Masked in the false virtues of amateurism, the Olympics were created as a means of correcting what the social elite considered to be a disturbing trend.

As the 19th Century drew to a close, the abilities of the working class began to threaten the sporting establishment. For decades, those in power had promoted athletic endeavors as a means of keeping the plebeians of the era healthy and occupied. All the while, the elite were free to imagine competitions among themselves to be of the highest level of sporting skill.

When working class athletes - through such disgraceful practices as training - began proving themselves to be equal or superior to the privileged, French aristocrat Pierre de Coubertin created the modern Olympic games – along with its regulations differentiating between amateurs and professionals – so as to keep out the hard-working riff-raff and celebrate the accomplishments of the socially and financially well-to-do.

If the upper class was going to lose its stranglehold on athletic supremacy, it could at least grasp onto an imagined moral superiority as consolation. Under the guise of promoting well-roundedness as a virtue through the original Greek ideal, the leaders of the modern Olympic revival ultimately reinforced the merits of their own status. The aristocratic athlete was the only athlete who could logistically afford to not only be versatile in multiple disciplines, but also compete at a high level without becoming professional.

So, yes, it's right to question the motivation behind the International Olympic Committee bringing the Winter Olympics to Russia amid an authoritarian leader, human rights violations and more than just whispers of corruption. But the IOC acting in its own interest is nothing new. There were never any good ol' days of yore to look back upon with warm nostalgia and fuzzy feelings.