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
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.
I guess Thorpe should have thought of this while he was on the blocks! Obviously he wasn't focused on what he was doing! If Australia had changed their selection process prior to the trials, I would agree with you 100%, the fact is, they didn't! Next person in line goes, not the person that DQ'd! That is anywhere you go!
Originally posted by aquageek
What selection process was changed? Provide the proof. As I understand it no process was changed, there is an interpretation over the "next-ranking" phrase.
You cannot continue to dwell on a rule change that you cannot quote and cannot prove.
Geek - my understanding is that this is an interpretation over "next ranking" phrase. So in that regard we are in agreement. And I aree, this isn't a black and white issue. Very few things in life are. If anything, maybe the Aussies will define "next ranked" as either next ranked in the world, in Australia or in the results of the trials.
But tell me this (not just Geek, everyone answer. If Stevens is under pressure from someone (Aussie Olympic Committe, Aussie public, Thorpe himself, whoever..) and withdraws because of it and if the 3rd place finisher is overlooked and Thorpe selected, does it feel like the right thing is being done? To me, it doesn't feel right. That is the root of my opposition to it.
I know that as of now, that is a hypothetical question, but this whole thread is a hypothetical discussion.
One other thing - I am glad to see that we can all debate and even argue this point - without name calling as we have in some other threads.....Y'all aint so bad afterall!!!:D:D :D
What I'd like to know is why the Australian officials had to go get a legal opinion on what "next ranked" means. Surely they had an opinion of their own, it just didn't get the result they wanted. Just about anything would be open to interpretation if you want to go that route. The only place it explicitly mentions world rankings in section 3.3 and that is to finalize the team and break ties. Certainly you can argue they are using world rankings to finalize the team.
If you are looking for the actual criteria, here it is.
3 Nomination of Athletes
For the purposes of nomination to the AOC of individual athletes for selection to the 2004 Australian
Olympic Team ASI will:
(1) only nominate athletes who are, or are recognised by the AOC as, members of the Shadow
Team;
(2) only nominate those athletes it honestly believes have met the requirements described in the
Selection Criteria;
(3) only nominate those athletes who have signed the athlete nomination form issued by the AOC
from time to time;
(4) not nominate more athletes than the maximum number permitted under the Participation
Criteria;
(5) not nominate athletes who have breached the AOC Anti-Doping By-Law and have had a
sanction imposed which has not been completed;
(6) only nominate those athletes who, from 13 August 2003, have been available for sample
collection and have provided accurate and up to date whereabouts information on a regular
basis to ASI and as ASI directs pursuant to the World Anti-Doping Code;
(7) only nominate those athletes who to the satisfaction of ASI have competed in the 2004 Telstra
Australian Swimming Championships to be held from 27 March to 3 April 2004, Sydney;
(8) only nominate those athletes who have met the additional competition results outlined below
at the 2004 Telstra Australian Swimming Championships in those events contested at the 2004
Olympic Games.
Athletes will be prioritised for nomination using the following priorities:
Priority 1: First, second, third and fourth placegetters in finals of the men’s and
women’s 100 metre freestyle and 200 metre freestyle. First placegetter in all other individual
events provided the time swum equals or betters the FINA "A" Qualifying Time Standard for
that individual event (refer Annexure A) for the 2004 Olympic Games.
Priority 2: Second placegetter in the finals of all individual Olympic Events, other than
the men’s and women’s 100 metre freestyle and 200 metre freestyle, provided the time swum
equals or betters the FINA "A" Qualifying Time Standard (refer Annexure A) for the 2004
Olympic Games.
Priority 3: First placegetter in the final of all individual Olympic Events, where no
athlete qualifies under Priority 1 provided the time swum equals or betters the ASI "B"
Qualifying Time Standard (refer Annexure A).
Priority 4: Fifth placegetter in the Men’s and Women’s 100m freestyle and 200m
freestyle finals provided they meet the ASI Relay Qualifying Time Standard (refer Annexure
A).
Priority 5: Second placegetter in the final of the Men’s and Women’s 100m
Backstroke, Breaststroke and Butterfly, where no athlete qualifies under Priority 2 provided
the time swum meets or betters the ASI "B" Qualifying Time Standard (refer Annexure A).
Priority 6: Sixth placegetter in the Men’s and Women’s 100m freestyle and 200m
freestyle finals provided they meet the ASI Relay Qualifying Time Standard (refer Annexure
A).
Priority 7: Second placegetter in the final of the Men’s and Women’s 100m
Backstroke, Breaststroke and Butterfly and the fifth and sixth placegetter in the Men’s and
Women’s 100m freestyle and 200m freestyle finals provided they have met the FINA “B”
qualifying standard for the relevant stroke and distance.
NOTE:
1. Where an athlete declines to swim in an event at the Olympic Games for which they are
eligible for selection due to their competition results at the 2004 Australian
Championships the next ranked athlete in that event will be a replacement provided that
athlete meets the relevant qualifying standard. For an athlete that has not already been
nominated to the AOC, the nomination of that replacement athlete is subject to clause 2 of
this agreement.
2. In the case of a tie for a possible position on the team in a given event, a swim off will be
conducted in that event as soon as possible but at a time determined by the Meet Director.
