Sir Russell Coutts (L) and Professor Rod Jackson. Photo / NZME
OPINION:
It's long been said that sport and politics shouldn't mix. Well, maybe sport and medical science shouldn't mix either given the train wreck produced this week after an academic took on a sporting icon with a giant sense of entitlement.
In the curious case of Professor Rod Jackson versus Sir Russell Coutts, there was no winner.
Jackson, one of the group of epidemiologists who have found cult status through this pandemic, will feel like he came out on top having penned a satirical piece in this august publication which simultaneously tried to demonstrate the importance of expert opinion and the need for those with advanced and recognised knowledge in specific fields to stay in their respective lanes.
Coutts, who is obviously annoyed that he and his rich sailing chums have been denied the chance to splash about on the ocean due to MIQ restrictions, has frothed away in the past few months about the inequity of vaccine mandates and Draconian measures imposed by the Government.
It appears, however, that Jackson has taken Coutts' frustration at the Government personally, seemingly thinking that all those who question the validity of the political response are by extension dismissing the science and scientists who have played a role in informing the strategy, while making it equally clear that he believes the lay population have neither the knowledge nor the right to critique or question the medical fraternity.
It was not so much a cry for help as a cry for respect but having stepped out of his academic ivory tower these past two years to satisfy and seemingly relish the media's appetite for scientific analysis, Rocket Rod has not scored the victory he thinks he has.
His musings about Coutts while intended to be humorous, instead came across more as revenge porn, with the underlying tone being that we, the people, shouldn't be trusted to think for ourselves and interpret the credibility of information as we see fit.
Coutts has been spectacularly ill-advised to think it was a smart plan to trot off to Wellington and heave his rich guy Covid-burden atop the eclectic pile of protestor gripes on the grounds of Parliament.
He's an easy figure to mock, as millionaires who throw tantrums about not getting what they want always are, but however severe his case of 'white privilege', he is entitled to express his views in a democratic land where free speech is a fundamental pillar of life.
And by becoming the country's first known victim of Rod rage, Coutts inadvertently now finds himself at the centre of a critically important debate about who has the right to critique whom in knowledge-based economies.
This is of particular relevance in the sporting world, most acutely rugby, where the country's best athletes and coaches have long been subjected to at times spiteful and withering assessments of their abilities and character by people who have never even held a ball or been able to run round the block without stopping.
Not once has your garden variety talkback caller thought to consider whether they have accumulated the requisite understanding of international rugby to tear apart the All Blacks or for a moment considered whether they have earned the right to assassinate the character of even those who have played 100 tests or coached at the highest level for more than three decades.
No one in elite rugby has immunity. Richie McCaw, the greatest All Black in history had to hear how, after he missed a tackle in one of the early tests of 2014, that his career was sliding into oblivion.
For three years Dan Carter was told he was basically useless, while there were sporadic periods when the most successful coach in All Blacks history, Steve Hansen, heard that he was stale and out of good ideas.
The best rugby players and coaches in this country are world-class experts in their field and yet we all hold a firm belief that it is our right to dispute team selections, deem tactical ploys misguided and largely believe we know better.
Most of us – nearly all of us, in fact – are no better qualified to speak about the mechanics of a scrum than we are the likely path of an air-borne virus and yet we freely do one but, apparently our non-expert status should prevent us from doing the other.
Those who sent a thumbs-up emoji or congratulatory note to Jackson on reading his piece should consider how they would feel had All Blacks coach Ian Foster written an open letter castigating the New Zealand public for believing they had any right or authority to critique his first two years in charge.
This can't surely be a future we accept – one where we justify our right to risk destroying the mental health of our best rugby talent but stick scientists on a pedestal and treat their every word as gospel.
There can be no exceptions – no person or expert group considered beyond reproach and off limits, their every utterance taken as irrefutable fact, or we will have more cause to see our post-pandemic world as having more inequity and be riddled with yet more duplicity.
We can't arbitrarily recognise some fields as genuinely expert but not others, much like the anti-vaxxers, who presumably wouldn't reject the science behind radiotherapy should they be diagnosed with cancer but won't line up to be administered the most-researched vaccination in human history.
If we are ready to give the Jacksons of this world a free pass to say what they like unchallenged and unquestioned, then so to must we be prepared to forego our right to have any opinion about our sporting heroes and blindly support every dud selection, ill-considered tactical plan and cheer each and every decision as if it were the greatest ever made.
If that sounds like an unrealistic and plainly silly path to follow as it erodes our fundamental right to hold those who benefit from being in the public eye accountable, then we must universally accept that Coutts is entitled to his ignorance, just as we are entitled to ours when it comes to rugby.
