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
Originally posted by Karen Duggan
Why even have Olympic Trials then? If Australia already knew Thorpe was #1 why not automatically give him a spot. So the Trials were just a formality? It appears that way.
The trials are a selection process. There may be some events where it is obvious who should compete. It would then be hoped that the trials would simply be a rubber stamp on the list already compiled in the Olympic committee's heads for that event.
But the trials would also be a chance for long shots to challenge that unwritten list. Suppose an underdog is coming up who just explodes during the trials. People have come out of nowhere and gone to Olympic glory in the past. The trials give the other athletes a fighting chance, and they give the Olympic committee the opportunity to choose the best athlete if he happens to be a relative unknown.
Then there are the events where it's not so clear who should go. That's when the trials are most important. If the Olympic committee doesn't already know who should go, they can let the numbers decide.
In all these cases, the trials are being used to formalize the choice of the BEST athletes. If it's obvious that Thorpe is the best, then he should compete. If he had been edged out by some relative unknown who scared everyone out of the pool by swimming faster than he had ever before, then the story would be different. The other swimmers know Thorpe is faster. The coaches know it. The committee knows it.
Originally posted by Bert Bergen
1. Would anyone have cared if Stevens were dq'd?
If he were otherwise recognized as the best athlete in that event, then YES, people would have cared. But since he's not considered the best, and it's the selection of their best athletes that is of the most importance to the Australian Olympic committee, then whether Stevens were disqualified is irrelevant.
The question has also been raised, "What if Thorpe had cramped up?" That's not what happened, but it would have been a different matter anyway. Cramping up is a physical problem, much different from a false start. If Thorpe cramped out of a race, the cramp would raise questions whether there was an issue with his fitness. It would no longer be clear that he was truly the best athlete. As it stands, there are still no questions about his fitness for this event.
Nobody seems to be willing to argue that Thorpe is not the best swimmer that Australia has for that event. He is. You know it. That's what matters most. Each country is supposed to send its best. The trials themselves are a tool for selecting and verifying their best athletes. Just because they failed in this one instance doesn't mean the entire system should be thrown out. But just because they failed on a technicality also doesn't mean that they should prevent the best athlete from going either, in direct contradiction of the purpose of the trials in the first place.
The only rule I care about is the rule that "The best athletes compete." All the other rules were made to serve that one. Thus, Thorpe should be offered the place on the team, he should accept, and the rest of us should be glad that the spirit of the Olympics wasn't spoiled by people placing the letter of the law above justice itself.
Originally posted by Karen Duggan
Why even have Olympic Trials then? If Australia already knew Thorpe was #1 why not automatically give him a spot. So the Trials were just a formality? It appears that way.
The trials are a selection process. There may be some events where it is obvious who should compete. It would then be hoped that the trials would simply be a rubber stamp on the list already compiled in the Olympic committee's heads for that event.
But the trials would also be a chance for long shots to challenge that unwritten list. Suppose an underdog is coming up who just explodes during the trials. People have come out of nowhere and gone to Olympic glory in the past. The trials give the other athletes a fighting chance, and they give the Olympic committee the opportunity to choose the best athlete if he happens to be a relative unknown.
Then there are the events where it's not so clear who should go. That's when the trials are most important. If the Olympic committee doesn't already know who should go, they can let the numbers decide.
In all these cases, the trials are being used to formalize the choice of the BEST athletes. If it's obvious that Thorpe is the best, then he should compete. If he had been edged out by some relative unknown who scared everyone out of the pool by swimming faster than he had ever before, then the story would be different. The other swimmers know Thorpe is faster. The coaches know it. The committee knows it.
Originally posted by Bert Bergen
1. Would anyone have cared if Stevens were dq'd?
If he were otherwise recognized as the best athlete in that event, then YES, people would have cared. But since he's not considered the best, and it's the selection of their best athletes that is of the most importance to the Australian Olympic committee, then whether Stevens were disqualified is irrelevant.
The question has also been raised, "What if Thorpe had cramped up?" That's not what happened, but it would have been a different matter anyway. Cramping up is a physical problem, much different from a false start. If Thorpe cramped out of a race, the cramp would raise questions whether there was an issue with his fitness. It would no longer be clear that he was truly the best athlete. As it stands, there are still no questions about his fitness for this event.
Nobody seems to be willing to argue that Thorpe is not the best swimmer that Australia has for that event. He is. You know it. That's what matters most. Each country is supposed to send its best. The trials themselves are a tool for selecting and verifying their best athletes. Just because they failed in this one instance doesn't mean the entire system should be thrown out. But just because they failed on a technicality also doesn't mean that they should prevent the best athlete from going either, in direct contradiction of the purpose of the trials in the first place.
The only rule I care about is the rule that "The best athletes compete." All the other rules were made to serve that one. Thus, Thorpe should be offered the place on the team, he should accept, and the rest of us should be glad that the spirit of the Olympics wasn't spoiled by people placing the letter of the law above justice itself.
