Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

Originally posted by Shaky 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? Shaky, I don't know if it is righteous indignation on my part. And it isn't just a robotic "that's the rule". It is the fact that it doesn't feel right to me. Never will. And you can't say flat out that Thorpe swimming is the right thing, just as I can't say that Stevens swimming is obviously the right thing. This is a massive gray blob of an issue.

I don't know that anyone at this point is saying Australia can't do what they are doing. It's their organization and their team. They can throw the whole thing out tomorrow and start over if they want. I'm curious about a couple of things that are sort of on topic. At what point is a swimmer good enough that rules become technicalities? or are all rules technicalities that swimmers shouldn't worry about? Won't be the end of civilization if we let them slide. It's just sport. Just exactly which technicalities should the officials apply to Thorpe or other really dominant swimmers? There are lots that can be ignored. 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? At 1400 when he's 20 seconds ahead, let's invoke the mercy rule and call it done. The length of the race is just a technicality in this case. The race will be long over before the end. If Aquageek falls in at the start of his next race and he's favored to win by 10 seconds, should we let him swim anyway? No harm done because he was going to win and he gained no advantage. It's not like it's a real rule. It's just a technicality.

Originally posted by Shaky But the Rules! The Rules! What about The Rules?! If we don't stick to The Rules no matter what, chaos will ensue! Grown men will then steal candy from children and laugh at their crying! Young thugs will beat up old ladies for their purses and get away with it! Lawyers and accountants will be out of business! Once you let one Rule slide, all of them are sure to follow! Anarchy! Chaos! The ruin of civilization!!!! OK Shaky, you may have gone a bit overboard with this post. Grown men will not steal candy from children. The rest of the stuff will happen though.:rolleyes:

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. :)

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

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"...)

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.

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

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

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.