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.
Former Member
Playing devil's advocate. What happens if the false start is AT the Olympics. Is there going to be a petition to give the gold anyway? Afterall, we all know who is best!
It is up to Australia to decide who swims, but I can't help thinking that the swimmers in that country are going to think that their trials mean nothing.
Awwwwright now. Some others who agree with me. Thanks Karen, tjburk, Bert, swimmer, knelson and anyone else who think Stevens should swim in the O's. And thanks for saying it so much better than I can. (I knew I should have paid attention in all of those writing courses at Penn State!)
By the way Karen, I think Thorpe false started.:cool:
Originally posted by aquageek
tjburk:
You seem to be the last holdout that this is some black and white issue, when it obviously is not.
....
I'm with you tjburk.
It seems to me that the Aussies are attempting to modify their own rules about selection after they didn't get the result they wanted.
I would love to have all of the best in the race. But then again, I would love to see the best in the finals/championship game/etc. of every sport. Doesn't always work that way.
Originally posted by aquageek
A couple of things:2. I may be totally mistaken here as I'm doing this from memory. I seem to recall in the 1996 or maybe 2000 Olympics that Carl Lewis DID NOT qualify for some relay but was put on it due to his popular status and desire to break some medal count for a single athlete over a career. It didn't bother me then and this doesn't bother me now. I'm sure there are countless other similar examples.
You are remembering it fairly accuratly, except Lewis did not end up on the relay. The US track team did not cave to the pressure. M Johnson ALSO wanted the spot. And then in the final the US ended up finishing 2nd to Canada.
PS: I think Gary Hall Jr has a shot at setting the All Time Olympic Gold record at this Olympics. Wait, maybe it is all time medals? I don't know.
Originally posted by dorothyrd
...
It is up to Australia to decide who swims, but I can't help thinking that the swimmers in that country are going to think that their trials mean nothing.
Now, if you are an Aussie and you know that you are clearly the fastest in an event, do you prepare for the trials the same way? Or do you figure you are in anyway and why bother preparing for the trials?
I realize this would be even more of an issue in the US where the trials and O's are so close together as to impact tapering. But it still has relevance in Australia.
Originally posted by Scansy
Now, if you are an Aussie and you know that you are clearly the fastest in an event, do you prepare for the trials the same way? Or do you figure you are in anyway and why bother preparing for the trials?
I realize this would be even more of an issue in the US where the trials and O's are so close together as to impact tapering. But it still has relevance in Australia.
Hmmmm...
If only I had this choice to make!:D
One way to divide the issue and perhaps make it more black and white (Geek is right, it isn't) is to take this approach:
IS the purpose of the trials to determine the Olympic team, or is the purpose of the trials to determine the best athletes for the Olympic team. Something to chew on.
Originally posted by KenChertoff
This article about the pressures being put on Craig Stevens to drop out puts a whole new complexion to this story:
www.news.com.au/.../0,4057,9304638%5E13780,00.html
Whatever the merits of Thorpe's situation, the treatment Stevens is getting is unconscionable.
First of all I would bet my life on the fact that Ian Thorpe has personally nothing to do with putting pressure on Stevens. It's more likely the media, the sponsors or simply the Australian people that don't want to dismiss so easily winning a gold medal. If anything this should be another reason why Thorpe should swim the 400: the Australian public wants Thorpe! And Stevens will still be in Athens fighting to win a medal in the 1500, so everybody is happy in the end.
Originally posted by Scansy
Hmmmm...
If only I had this choice to make!:D
That puts a realistic perspective on the issue! We are neither Thorpe nor the Aussie swimming council. Whatever their choice I'll still be in front of the TV with my popcorn watching the fastest swimmers in the world!
And yet Thorpe is STILL the best swimmer they have in that event.
What's great about this discussion is that those who think he shouldn't swim have already lost. He's going to swim, and I chuckle gleefully about that. All this righteous indignation won't stop it.
Now, don't some of you have a Little League referee to sue for a bad call on one of your kids?
