The question was if you needed the books you say you're going to dig out to support your opinion in order to state that opinion in the first place... If so, why do they need digging out again so quickly? If not, why not? Shouldn't you be able to support an opinion before you state it? This is pretty much all hyperbole and absurd fluff in place of reasoning. You cite the Olympics and de Coubertin as though that's the gold standard of what a sport is. The first Olympics had one sport and forbade women from participating. The first modern Olympics had nine sports and forbade women from participating. Were those eight additional sports not sports? How about the 24 added since? Is the modern Olympics wrong for allowing women to compete - is a sport only a sport when men do it? As I said, in order to show that it's ridiculous, or that video games can't be sport, you'd need to define "sport" so that it encompasses all things you consider "sport", then explain how all video games are excluded from that definition. I can't do that (I'd say that a sport is a competitive game, involving a trainable skill, physical dexterity or strength, and exertion), so I would classify some games which meet the definition of "sport" as sports. You seem to want to only think of video games as something for young people to do while on drugs - as if no sportspeople have ever been caught doped to the hairline - rather than engage in any critical analysis.