scottish millionaire will lead the

British team in the Olympic opening ceremony, and many of his team

colleagues will be richer still, as a result of sporting success. As

sponsors jealously protect their billion-pound investments in the

Games, are we losing touch with the idea that sport is still about

enjoyment by the participants, for the entertainment of crowds? I've

been following the story of Eric Lidell, whose heroism transcended

the amateur running track and lead ultimately to his early death. But

what would a character like Liddell make of top-level sport in the 21st

Century? The torch relay had yet to be invented when Eric Liddell raced

in the Olympics. He won gold in Paris in 1924. It was a time when

athletes were still amateurs. Almost a century on, two of his

daughters think he'd struggle to recognise the modern Games. I think

a lot of these young people in sports they're under huge pressure,

absolutely massive pressure, to make the big money, to win at all

costs - for some - and how they have to practice and practice. They

practically have to give up a lot of their ordinary life just into

the sport. Do you think your father could have succeeded in that kind

of environment? I don't think he would have wanted to succeed in

that kind of environment. I think there's so much pressure on young

people these days that they must win. They've put so much effort and

time into becoming this superb athlete that they are and they can

be very easily tempted to cheat in some way in order to get to win the

gold. I just feel that my dad would be a good person for them to read

about, when they're in their career, to show that winning the gold is

not the most important thing in their life, but being true to

themselves is. That's an Olympic ideal the man who founded the

modern Games would have approved of. The important thing is life in s

not the triumph, but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have

conquered but to have fought well. I believe God made me for a purpose.

But he also made me fast. And when I run, I feel his pleasure. Liddell

famously refused to run on a Sunday, excluding himself from his best

event. He switched distance and won any way. It's a story that inspired

the movie charities of fire. think Eric was an Olympian in the

terms that De Courbetan would have understood. I imagine, I guess if I

could eavesdrop on any conversation, I would have loved to hear what he

said to Eric, assuming they met. I think Eric would be bemused. I've

always believed De Courbetan would have been delighted. I believe his

ideals have been distorted by all sorts of things. It breaks my heart.

Television will bring London 2012 to a live audience ash the world,

which obviously wasn't possible in Liddell's day. Some feel the

essential competition hasn't changed. I think he would recognise

it. I think he would see how some thrive in it. It hasn't

fundamentally changed. Do these athletes still respect officials

and the rules of the game, largely so. We have the odd thing going on,

as you're aware, in terms of the kind of the doping side of sport.

It's kind of moved a bit there. Still 99% of people do it for the

right reasons and the underlining edge os of the Games is still there.

It's athletes, not just him, the competitive people would recognise

it. You just see them. Deep down you'd say wow, I'd love to be

competing today. Heather Liddell thinks drugs, professionalism and

big sponsorship money would get her father down. I think he would be

depressed about it. I think he would, if he was here, he would be

a voice for changing that. What would he be saying? I think just

what I said really that a Gold Medal is not worth losing your soul

for. Absolutely. I'm joined now by two veteran Sports reporters, who

have covered 17 summer Olympics between them and will shortly be

setting off for London. Sandy Sutherland of the Evening News is

in Edinburgh, and Herald athletics correspondent Doug Gillon is in our

Plymouth studio. Doug, you first, would Eric Liddell be depressed by

London 2012 were he alive to witness these Games? I think he'd

be astonished. I don't think he'd break stride frankly. He memraibl

worked in the labour camp in China where he eventually died. He

refereed matches between kids. He was prepared to do that on the

Sabbath to create and to preserve peace and quiet. I don't think he'd

be too worried about it. I think the way that charities of fire

perhaps portrayed him as being stuffy and his sister being stuffy

is incorrect. I sat beside Jennie when the professional athletes in

Edinburgh decided to inaugurate a medal in his honour and when a

bookmaker started chalking odds on the board for the new year sprint,

she wondered what was going on. When I told her rather reluctantly,

she blinked for a second and said, "I refuse to be upset. Eric would

never have denied people their simple pleasures." That tells you a

lot about his sister. And how he viewed things. Certainly he did put

principle before personal ambition in terms of defending his belief in

the Sabbath not being used for sport in terms of the Olympics.

What do you think he would make of the modern Games? I was interested

in what Doug said about Liddell's attitudes. He wasn't narrow minded

and perhaps not many people know that there were scenes shot of

Liddell as Ian Charleston, the actor, training for the 1924

Olympics at Powder Hall, with the professionals. He was quite happy

to accept their help. But some of our narrow minded amateur officials

that Doug and I have known over the years might have said he should

have been disqualified for. That I think he would certainly not have

been happy about the way the corporate thing has taken over.

