Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

Frank Thompson — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:47:27 GMT

I was hoping to see Ian Thorpe attempt to be the first man to win 3 straight 400 Free titiles in the Olympics. But I knew that might not be a possibility because in the last year he has hinted that he just wanted to swim the 100 and 200 Meter Free events. The only other person besides Ian to win two straight 400 Free titles is Murray Rose. I never expected him to retire before 2008 Olympics. I brought back this post from long ago because a lot of people thought that he should not have swam the 400 Free in the first place.

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

Former Member — Wed, 21 Apr 2004 15:13:21 GMT

I agree with Geek about the asterisk. I don't think Stevens should step down and even if he does, the #3 swimmer (I don't even know his name!) should be picked. But no matter what happens, please no asterisk.

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

Former Member — Wed, 21 Apr 2004 14:49:52 GMT

I think that Stevens earned his spot and should not be pressured to step down. Thorpe would earn a lot of respect if he came out and supported Stevens. If Stevens is being forced to step down then this is just wrong. On the other hand if something would happen that Stevens could not swim then I think that Australia has the right to pick a replacement of thier own choosing.

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

Former Member — Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:17:01 GMT

By the way Geek, in another thread, it seems that 53 out of the 66 people that voted agree with me on this one! We think Stevens should keep his spot! He earned it!

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

Former Member — Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:11:13 GMT

Never said that I was better suited to judge swimming. He broke a rule at a qualifying meet and was disqualified. Nothing else needs to be said. He shouldn't swim! If he wins he will forever be in that category of...should it have been? IMHO no!

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

Former Member — Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:09:24 GMT

I am sure the network will do one of those glossy stories about the trauma and despair of Thorpe and Stevens, and hype it all up, and stir it all up again.

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

Former Member — Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:26:38 GMT

Originally posted by aquageek In the hope of not gaining a disparaging description for my own ramblings, I think I will let this go and have enjoyed the lively debate. I wouldn't be adverse to a swampoid. Also, I was not referring to the NY Yankees. The War of Northern Aggression is still well remembered down here. Maybe I should get over it, huh? Yeah, we (or at least I) knew that you were talking about those of us north of the Mason-Dixon line - but that could open a can ov worms that none of us wants to get into!:(

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

aquageek — Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:54:25 GMT

Originally posted by tjburk By the way Geek, in another thread, it seems that 53 out of the 66 people that voted agree with me on this one! We think Stevens should keep his spot! He earned it! Can't stop myself... I would imagine that 53/66 Australians probably feel differently and since it's THEIR rules, THEIR swimmer and THEIR Olympic cmte I suggest that carries a whole lot more weight than what 53 Masters swimmers in the US think. And, tjburk, Stevens might have a modicum of respect if he wasn't peddling his story for $75K across Australia with his agent. Call me a purist but I still think people can follow their own rules.

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

Former Member — Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:38:02 GMT

Originally posted by ThermadorDelight I am aware that this thread is titled "Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!?!". HOWEVER.... the whole thorpe issue is debatable whether what went down is just or injust BUT the issue IS over... sooo as swimmers, can we focus on something that is a little less debatable and is extremely important in the sport of swimming? can we all agree that Foster is getting screwed in his situation?? as a frequent visitor to the race club site ive noticed they are calling on the swimming community to petition to the British Olympic Association in hopes that they will encourage the association to make the right decision... for all swimmers who are outraged and want to help out here is the link to the page so you can email the BOA and tell them your thoughts... www.theraceclub.net/column_gary_outrage_4_13_04.php He's not getting screwed. He didn't meet the published criteria. It's their team and they can pick who they want any way they want. Right? If they want faster qualifying times then the Olympic A and it has to be done on a certain day then that's the way it goes. Take a look at the Japanese times. Many are faster than the actual Japanese records. We'll see but many of their winners are going to sit at home. Even some that make the Olympic A time. Are they getting screwed too? It was just announced that Franck Esposito had to pull out of the 200 Fly at the French trials. www.swiminfo.com/.../7177.asp Seems to me they will figure out the 2nd fastest man in history with a better than average shot at a metal shouldn't actually have to swim the race to qualify. Is he getting screwed because they haven't just given him a spot?

