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.
Shaky, AquaGeek: you guys are starting to post with the same "righteousness" that you are accusing others of using. Also, when you say that others are blindly following petty rules, you are sounding like Ion.
Okay... that was way too far. I apologize. ;) The point is, both sides are arguing about the "fair" thing, but disagree on what that is.
May I suggest a common ground, that we might all be able to agree with? You guys are saying that Thorpe is an exceptional situation, and that the AOC is clearly trying to do a fair thing (by Thorpe) and not trying to cheat someone (like Stevens). A bunch of other people are saying that the way the AOC is doing it, under *different* circumstances, would lead to abuse and unfairness. (Imfairness? :) )
I remember a water polo game back in high school. In the gold medal game, in a very close match, we lost to the favored team. (The "better" team.) Well, one of the referees used to play on the "better" team when he was younger. After the game, he was heard to tell someone that the "right team won", and implied that he called it that way. Well Shaky, we bitched and moaned among ourselves, but didn't sue anyone. And AquaGeek, the "better" team won, so no harm done, right? But after an exhausting, hard-fought game, because the referee had preordained who *should* win, we'll never know if my team would have won (if called fairly), or still lost anyways.
Shaky, AquaGeek: you guys are starting to post with the same "righteousness" that you are accusing others of using. Also, when you say that others are blindly following petty rules, you are sounding like Ion.
Okay... that was way too far. I apologize. ;) The point is, both sides are arguing about the "fair" thing, but disagree on what that is.
May I suggest a common ground, that we might all be able to agree with? You guys are saying that Thorpe is an exceptional situation, and that the AOC is clearly trying to do a fair thing (by Thorpe) and not trying to cheat someone (like Stevens). A bunch of other people are saying that the way the AOC is doing it, under *different* circumstances, would lead to abuse and unfairness. (Imfairness? :) )
I remember a water polo game back in high school. In the gold medal game, in a very close match, we lost to the favored team. (The "better" team.) Well, one of the referees used to play on the "better" team when he was younger. After the game, he was heard to tell someone that the "right team won", and implied that he called it that way. Well Shaky, we bitched and moaned among ourselves, but didn't sue anyone. And AquaGeek, the "better" team won, so no harm done, right? But after an exhausting, hard-fought game, because the referee had preordained who *should* win, we'll never know if my team would have won (if called fairly), or still lost anyways.
