- Joined
- Feb 10, 2018
My point was that Eteri works for Russia and is paid by Rusfed. Zhenya got in so much trouble for "abandoning" her country by switching coaches. She was called a traitor. But when Eteri celebrates and cheers for someone to defeat Russia, no one has a problem with it. This is just her coaching an international student, it has nothing to do with loyalty or national pride. But Zhenya doing the same thing, going to an international coach, is seen as high treason.
This makes sense but it still feels like hypocrisy. Eteri is allowed to put her personal success as a coach above the success of Russia - but Zhenya prioritizing her personal success while still competing for Russia, just training outside the country with a non-Russian coach, makes her a traitor. Eteri can train nonrussian students and root for their success over athletes from the russian team and its not personal, just business.
I really don't think you follow the situation.
First, Eteri is paid by Rusfed to coach russian girls, but she is also paid by kazakh conterpart of Rusfed to teach Lilbet the same. And also by georgian counterpart to teach Morisi, also by e. g. the Philippiness when there are their skaters on summer camps and others. In this is Eteri as much international coach as anybody and that is not anything unusual in Russia, one example for all, Mishin was co-coach of Caroline Kostner. This is usual and nobody in Russian has anything against it. I see they consider Lilbet, Morisi and others (Ekaterina Ryabova, e. g.) as one of their own. So there is no treason in coaching them or celebrating their successes.
Now, about Zhenya being "a traitor". The thing is that if someone calls her action a treason, it is not meant treason of the country, but a coach, to whom she expressed loyalty publicly and than did something different. It is not WHAT, but HOW she 's done it. I personally don't call it "a treason" or something that strong, I just say that at such circumstances she owed Eteri to announce it to her personally, considering tjhe length of their cooperation and the bond they felt to each other at least during most of that time. It should be politeness and I would even dare to say her moral obligation to do that. After all, she was 18, still young, but also considered adult already and for me 18 y. o. human should know what his moral obligation is.
Do some people make a bigger problem of it than it really is? Probably yes. I personally wouldn't talk about it now, but just like I say, it is like a boomerang, as some people still try fto find in some words something that isn't there.

