Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

But they've come up with a convoluted -- and vaguely Orwellian -- interpretation of "next," so that it means a NON-finisher and that the spot can go to Thorpe and ONLY to Thorpe. "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is" - Bill Clinton Doesn't that sound vaguely familiar to the above statement! :)

I might be more inclined to believe you Lefty if you quoted the actual rule the Australians might be violating by potentially bringing Thorpe back - not the moral rule, not the sportsmanship rule, THE rule.

Lefty, you are probably right. I've been thinking...if the United states was in the same boat...say that Michael Phelps DQ'd....what do you think we would do? Makes you go "HMMMM"!... I would HOPE we would follow the rules despite the temptation to bend them so he could compete! It would be just plain sad, but the rules are there for a reason.

The US has bowed to the same pressure. Remember NBA players were not allowed on the US National Team? Well, we lost a few and, whammo, up shows MJ, Magic, Larry, Shaq, Barkley, etc. Losing is a powerful motivator to invite rules "interpretations."

I don't think that is their (Australian swim officials) spot to "offer." It is earned by swimming 8 lengths of the pool, by the two fastest guys in the water on that day. He wasn't one of them. My thoughts.

I'm not as fired up as Bert, but I basically agree with him. Australia has decided, like the U.S., that a single trials meet will be used to determine who makes the team. If your best swimmer screws up and doesn't qualify you can't (or at the very least shouldn't) go back and say "oh yeah, this one person still gets to swim even though they didn't qualify." If makes a mockery out of the entire trials system. If they are going to do this they should flat out not have a trials. Instead pick the team based on the top performances the previous year or something. And yes, the Foster situation is a joke, too. So I take it nobody from the UK gets to swim in the men's 50 free? Where's the logic in that?

I have mixed emotions about allowing professional athletes to compete in the Olympics. Its great that we can send our best players and win a LOT but, I miss the days of it being totally amateur. I hope swimming will not become too professional. I know it is heading that way. As much as we all love to win, there is something that I love about the Olympic spirit of sportsmanship and doing a sport for the pure love of it...not to get $$$ and endorsement deals. Call me an old fashioned romantic. Just my opinion. I'm not saying that I don't think it is great when a swimmer can get endorsements, scholarships, etc... just want it to stay amateur in spirit....Unlike football, basketball, and baseball.

The minimum condition to participation in the Olympics is to meet the IOC-mandated time (or country participation limit) and the sufficient condition is to meet that country's sometimes more selective critieria. Some countries let every swimmer that can meet the minimim time go the Olympics. Other countries allow coaches and/or adminstrators select participants based on their own sometimes arbritary criteria if they otherwise qualify. In the UK they have a more restrictive time criteria that has been applied to many other swimmers besides Foster (that is, the UK chooses not to send at least 2 entrants for every event where swimmers meet the qualifying time presumably to optimize use of limited resources). Australia, like the US, has a system of selecting participants by Olympic Trials. The still hypothetical inclusion of Thorpe in the 400 is very transparent attempt to "change the rules" for expediency. As a someone who loves swimming it will be great to see Thorpe compete in the 400. As someone who admires athletes who adhere to the Olympic "spirit" Thorpes failure to outright "refuse" entry in the 400 is very disappointing and diminishes his standing in the Olympic movement. He will be forever compared unfavorably to Jeff Farrell the 1960 Olympian who had an emergency operation just before Trials, was ranked number 1 in the 100 free and REFUSED USOC offfer to hold a special time trial after the regularly scheduled time trials. Instead Jeff finished 4th in the 100 (touched out by fellow master swimmer Bruce Hunter ex-Harvard swimmer). Farrell did make the team in relays and earned two golds in the 800 free relay and 400 medley relay (there was no 400 free). Despite Thorpe's many swimming accomplishments he will not be remembered as a great Olympian based due to the machinations of the Australian Olympic community on his behalf. Not the stuff of a Olympic profile in courage. At the end, if all we care about is fast swimming and how many medal our country can win then the Thorpe 400 issue is a non-event. If we still care about the Olympic ideal, am I still naive here, then Thorpe's swimming in the 400 diminishes his standing as a great Olympian.

Sorry..my last post was slightly "off topic". I was just responding to Aquageek's point that our basketball team has bent the rules. Forgive me for getting on my soap box!:o

I think there were two dominant reason the NBA players were allowed in the Olympics. First and foremost, we didn't like "our" sport being won by others. Second, $$ had to be some motivating factor for the IOC to somehow allow "amateurs" to participate who make tens of millions of dollars. It's time to face facts, the Olympics are some pristine little competition among the lesser known and pure athletes of the world. It is the biggest sports business globally and rocked by more scandal than any other single sporting event. Since the Olympics only happen every four years, thank god, it is natural to assume it is a very big payday for a select few who do well. As a result, the level of rules bending and interpretation is probably more rampant than any of us think. And, other than Ion Beza's groupie squad on usswim.org, I don't think there is a more shameful bunch of folks than the IOC. Talk about crooks!