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
The obvious choice is the next person in the line of 3rd drops out you take #4, not someone that didn't finish the race.
Does anyone recall in 1992 I believe when Nike when on the big ad campaign of Dan vs. Dave in the Decathlon? I think that was the billing, but I definitely remember one of them screwed up pretty bad in the trials and did not go to the Olympics. Kudos to the USOC for not doing what it looks like the Aussies MIGHT do. If they don't do this at all then this is all conjecture, but the money the USOC would have made throught those Olympics from Nike promoting the "duel" was never realized because they stuck to the rules.
As far as I am concerned the Foster situation is not a tragedy or comparable to the Thorpe situation. Although we may all feel that British Swimming is dumb or out of line for imposing stricter standards for their swimmers, the fact is they did. We keep arguing that selection standards need to be strictly upheld in the case of Thorpe so why not in the case of Foster? He knew for many months the time he had to achieve at the trials and the article about it states that he has achieved this time on many ocasions. So, if he felt he could loaf the trials and still make the team and then failed at that, he doesn't deserve to go to Athens. Shortly before the British Trials he swam a 22.22 at a not so prestigious Netherlands meet....I think he could have gone that time at the British Trials with a little effort. He knew the standard and chose to think he was above it and now hes paying the price...
He's the defending champion in the 400, has trained for four years for Athens, and now may be given the chance to compete in the event after all--but he's supposed to turn it down? That's expecting a lot of our heroes, isn't it?
Originally posted by tjburk
The obvious choice is the next person in the line of 3rd drops out you take #4, not someone that didn't finish the race.
In 1996 Ron Karnuagh sued to try and get a spot on the US team. Karnaugh finished 4th in the 200 IM. Greg Brugess, who finished 2nd was ticketed for being intoixcated in public or some other mickey mouse thing and Karnaugh sued on the grounds that he was not embodying the Olympic Spirit. The reason Karnaugh wanted the spot was because the guy who finished 3rd had retired from the sport.
This really has nothing to do with the current situation other than the fact that what Karnaugh did was total bush-league and everytime I have a chance to bring it up I do.
He earned the title "defending champion" and all the benefits that he received in the last four years. There is no carryover in swimming (or any sport, as far as I can recall). He is not entitled to the spot this time because he didn't earn it when the rules said he was supposed to. Black and white.
Originally posted by Bert Bergen
Black and white.
There is nothing black nor white about this, hence the lively discourse.
I will say this long thread is great, completely issue oriented. See, there is hope for us yet.
Defending champion or not...he screwed up! Next in line please! It goes back to what we teach our kids...always do your best! If not, guess what can happen...you don't make it!
hero: "a of exceptional quality who wins admiration by noble deeds, esp. deeds of courage." Webster's Dictionary of the English Language, The New Lexicon, Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition at page 454.
So I guess if Ian turns down the opportunity, if it is presented to him, that might qualify as a "noble deed."
But for what it's worth, while I admire the talent and dedication of Thorpe, Phelps, Spitz, van Dyken, et al., I would posit that the "hero" accolade more appropriately be applied to those firefighters and police who ran into the towers on 9/11, the grunts who are in harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and others of their ilk.
Sorry for the soapbox, but for crying out loud, it's just a swim race (a very fast one, I'll concede).
carl
It has always seemed to me that the "muscular christianity" concept that came from the British 19th and early 20th century athletics and suffuses our view of sport, while nice, is at serious odds with reality. Yes, we should all play nice, do the right thing, love our fellow competitors, be fair, etc, but in the words of Ernest Hemmingway: "What a pretty thing to believe."
There is nothing about sport that makes it intrinsically ennobling, as much as we might wish to ascribe it such magic powers. It is games played by frail and flawed people - the same people that cheat in business, steal, lie, step out on spouses, etc. Haloes are not handed out at the door to the pool.
In this day and age sport is about money - pure and simple - and that genie is never going back into its bottle. Thorpe's possible participation is a money issue. All the way from the IOC right down to Thorpe and Craig Stevens, there is a money trail, either overt or implied.
So if they do the "right thing", more power to them, but I don't think I'd be surprised if everyone involved is only... human.
-LBJ
