If I am reading this right, Swiminfo.com is reporting that Craig Stevens is indeed going to back out of the 400 and leave it up to Australia Swimming to "pick another member of the Olympic Team" to swim that race in Athens. If I am ANY other country, swimmer, the 3rd place finisher at the Trials or an organization interested in ethics, then I am raising a stink on this one!!!! Thorpe DQ'd and the Aussies are going to skirt the rule and get him in anyway. They would be relegated to the status of Ben Johnson, Rosie Ruiz, and the 60+% of MLB who are on steriods! This is FREAKIN' UNBELIEVABLE. I have no respect for any of the aforementioned and if this happens, none for Ian Thorpe and the Australian swim federation (or whatever official name they hide behind) are in that seeming, stinking pile.
Parents
Former Member
Actually, Australia does have a rule -- if a swimmer drops out his place goes to the next place swimmer. They've just convenently come up with an interpretation, after the fact, that the rule doesn't mean what it says. I suppose that since it's their rule they can apply it however they want -- at least, no one can stop them.
Of course, there's no IOC rule that they have to use a trials meet to select the team or that they have to abide by the results, if they do. They could have reserved the right to change the line up of swimmers if the result of the trials were not to their liking or they could have selected a team by committee or any other method. But they didn't -- they chose to use a trials meet and now they're changing the rules becuase they don't like the results.
This isn't just a matter of legalities -- it's an issue of fairness to their own athletes. They made a promise to their athletes about how the team would be selected and now they're breaking that promise. (By the way, I don't believe that Stevens is dropping out "voluntarily" -- he's obviously under tremendous pressure.) They can do it, because no one (outside of Australia) can stop them, but we don't have to ignore the hypocrisy of it.
By the way, Benjamin Cardozo (I believe), when he sat on New York Court of Appeals, once used "changing the rules after the scores are posted" as a metaphor for a particularly odious type of goverment misconduct -- because, he thought, it would be unthinkable in a sporting context. I guess he was wrong.
Actually, Australia does have a rule -- if a swimmer drops out his place goes to the next place swimmer. They've just convenently come up with an interpretation, after the fact, that the rule doesn't mean what it says. I suppose that since it's their rule they can apply it however they want -- at least, no one can stop them.
Of course, there's no IOC rule that they have to use a trials meet to select the team or that they have to abide by the results, if they do. They could have reserved the right to change the line up of swimmers if the result of the trials were not to their liking or they could have selected a team by committee or any other method. But they didn't -- they chose to use a trials meet and now they're changing the rules becuase they don't like the results.
This isn't just a matter of legalities -- it's an issue of fairness to their own athletes. They made a promise to their athletes about how the team would be selected and now they're breaking that promise. (By the way, I don't believe that Stevens is dropping out "voluntarily" -- he's obviously under tremendous pressure.) They can do it, because no one (outside of Australia) can stop them, but we don't have to ignore the hypocrisy of it.
By the way, Benjamin Cardozo (I believe), when he sat on New York Court of Appeals, once used "changing the rules after the scores are posted" as a metaphor for a particularly odious type of goverment misconduct -- because, he thought, it would be unthinkable in a sporting context. I guess he was wrong.