There's a lot of things like just little things annoying things for

spectators, like the fact they can't take in their own water and

these restrictions, which perhaps think he was focused on running and

he would certainly not have cheated himself. I think he was happy with

others to accept money and their rewards. Was there ever a time Doug

when athletes taking part genuinely believed that taking part was more

important than winning or was that just something that Liddell himself

per sued? Liddell employed a man called Tom Kirker who was a

professional coach. He wanted to win. Every athlete wants the best

out of himself that he can. I don't think it's changed at all in that

respect. And you highlight the British team being brought in by a

millionaire, Sir Chris Hoy. The millionaire Sir Chris Hoy has been

voted to do that by all the competitors on the British team,

very few of whom are millionaires and some of whose families have

sold their houses two and three times, Scottish athletes in the

team have done that or a Scottish athlete in the team has done that.

It's the tip of the iceberg, you know, there's very few people in

the Olympics who will be millionaires. The great rank and

file have sacrificed financially and in many other ways. They're

doing it mainly for the pursuit of being the best. That applies to the

Sir Chris Hoys and Usain Bolts, the Paula Radcliffe's and Jessica

Enniss who have made seven figures out of their sport. Given the

sacrifice that modern athletes have to make to be competitive at the

top level and given some of the prizes that are available, does

that make it more tempting to I think they have always cheated.

If you think of things going on at the first of the modern Olympics LA

to in 1908, a good programme earlier today on the strychnine and

brandy and a quite they took on the marathon to improve their

performance, I do not think the temptations are greater. People

want to win at first. Do you think if we had drugs testing are back in

the day, there would have been more scandal? I think there would have

been more scandal. We did not have the appreciation of doping in 1896.

The first win of the only Olympic event in the ancient Olympics, who

won the sprint, all the competitors before the race had to place their

hand on a slice of meat to swear they had not used magic. So nothing

has changed. We can talk more about money in the sport. There are

millions of pounds invested in the a London 2012 by a major sponsors,

global corporations, does that change the nature of the Olympics?

In some ways it does, but one of the good things about the games is

you have clean then use and you see athletes, I will go to basketball,

you see them playing in uniforms without sponsorship logo has. One

thing that annoys me about modern athletics, when you see the big

meetings, you cannot tell who the athletes are, because they have the

sponsors on their uniforms and they look alike. You see several loan

goes of different sponsors. I am looking forward to that form of

sport in the Olympics, which is clean. It is laid down strictly by

the Olympic Committee. What you can and cannot wear. Does that kind of

sponsorship and the intensity of it mean that the most likely legacy of

the Olympics is that youngsters will be more discerning about their

choice of hamburger or fizzy drinks brand, rather than about the sport

they want to be involved in and passionate about? You are right to

highlight that. One tacky thing I saw at the Olympics was in Atlanta,

when a certain hamburger company had the cast and it delivers its

French fries in, mocked up as the cauldron for the Olympic flame. I

have not seen anything tackier. The committee, who need the sponsorship

money that comes from the corporations, they have actually

told a certain soft drink company that they need to think about their

product and there is too much sugar in it and they are telling a

certain hamburger company there is too much fat, and if they can use

the Olympic movement to get over health man -- messages, some good

will have been achieved. What about the aspirations for London and the

Commonwealth Games in a couple of years to have a lasting legacy in

terms of a positive impact on health and commitment to sport in

the next generation, will that be achieved? I am not sure. The

Commonwealth Games are not the same. The 1896 games are an example of

how we in Scotland suffered because of the rush to embrace

commercialism. Margaret Thatcher -- 1996. Margaret Thatcher did not

want us to have any assistance. That was the only Commonwealth

Games without major assistance from government, national and regional.

My fear is we will go through the same route with tickets, which has

been a shambles, and ordinary people who want to attend the

Friendly Games will not be able to get the tickets and it will no

longer be the friendly games. We do not have the vast pulling power of

the Olympics. It is disappointing that attempts to get children to

take up sport have been not terribly well achieved. Three, five

years ago, we suggest is there should be a drive to create

foundation levels coaches in a wide range of Commonwealth Games and

Olympic Sports so that we would benefit from an influx of children

inspired by the Olympics and Commonwealth Games. I do not

believe this number of foundation level coaches have been educated

and consequently, when children go to sports clubs after the Olympics

and Commonwealth Games, there will not be enough coaches around to

welcome these children and inspire them for the feature. That part of

the legacy, I think, is at risk. Certainly for the Olympics, but

maybe not too late to do something about it for the Commonwealth Games.

Thank you both very much indeed. Thank you both very much indeed.

The front pages. A lot of Olympic coverage. Sir Chris Hoy says that

his dream has come true as he is his dream has come true as he is