Why the IOC was RIGHT to refuse a moment's silence for athletes

Jacques Rogge, IOC President has taken a lot of flack for refusing requests from the widows of the Israeli athletes murdered 40 years ago at Munich for a moment's silence in their husbands memory, at the start of the 2012 Olympics but I for one think he was RIGHT to refuse( if athletes wish to honour them privately then that is their prerogative). Firstly, a decision to do so would be seen inevitably by the large and influential Arab/Muslim bloc as a "political" gesture despite denials to the contrary, and bear in mind Rogge must work with ALL the countries belonging to the IOC, and cannot afford to jeopardize relations for the sake of just one country. Secondly, given the politicalized nature of previous Olympic Games(Berlin, Moscow, Mexico City with the "Black Power salutes" made by African American athletes, the boycott of Moscow in 1980 and the counter boycott by the Soviets of the LA Olympics in 1984, plus of course the long standing exclusion of apartheid era South Africa), surely the LAST thing the Olympics needs is yet more political controversy, esp as it would have given carte blanche for every other country to inject politics into sport- SURELY the last thing the Games needs or wants. This may be genuinely hard for the widows of the murdered Israeli athletes but sometimes we have little choice but to "deal with the world as it is and NOT as we would like it to be ideally!" to quote the late US President John F.Kennedy.

Anybody else think as I do?

Posted by cyberninja

My answer to world religions, wars, and politics is ............ 

Posted by InnerVenom123

@cyberninja said:

My answer to world religions, wars, and politics is ............