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

aquageek — Wed, 21 Apr 2004 08:38:21 GMT

Originally posted by tjburk Geek, one last thing...you know now that if Thorpe wins, there will always be an asterisk next to his name for this! At least for those purists like me! :D I have taken my leave from the Thorpe issue but feel it necessary to comment on another purist comment on this forum. There is nothing unpure about taking a different view of a controversial issue. Your implication is that somehow you are better suited to judge swimming and it's purity. That simply is not the case. People wanted an asterisk next to Roger Maris' record. All that did was put a cloud over probably one of the best baseball seasons ever. Should Thorpe do something spectacular at the Olympics, I, along with most others, will revel in it.

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

Former Member — Wed, 21 Apr 2004 06:14:31 GMT

And they had to have a lawyer come in and interpret THEIR rule so they could justify THEIR decision. If a person is DISQUALIFIED he/she should not be in the NEXT category to swim that event, it should go through the line of succession, like THEIR rules originally said it should be. And by the way, yes money does strange things to people! But, do you think Stevens would have even considered it if no one offered him the money? Something tells me.....NOT!:D

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

Former Member — Wed, 21 Apr 2004 06:13:38 GMT

They will announce "the decision" on Monday. If Stevens pulls out (as is expected), Thorpe WILL replace him. Details at: www.eurosport.com/.../sport_Lng0_Spo54_Evt5780_Sto577469.shtml

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

Rob Copeland — Wed, 21 Apr 2004 05:43:14 GMT

To all of those who think Craig Stevens' is giving up his spot in the 400 for the money, I think you’re way off base. Craig is a 23 year old kid who has spent most of his life training for this one shot. I’m not sure how many of those of us posting here have truly dedicated ourselves that much to the singular pursuit of excellence. I doubt any one who has would ever sell their dream or even think anyone so dedicated would sell his. Everything I have seen in the press leads me to believe that Craig’s decision was based on the tremendous pressure exerted on him from the media and others. Not based on his desire to selling his spot. And if it was for the money, there was an excellent chance Stevens’ would have placed in the event and definitely would have made a lot more money from swimming the 400 than he will from taking $75K to step down. How did we get so cynical?

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

Karen Duggan — Wed, 21 Apr 2004 02:18:46 GMT

'Geek, I figured it was some Civil War reference I was just trying to be humorous. So, by the way, if you're still getting over the War of Aggression, exactly HOW OLD ARE YOU?!!! Are you the only one in your age group?! Do you have any competition at Nationals? ;) I too enjoyed the discussion. Thanks. :)

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

Former Member — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:35:55 GMT

OH!!!! And despite whichever side someone is taking on this topic, it IS enjoyable to see all of us treating eachother with so much respect. Interesting how easy that is when there is no poison pill in the mix.

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

Former Member — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:32:23 GMT

Right on, Matt. Paul: PENN STATE!!: My dad went to Brooklyn Prep and graduated a few (wink, wink) years before Joe Pa. By default, we have been Penn State fans forever (plus, to live near and think of rooting for SC gives me dry heaves). Karen, did Thorpe DQ?

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

Former Member — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:14:22 GMT

Originally posted by swimr4life It just seems a little "Clintonesque" to bend the rules and stretch the meaning of words to your liking to get the results you want. :rolleyes: Yeah I agree, this sort of reminds me of when Clinton sent us to war over a quote "eminent threat" and then later changed the story to say that it was because it was the humanitarian thing to do. Go ahead and delete this (and the above post too).

