After a week of naming and shaming, is it fair to expect or demand that India host a Western style games? By stretching and reaching, India will most likely pull it off. Many countries couldn’t. Does this mean they shouldn’t host the games at some point? According to India’s critics, it does. The toilets aren’t up to scratch. Athletes can’t sleep in anything other than 5 star accommodation.
What is the point of holding international games, whether Commonwealth, Olympic or otherwise, in a country, if the athletes and visitors require the same conditions they have at home. They’d be better off competing or watching from a purpose-built arena with video from the host nation.
However, what if the games were truly international? Rather than countries like India spending obscene amounts of money, which won’t benefit the populace once the games are over, why not have home-grown games?
Each games could show the culture and lifestyle of the host nation, and not attempt to emulate a Las Vegas resort.
It’s not about records, it’s about participation. Eric the Eel proved this during the Sydney Olympics when he swam home last in his race. Other than Cathy Freeman’s awesome win, Eric the Eel’s race remains in the hearts of most Australians as the most courageous effort of the 2000 Games.
Would it be so bad if runners ran on sand, in the Pacific Islands, if swimmers swam in the surf, instead of a 50 metre pool? Would the ratings suffer? To the contrary, this really would be reality television.
gigdiary 
Oh, but then their poor, pampered little selves might actually have to experience a version of the ‘real world’ before their careers are up – and that just wouldn’t do.
If even half the money that gets spent on looking after athletes in 5 star luxury, got spent on schools and hospitals, the world would be a better informed, healthier place.