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 Bert Bergen
Are we waltzing? Someone will find us a rule and an answer sooner or later. This was fun.
And here it is -- this is a link to an Australian newspaper that says what the rule is and how it was re-interpreted after the trials. As I said before -- the rule says if a swimmer drops out his place goes to the the "next-ranked" swimmer, the plain meaning of which seems to me to be the third finisher, then fourth and so on. After the fact, Australian swimming's lawyer interpreted "next" to mean "best available." I find his reasoning (at least as reported) circular and result-oriented (a very bad thing among lawyers). It's their rule, so I suppose they can do it , but I think it's intellectually dishonest. Here's the link:
dubbo.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp
Originally posted by Bert Bergen
Are we waltzing? Someone will find us a rule and an answer sooner or later. This was fun.
And here it is -- this is a link to an Australian newspaper that says what the rule is and how it was re-interpreted after the trials. As I said before -- the rule says if a swimmer drops out his place goes to the the "next-ranked" swimmer, the plain meaning of which seems to me to be the third finisher, then fourth and so on. After the fact, Australian swimming's lawyer interpreted "next" to mean "best available." I find his reasoning (at least as reported) circular and result-oriented (a very bad thing among lawyers). It's their rule, so I suppose they can do it , but I think it's intellectually dishonest. Here's the link:
dubbo.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp
