What Bryant Gumbel said this past week: 'Try not to laugh when someone says these are the world's greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the Winter Games look like a GOP convention.'
What Dave Chappelle probably said in response: 'Gumbel said that? Well, he's right; I just would have preferred to hear it from a black man.'
But Gumbel has'along with an impressive vocabulary'a point. Regardless of whether this scarcity is a result of indifference on the part of popular black culture'that is to say, no significant value placed on achievement in the Winter games'or another example of systematic exclusion, it seemed clear to me that one athlete in particular might be the exception to Gumbel's message.
But Shani Davis hasn't said a word.
Appropriately, in the midst of Black History Month, Davis became the first black man ever to win an individual gold medal in the Winter Olympics when he won the 1,000 meter men's speed-skating final.
On top of it all, his (white) teammate, Chad Hedrick, called him selfish for turning down the chance to race in a relay for the United States after Davis explained that he didn't want to tire himself out for his upcoming individual event.
It turns out Davis just may have needed the rest; he won his gold by only a quarter of a second. It is also important to note that Hedrick was chasing a personal goal of his own'five speed-skating gold medals, which would tie the Olympic record'and he needed to win the relay in order to achieve it (Hedrick believes that Davis' participation would have put the United States in the winner's circle).
This raised the question of whether an Olympic athlete should put a team goal ahead of a personal one. Hedrick said the team comes first. The only problem with Hedrick's assertion is that his specialty, the 5,000 meter, occurred before the relay, so he was never faced with the conflict of interest that he upbraided Shani for handling poorly.
Shani responded with a real stumper: 'Would Chad have done the team pursuit if it was the day before the 5,000? We'll never know.'
As you can see, Shani won that round.
I first found out about the spat Saturday night when I witnessed the most excruciating post-event interview in Olympic history. Davis, who was being interviewed by Michelle Stark, looked like he had just been told that his wife and kids had been kidnapped and he had an hour to deliver the money. In reality, four years, rather, a lifetime of training had just paid off in Olympic gold.
I couldn't find a transcript of the interview, but I remember that Stark was extremely polite (and appeared to be genuinely happy for him) until Davis' series of terse, one-word responses made her so uncomfortable and confused that she stammered, 'Are... are you mad, Shani'? To which he seemed to reply somewhat sarcastically, 'No, I'm happy. I'm just at a loss for words.'
Don't quote me on that, but I can assure you it was an absolute train wreck. It was painful to watch, but you couldn't look away. I don't even think I blinked. I was at a loss for words, just like Shani.
But here's the interesting part: I liked what I saw.
As people everywhere watched the interview and interpreted his demeanor as abrasive; I saw it as defiant and proud. At least that's what I wanted to see. I wanted to witness the birth of yet another misunderstood trailblazer in the world of sports'a guy with a me-against-the-world attitude and a chip on his shoulder'who became great primarily because nobody thought he could be.
I had my fingers crossed for the next Jim Brown. The next Muhammad Ali. The next try-and-stop-me superstar who would rather make a statement than make a friend.
But then I guess it's safe to say that I didn't want what was best for Shani. Quite simply, he's a mild-mannered, thoughtful athlete who would rather ignore (or transcend) race but will invariably field questions about it. Shani is a bit more Tiger Woods than he is John Carlos or Tommie Smith (the two men who raised their fists for Black Power in Mexico City in 1968 on the medal stand).
Davis' teammate, Hedrick, gave him every reason to be angry, but we later discovered the interview with Stark was just an aberration. Shani's ensuing press conferences were calm and understanding. He only praised Hedrick and said he has no ill will toward his teammate. What we saw with Stark was just momentary frustration, not the beginning of a persona that Shani would embrace on his way to cultural significance and greatness.
But do I have a right to be disappointed? Of course not. Unlike Chad, I know we can't flip the script. I understand that Shani is going to take adversity (possibly veiled racism) in stride. I understand that he'd rather be likable and forgettable than arrogant and infamous. I understand that he doesn't want to undertake the burden of representing a race''Regardless of color ... I want to be the best I can be''because he can make an impact in a profoundly understated way.
So I can't blame Shani. After all, if I accomplished something'and was the first to do it'would I cement its significance by being outspoken even if I knew there was nothing in it for me? It's like Shani said, we'll (probably) never know.
