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
Originally posted by swimmer
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?
Just pointing out: the 1500 is 30 (painful) lengths. We don't need to make it worse than it already is!
Originally posted by swimr4life
It just seems a little "Clintonesque" to bend the rules and stretch the meaning of words to your liking to get the results you want. :rolleyes:
Yeah I agree, this sort of reminds me of when Clinton sent us to war over a quote "eminent threat" and then later changed the story to say that it was because it was the humanitarian thing to do.
Go ahead and delete this (and the above post too).
Right on, Matt.
Paul: PENN STATE!!: My dad went to Brooklyn Prep and graduated a few (wink, wink) years before Joe Pa. By default, we have been Penn State fans forever (plus, to live near and think of rooting for SC gives me dry heaves).
Karen, did Thorpe DQ?
OH!!!! And despite whichever side someone is taking on this topic, it IS enjoyable to see all of us treating eachother with so much respect. Interesting how easy that is when there is no poison pill in the mix.
'Geek, I figured it was some Civil War reference I was just trying to be humorous.
So, by the way, if you're still getting over the War of Aggression, exactly HOW OLD ARE YOU?!!! Are you the only one in your age group?! Do you have any competition at Nationals? ;)
I too enjoyed the discussion. Thanks. :)
To all of those who think Craig Stevens' is giving up his spot in the 400 for the money, I think you’re way off base. Craig is a 23 year old kid who has spent most of his life training for this one shot. I’m not sure how many of those of us posting here have truly dedicated ourselves that much to the singular pursuit of excellence. I doubt any one who has would ever sell their dream or even think anyone so dedicated would sell his.
Everything I have seen in the press leads me to believe that Craig’s decision was based on the tremendous pressure exerted on him from the media and others. Not based on his desire to selling his spot. And if it was for the money, there was an excellent chance Stevens’ would have placed in the event and definitely would have made a lot more money from swimming the 400 than he will from taking $75K to step down.
How did we get so cynical?
And they had to have a lawyer come in and interpret THEIR rule so they could justify THEIR decision. If a person is DISQUALIFIED he/she should not be in the NEXT category to swim that event, it should go through the line of succession, like THEIR rules originally said it should be.
And by the way, yes money does strange things to people! But, do you think Stevens would have even considered it if no one offered him the money? Something tells me.....NOT!:D
Originally posted by tjburk
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
I have taken my leave from the Thorpe issue but feel it necessary to comment on another purist comment on this forum. There is nothing unpure about taking a different view of a controversial issue. Your implication is that somehow you are better suited to judge swimming and it's purity. That simply is not the case.
People wanted an asterisk next to Roger Maris' record. All that did was put a cloud over probably one of the best baseball seasons ever. Should Thorpe do something spectacular at the Olympics, I, along with most others, will revel in it.
Originally posted by ThermadorDelight
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
He's not getting screwed. He didn't meet the published criteria. It's their team and they can pick who they want any way they want. Right? If they want faster qualifying times then the Olympic A and it has to be done on a certain day then that's the way it goes.
Take a look at the Japanese times. Many are faster than the actual Japanese records. We'll see but many of their winners are going to sit at home. Even some that make the Olympic A time. Are they getting screwed too?
It was just announced that Franck Esposito had to pull out of the 200 Fly at the French trials. www.swiminfo.com/.../7177.asp
Seems to me they will figure out the 2nd fastest man in history with a better than average shot at a metal shouldn't actually have to swim the race to qualify. Is he getting screwed because they haven't just given him a spot?
