Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

hopping in here late and only skimmed through... sorry bout that. Thorpe: He fell in the water, a false start. Why is one disqualified for a false start? The fact is the false start DQ was introduced in order to make sure meets go fast. I am sure we all know what its like to be at an age group meet with a thousand kids swimming the 400 free. The meet would last days if every time someone flopped they all got back up and tried again, and again and again. However, this is not a kiddy meet with 1000 swimmers in the event. There is no reason for a DQ on a false start for these elite athletes. He could have jumped in the pool a second after, even 3 seconds after, everyone else and still won the event. It isn't a 50 free where anyone in all 8 lanes can out touch and win, it is Ian Thorpe the fastest 400 freestyler in history! The Olympics would be scarred without the presence of Thorpe in the 400. They might as well not have the event. Who is the man who could stand at the top of that podium with a gold medal around his neck and actually feel as if though he deserves it? The only way is if Ian Thorpe is standing below you. Thorpe must swim the event for the sake of the Olympic Spirit. Foster: Bill Sweetenham is an idiot. The Olympic Games are not his to be messed with. Mark Foster won the 50 freestyle and was under the Olympic qualifying standard. He is the fastest in his country, he should be representing his country in the Olympic Games, an event that represents glory, honor, competition, it is an event with immortal spirit, and all who have attended even in the crowds have felt this. Bill Sweetenham has a total lack of respect for this spirit and gives a smack in the face to all competitors representing their countries who might not have a shot at a medal. Foster won the event at his Olympic Trials, however was denied by a bitter coach a trip to his 5th Olympic Games. Mark Foster is not done swimming, Bill Sweetenham says he is. What kind of ego does this guy have? The story of Mark Foster IS larger than the Thorpe story. Bill Sweetenhams disrespect for the Olympic Spirit leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. Foster won his olympic trials and was below the olympic qualification time. Foster must swim the event for the sake of the Olympic Spirit.

Originally posted by aquageek Somehow I imagine the money will soothe the angst and pain. As for rationalization, don't see your point there. Seems ole Stevens is rationalizing his grief and overwhelming emotional burden with an old fashioned tonic, dollars. Well, since you asked -- the powers of Australian swimming have said that Stevens is dropping out "voluntarily." They've even announced his decision before he's actually made it. And they've put him under so much pressure he's needed to see a psychologist. Under the circumstances, given the pressure they've put on him, I don't see how his "decision" can be truly voluntarily, even if he does make money from it. I consider that conduct unconscionable -- you may not. Excusing the pressure because Stevens may ultimately make money from it, doesn't really make it his own freely made decision -- it assumes that money was his only goal in the first place. If it is, fine -- but at this point we'll never know. To me, that's a rationalization. Anyway, I think I'll drop this point before I go into the ionosphere. As for the rule being changed -- I cited it in two previous posts (I even included a link to an Australian newspaper that stated it). Under Australian swimming rules, if a swimmer drops out, his place goes to the next placed swimmer. They've re-interpreted it -- after the fact -- to mean the best swimmer available, but that doesn't seem to be the plain meaning of the words. I suppose they can do this if they want -- no one can stop them.

Are we waltzing? Someone will find us a rule and an answer sooner or later. This was fun. And, when does Thermador get off saying that the Olympics would be "scarred" by the absence of Thorpe? "Scarred!?" That statement means that '88 Olys were scarred without Morales, '96 without Quance in the 4IM or Thompson swimming individuals (or was it '92?) just because they were at their peak and didn't get to represent; upsets happen. That is what makes this unpredictable and fun. Lose the drama.

Originally posted by ThermadorDelight Foster won his olympic trials and was below the olympic qualification time. Foster must swim the event for the sake of the Olympic Spirit. Devil's Advocate here: Thorpe DID NOT win his olympic trials. In my opinion the Olympics is about the best the world has to offer yes, however, I will tell you that is the human interest stories, such as the underdogs, that I always remember. That to me is the Olympic Spirit. I think #3 guy (I haven't even paid attention to his name!) should be in. Who knows he may break the Olympic and World Records? He should be given the chance that the Aussie Olympic Cte. said would be his if he performed. He did perform. Thorpe didn't even do the start right! Just an opinion (looking at the rules, however naive that may be Aquageek ;) )

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 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 Scansy If Thorpe was to false start in a prelim at the Olympics, should he be given a second chance then too? Where do you draw the line? The Olympics should follow their rules much as the Australians should follow theirs. That line is pretty easy to define.

'96 without Quance in the 4IM Bert, this is one I have seen many times, and she deserved to be disqualified, many many times over. In fact every meet ref that let her get away with that horrible back to breaststroke turn should have been dismissed as well. She was just lazy "going past the vertical towards the ***", she recieved no advantage with her style. But she must have done the same thousands of times in practice, so the coaches are also to blame. I know if you or I were coaching her she would not have been allowed to get away with sloppiness like that. Pure sloppy turns in a world record holder, shame. I feel the false start rule is stupid myself in big meets like the Olympics. They have one race every 20 minutes!!! This start rule is one of the reasons US swimmers have gone to the track start, so they are not disqualified by a poor rule ( my 2 cents). The rest of the world likes the grab start because it gets them out farther faster. So they are penalized for trying their best efforts? Notice how I have changed this to a harrang on the track start:mad:

As someone else asked, what would have happened if Thorpe had a bad cramp early in the race, and ended up 3rd at the trials (instead of false starting)? Would the selection committee still decide to give him a spot? It's obvious that Thorpe is at the top of his game, so it won't bug me if he's at the Olympics. I'm just worried about the next time the issue comes up. Suppose that there is a less qualified swimmer that the selection committee likes, who is picked over a less popular (but faster) swimmer?

Originally posted by aquageek This harping on sportsmanship and good-consciousness is naive. This is the Olympics and people do what they have to do win. Sorry, that's the way it is, for the US, Lower East Croatia and Australia. There are a lot of things that "the way it is" that are not right. If we just accept them because "that's the way it is" we are giving tacit approval. Yes, I would like to see the fastest in the Olympics. But I think you have to earn your position. If Thorpe was to false start in a prelim at the Olympics, should he be given a second chance then too? Where do you draw the line?