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

Former Member — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:00:45 GMT

Originally posted by swimmer I'd think this same discussion would be going on if Hackett had been disqualified on a technicality during the 1500. He's going to win so why bother with technicality of having to swim 60 lengths? Just pointing out: the 1500 is 30 (painful) lengths. We don't need to make it worse than it already is!

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

Former Member — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:57:54 GMT

Regarding USA fascination with Rules: IN game one of the Pacers V. Celtics, Pacer Star Ron Artest got off the bench during an on the court fight. After taking four steps towards the fracas, he thought better of it and headed back to the bench. However, the NBA suspended him because their rule is: you get off the bench, you are suspended. How foolish.

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

Former Member — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:30:41 GMT

Thermador, from all of the info I have heard on the subject, I think you are right! Sounds like there is a personality conflict between the two! That should never interfere with a coach/swimmer relationship! I have swimmers I coach that personally I don't like a whole lot, but I try and treat them just like any of my other swimmers. I had a First Sergeant years ago when I was in the 82nd ABN that had a saying that went something like this, "Principals before Personalities!" Alas, I digress! Back to the Thorpe issue! Geek, one last thing...you know now that if Thorpe wins, there will always be an asterisk next to his name for this! At least for those purists like me! :D

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

Former Member — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:23:53 GMT

Gull:D We could debate this one for hours, and you will never convince me that what Thorpe is doing is right! If it were Coughlin, Kirk, Crocker or Phelps I would still say the same thing! He had his chance, he "stuffed up"! The ref at the meet had the intestinal fortitude to DQ the world's fastest man in the 400! The world's fastest man should have the intestinal fortitude to take his lumps and learn from it! IMHO of course:D

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

Former Member — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:11:35 GMT

Originally posted by Scansy And you can't say flat out that Thorpe swimming is the right thing... Sure I can. In fact, I am.

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

Former Member — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:58:02 GMT

Originally posted by swimmer At what point is a swimmer good enough that rules become technicalities? or are all rules technicalities that swimmers shouldn't worry about? Once again I state that there are no rules but just guidelines. In anycase the answer is found in good old fashioned human common sense. The choice here is less painful than everyone wants to believe, and all the fuss in the forum is probably due to the fact that Thorpe's inclusion in the 400 means would mean a gold less in the heap that the US swimming team anyway will win in Athens. By common sense I mean the fact that the damaged party (Stevens) will be competing anyway in Athens and, secondly, the fact that Thorpe is objectively dominant in this event (I don't believe any underdog will win this race if he is in it, anyone willing to bet something on this one?) and lastly the fact that Thorpe has given to Australian sports more than any other Aussie in decades (all the mediatic uproar around his exclusion proves it). If one of these facts weren't true then things would probably be different. It is not the end of civilization and there will be no thugs going around beating up old ladies.... (sounds like a scene from Mel Brooks' "Blazing Saddles"...)

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

Former Member — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:55:17 GMT

I am aware that this thread is titled "Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!?!". HOWEVER.... the whole thorpe issue is debatable whether what went down is just or injust BUT the issue IS over... sooo as swimmers, can we focus on something that is a little less debatable and is extremely important in the sport of swimming? can we all agree that Foster is getting screwed in his situation?? as a frequent visitor to the race club site ive noticed they are calling on the swimming community to petition to the British Olympic Association in hopes that they will encourage the association to make the right decision... for all swimmers who are outraged and want to help out here is the link to the page so you can email the BOA and tell them your thoughts... www.theraceclub.net/column_gary_outrage_4_13_04.php

RE: Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

Former Member — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:54:26 GMT

Originally posted by Shaky Now, don't some of you have a Little League referee to sue for a bad call on one of your kids? Actually this would fall in line with allowing Thorpe to swim. :) They did not like the call, so they overturned it. Personally I teach the kids I coach that we have to honor the refs call even if we don't like it and that it is the coaches job to argue the call, not the kids, not the parents. Since the refs are volunteers, it makes no point to argue, because they would not come back. :)