3. In the event that under this nomination procedure more athletes qualify than the maximum
number permitted under the Participation Criteria than the number of athletes being
nominated will be reduced to the required number using the following process:
3.1. Those athletes with the highest priority for selection (ie Priority 1 has preference over
Priority 2 etc).
3.2. If athletes have to be ranked within a priority to reduce the numbers this will be done
using World two per nation rankings with any Australian eliminated from the list (ie.
two per nation rankings that do not include any Australians).
3.3. The following documents will be used to finalise the team and break ties:
3.3.1. The latest available full year ISSA World rankings.
3.3.2. The most recent International Pointscore published by FINA.
There's more at www.olympics.com.au/.../00000906aaf.pdf
I realize this is idealistic and/or naive - but my belief is you get credit for what you do not for what you are capable of doing. Thorpe should be out of the running becasue of his disqualification (false start). No law / rule has been broken by the Aussie swim federation in choosing Thorpe, they are free to choose whoever they want to swim. But this choice would discredit the whole idea of having a qualifying /trials meet. Why fake it, pick your team from who you think should go and not put up some dog and pony show.
The great thing about sports is all the what if's. Thorpe could false start again or maybe Stevens will have the race of his life or better yet some swimmer from Europe / Asia / South America could be an outside smoker and win it all. There have been lots of situations where the best team / person didn't win for some reason, thats the fact of life. Look what happened in wrestling in the 2000 Olympics (Gardner or Garner that beat the reigning olympic champion). I still think it would be bad form on Australia to let Thorpe swim.
Where is the rule written (so I can verify) "the best athletes compete..." ? Trust me, anyone who can just make the Olympic Trials from countries such as the US, Australia, Germany, etc ARE the best athletes. On any given day, anyone can be the best (AGAIN, the names that I threw out, Sieben, Sadeyev, Diebel--should these folks have been stricken b/c they weren't the best when they knocked off the best? Then, we would have been denied their stories at the Games. I'm not convinced.
Oh, and thanks for the (partial) vindication Ken.
Dang it Wayne, I was just making a point. The Quance uproar was bogus. She was lazy (in that race) and made the mistake herself. BTW, I use the track start because I can't beat anyone any other way and my balance stinks--someone tell Ian to give it a try!
Originally posted by aquageek
mattson:
I have tried to maintain my logic throughout this lively discussion. That, by itself, should separate me from Ion.
It's also none of our business, really. Who appointed us for this role? I believe the Australians can do what they want and if there is some infraction, I guess the IOC has their own standards board (probably driven by who gives them the most money or trinkets).
'Geek, I think Ion thought he was logical too! :p
I don't believe this is about logic, it's about opinion. Many have stated time and time again that the AOC has made their decision, done deal. Frankly I don't care who they let swim. Let's get the Wiggles in there! The octopus would be great!!! It's their country. The discussion, that is our business because we've chosen to discuss it (albeit it has no bearing on anything), is whether it was the right thing to do. Given the original information, the "rules" or "guidelines" that were in place, yadda yadda, this isn't fair to Stevens.
And I don't know why money and trinkets keeps coming up. Again, I can't imagine enough money would make this right. But, hey, I'm one of the ones who thinks rules are there for a reason. What do I know?! (Please don't answer that!!) ;)
Originally posted by Karen Duggan
And I don't know why money and trinkets keeps coming up. Again, I can't imagine enough money would make this right. But, hey, I'm one of the ones who thinks rules are there for a reason. What do I know?!
My reference was to the ongoing bribery scandals at the IOC. The Olympics are ONLY about money these days, just ask ole Samaranch.
I'm sure Stevens appreciates your pity. Probably softens the blow of having to cash those checks to tell his story.
Oh, and I don't claim my logic is foolproof, just that I try to be consistent. And, please note, I have not quoted a veterinarian, promoted autopsies on able bodied young swimmers or disparaged a Southerner. I'm not above a few cracks on Yankees, however.
Originally posted by Karen Duggan
Again, I can't imagine enough money would make this right.
According to the posted article, $75K seems to be enough money to make it right for Stevens.
As it turns out, this is becoming solely about money at this point. For those of you with noble intentions, should he take the money, which is more than he will make swimming probably, and do what is allegedly wrong by giving up his spot OR should he not take the money and do what you claim is allegedly right and keep his spot? Would his life circumstances play into your decision?
If it were me and I was already on the team AND had no chance of winning the 400 AND had the chance to be a national hero as a good guy, I think I'd watch the 400 from the stands and buy a round of nachos for the team with my $75K.
When you throw money in the mix, the other points become more complex.
Originally posted by aquageek
According to the posted article, $75K seems to be enough money to make it right for Stevens.
As it turns out, this is becoming solely about money at this point.
Bummer. I mean, good for him, if that's what he's accepted. It's too bad that money got into the picture. In my naivete it bothers me that money is in the Olympics at all (besides the advertising, etc., I mean for the athletes). And I won't even get started about pro athletes being in the Olympics.
And I'm not sure (not that my understanding is necessary!) what you were talking about with vets, Southerners, etc. I probably missed something. However, if you are speaking about the NY Yankees (!) I'm happy to bash them with you! (My father-in-law is a HUGE fan and we tease each other constantly; I like the SF Giants.)
PS. I think Thorpe should have asked for $100K! (I'm totally kidding;p)
