Originally Posted by Darren Lethem:
“Are you saying if Murray hadn't gone to Rio because of Zika but won Wimbledon he wouldn't be nominated ????? Of course he would and he'd be favourite”
I'm saying that if he'd skipped it claiming Zika or scheduling, he'd have come under fire for it, which would lessen his personal reputation. People would question his national loyalty, or whether he was just another pampered athlete, more in keeping with footballers than our Olympic heroes. The fact Murray places so much importance in the Olympics and Davis Cup, arguably risking his personal career (no points for the Olympics or Davis Cup this year), is one of the reasons so many general sports fans admire him at a personal level, and it's one of the reasons sporting journalists describe him as someone to look up to.
So, IMO, if he'd skipped the Olympics, he'd have got a lot of negative press, and missed out on a lot of positive press. As I said, it would be different if he was simply injured, and everyone believed that was why he withdrew, and not just to keep himself fresh for the big money tournaments.
Regardless of how you vote, many voters want to see it go to an Olympian rather than a pampered footballer or formula one type. It's Andy's approach to the Olympics that means that despite his success and wealth, he's grouped with the noble Olympians. It may mean nothing to you, but it's a public vote, so you have to be realistic and accept that everyone votes for their own reasons, and that is important to a lot of potential voters.
Personally, I think that winning Wimbledon is still one of the biggest achievements on the global sports calendar, even in Olympic years, but I'm realistic about how the general public sees these things.