After Her Injury a Soviet Coverup Hurt Elena Mukhina Even More
The reason why authoritarian regimes have so much success at the Olympics is because their governments prioritize athletic success. The main goal is not the prestige of winning an Olympic medal, but the image that their form of government is superior.
If they can produce the best athletes, it suggests they can produce the best scientists, engineers, and institutions.
For better or for worse the Soviet Union was locked into the success of its Olympic athletes. “For better” was Olga Korbut who made women’s artistic gymnastics (WAG) one of the most watched sports at the Olympics.
“For worse” was Elena Mukhina. The gymnast who the Soviets had presented as “the next big thing.” The political favorite. The one the Soviets felt was destined to be an iconic star of the 1980 Olympics in the same way Nadia Comaneci had been the biggest star of the 1976 Olympics.
Instead Elena Mukhina would find herself in a hospital bed after suffering a training accident two weeks before the Olympics were to begin. An injury that would leave her paralyzed from the neck down and eventually lead to her premature death.
A staggering turn of events for a gymnast who was considered the best in the world just 18 months prior.
If the success of Korbut reflected positively on the Soviet Union and promoted the idea that their institutions were strong and its leadership was competent, the downfall of Elena Mukhina had the opposite effect.
It reflected poorly on the Soviets.
It created a perception that something so horrible could only happen within the Soviet program because only they gave such little consideration to the well being of their athletes. Authoritarian regimes don’t get the benefit of the doubt when something goes wrong, and for good reason.
The injury to Elena Mukhina put a damper on all of the previous success Soviet WAG had created for itself.
It generated a discussion as to whether such success was only possible because the Soviets had disregarded concepts such as risk aversion and personal safety.
Worst of all for the Soviets, it created a perception that a successful Soviet institution was flawed, and lead to a conversation over what other Soviet institutions had flaws as well.
