Radiolab — “Lose Lose”

Date: December 30, 2016
Hosts: Robert Krulwich, Latif Nasser
Guest Reporter: Mike Pesca

Episode Overview

In this episode of Radiolab, hosts Robert Krulwich and Latif Nasser—joined by sports reporter Mike Pesca—delve into the notorious 2012 Olympic badminton scandal where several teams competed to lose, rather than win, their matches. The story serves as a springboard to probe deeper questions about ethics, strategy, and the true spirit of competition. The episode unpacks the bizarre sporting event, the fallout for those involved, and the philosophical dilemmas it raises about competition itself.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Introducing the Scandal: An Olympic Game Gone Awry

• Setting the Scene: Mike Pesca recounts his experience covering the 2012 London Olympics (02:13) and how a badminton match turned into a spectacle for all the wrong reasons.
• Misconceptions About Badminton: The hosts joke about Americans’ casual view of badminton, while Pesca stresses its intensity at the professional level:

  “It has nothing to do with the badminton you play in your backyard. It's much faster than you think..." (04:11, Mike Pesca)

2. The Match in Question: Both Sides Try to Lose

• Bizarre Gameplay: The Chinese and South Korean women's teams compete to lose, deliberately making unforced errors (06:15-10:00). The teams are incentivized by the tournament structure: the loser would face an easier opponent next.

  “Whoever wins this game is gonna have to play another Chinese team, a really strong team. And whoever loses is gonna play a way easier Danish team. So both teams are hoping to lose.” (08:06, Latif Nasser)

• Surreal Spectacle: Players intentionally hit shuttlecocks into the net or out of bounds as the audience boos and the match becomes comically inept.

  “So what you get is serve up... Oh, into the net. Point after point of just terrible badminton. And it just devolves into this absurd, repetitive, crazy-making lose-a-thon.” (09:08, Latif Nasser)

3. Intervention: The Referees and Fallout

• Referee’s Intervention: Olympic badminton referee Torsten Barrett describes confronting the players:

  “I told them that they were not playing seriously and they were making a very serious mistake. And they played stupid and said, no, we're playing, we're trying our best.” (10:51, Torsten Barrett)

• Players’ Perspectives: Audio clips with the athletes (Jung Kyung Un, Kim Ha Na, Wang Xiaoli) detail their feelings: surprise, embarrassment, and pressure.

  “What we didn’t expect, South Korea would do the same thing.” (11:31, Wang Xiaoli)
  “We just wanted to get out of the court as soon as possible.” (11:57, Kim Ha Na)

• The Black Card: Barrett brandishes a black card (12:40), threatening (or possibly delivering) disqualification if the teams don’t try to play seriously:

  “And I told them in very clear words and very seriously that in order to help themselves, they better play now.” (13:09, Torsten Barrett)

• The Attempt at 'Cover Up Badminton': The match resumes with slightly more effort, but both teams continue to subtly underperform while trying to disguise it:

  “They're not just trying to lose, they're trying to cover up badminton. You're trying to lose, but you're trying to look like you're trying to win.” (14:54, Latif Nasser)

4. Aftermath: Disqualification and Emotional Cost

• The Final Outcome: Both teams are ultimately disqualified for “failing to use best efforts,” according to Olympic and Badminton World Federation rules (16:09):

  “At that time, the punishment hit me quite hard. I was very sad and I felt helpless... We just cried.” (16:45, Kim Ha Na)

• Wider Impact: Multiple players, from multiple countries, are disqualified in related matches; the event becomes a global scandal.

5. Is This Cheating? Ethics, Strategy, and the Olympic Ideal

• Debate on Ethics: Back from break, Mike Pesca challenges traditional views:

  “I question whether it’s even unethical. I think it’s ethical in a way. What the players did ... because they wanted to win the overall championship at all costs.” (20:14, Mike Pesca)

• Expert Insight: Chuck Klosterman, ethicist and sports writer, discusses why seeing athletes not try feels viscerally wrong:

  “For some reason it is disturbing to see athletes failing on purpose ... it sort of wrecks the entire idea of why we play sports at all.” (22:42, Chuck Klosterman)

• Olympic Ideals vs. Reality: The group questions whether rule systems or competitive frameworks sometimes make “losing” a rational choice—contradicting the “spirit of sport” or “Olympic oath” (21:56–22:30).

6. Thought Experiment: Compete to Lose

• Humorous Speculation: The hosts and guests speculate nonsensically about what it would mean for elite athletes to compete skillfully at losing—“photo-negative badminton”—and riff on what this would look like in other sports (24:15-25:25).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Mike Pesca on the sport's reality:

  "It has nothing to do with the badminton you play in the backyard. It's much faster than you think..." (04:11)

• Latif Nasser highlighting the ethical twist:

  "They invented a whole new sport which is the exact opposite of badminton. It is photo negative badminton." (10:18)

• Referee Torsten Barrett's disapproval:

  "This was not right...I told them that they were not playing seriously and they were making a very serious mistake." (10:42, 10:51)

• Kim Ha Na’s emotional aftermath:

  "At that time, the punishment hit me quite hard. I was very sad and I felt helpless... We just cried." (16:45)

• Chuck Klosterman on deeper impact:

  "It sort of wrecks the entire idea of why we play sports at all." (22:42)

Important Segment Timestamps

• 04:11 — Mike Pesca explains the real intensity of Olympic badminton
• 07:11 — First hints of deliberate losing; teams looking to coaches
• 08:06 — Tournament incentives explained
• 09:08 — Play devolves, fans and commentators react
• 10:51 — Referee confronts the teams
• 11:31–12:02 — Player interviews, emotions revealed
• 12:40–13:09 — The black card and referee's plea for fair play
• 14:54 — Teams try to mask their intentional losing (“cover up badminton”)
• 16:09 — Disqualification and the rules
• 20:14–21:27 — Pesca's critique of tournament structure
• 22:30–22:42 — Olympic ideal and why non-effort feels immoral

Overall Tone and Style

• Tone: Wry, curious, and playful, with empathy when exploring emotional moments
• Approach: Blends lighthearted banter (about pronunciation, “backyard” badminton, and hypotheticals) with serious ethical consideration and the pathos of the athletes’ experience.
• Interview Style: Incorporates direct interviews with players and referees for personal insight, alongside commentary from writers and ethicists.

Takeaways

• The infamous 2012 Olympic badminton match, where both sides attempted to lose, raises profound questions about sport, strategy, and ethics.
• The real failing, the hosts argue, was not with the athletes but with a tournament structure that made losing desirable.
• The emotions of the players, the shocked referees, and the disgusted audience underscore how deeply we care about effort, integrity, and the symbolism of the Olympics—even when the rules nudge competitors toward cynical decisions.

For more, listen to the full episode or check out Mike Pesca’s podcast, The Gist.