Thorpe Back in the 400?!?!!

I knew this would happen. Come on, NBC paid, what - a Billion - to air the Olympics? Did anyone really think we were not going to here Jim Gray say "Ian Thorpe goes for the gold in the 400 NEXT!" The problem is we live in a society that over values individualism. Don't have kids until you make enough money to hire a full-time sitter. Emmet Smith hands the ball to the ref? Are you kidding me! Face it, this will happen. Even if Thorpe feels it is wrong, he will be iced over by some twisted handler who thinks he knows what the public wants. Alas, there is hope, for even this cynic can read the paper and see that the number one seller is Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life.

Originally posted by aquageek This analogy to The Masters is very ill conceived. First, all PGA events are governed by a single set of rules. It's not like each event has it's own rules and then The Masters maintains a separate set. I agee with the point you are making Geek. On a side note, though, the Masters is not an official PGA event and they do have some of their own rules on qualifying! (But the rules of the Golf Game itself are the same!)

Hey, check for the breaking of the 2nd seal, I am totally down with everything Aquageek says on this subject. For openers, the right-side, lawyer, totally laconic "just the facts, ma'am" side of my brain says what rule is broken by the Aussies taking Thorpe? The Olympic rules, the only ones that we Americans have any stake in or standing to assert, say Australia can chose its athletes any way it pleases. High stakes Olympic trial meets, super-secret selection committee of coaches scratching each others' backs, random lottery, or any combination thereof. There is only one rule being overlooked, a rule Australia has imposed on itself because the Australians feel that high stakes Olympic trial meets give them the best chance to select their best team. If they decide THEIR rule is no longer serving THEIR interests, THEY chose when and how to modify it. It's none of our dang business, and we have no standing to object. Moreover, the left-side, peace-love-chlorine, it's the vibe of the thing part of my brain says golly, I'd love to see Thorpe have another chance to break the World Record on the biggest stage in the sport. I want to know if Grant Hackett might finally crack through and get him, or if there is some young gun out there who can take down the Master when all the pressure is on. Or, is this guy really the final word in the event, and he has a chance to repeat, threepeat, or who knows, pull an Edwin Moses domination of the event. It seems to me that all the folks hollerin' about "the right thing" are hiding the fact they would like to see Thorpe out of the event so someone else (some American) will have a shot. What are the ethics of people who hide their own self-interest behind a facade of virtue, especially when it's a rule that is none of their dang business. Well, it is just a race; no sense getting all worked up... Matt

Originally posted by knelson I didn't put two and two together before, but now I realize lefty is Phil Mickelson. Nice job in the Masters, Phil! I never knew you swam, too :) That would be "Lefty." I am a "lefty" meaning a liberal. The only time I swing to the left is politics. (But that was a good one!)

Hey Sam - actually the Dan and Dave saga was Reebok I believe. In regards to Thorpe swimming or not - for him to take the spot would be poor sportsmanship (IMHO). Sports are filled with blunders and would have, could haves (NCAA basketaball - who was it that called a timeout in the final seconds when they didn't have one, or even a referee giving an extra 4th down to a team, or how about the referee miss calling the coin flip to start OT in an NFL playoff game). The fact is these are the rules that we all agree to play by. If the Aussie swim federation does allow Thorpe to swim, they are starting down a very treacherous path - #3 will file in court to swim because Thorpe didn't qualify and will get messy. Same thing kind of happened in 2000 US track trials with Michael Johnson and Maurice Greene (Johnson then was the world record holder) if you remember neither qualified because of leg issues (muscle cramps) during the finals, both stopped their race part way in and John Capel went on to win trials yet the US didn't even win a medal in the event. True each country can designate who should go, but to arbitrarily select an athlete would make swimming more like figure skating and based upon some of the past results (Salt Lake judges scandal, Harding & Kerrigan) of skating I would rather let the clock be the judge. Human error is part of sports (the Cubs Bill Buckner letting a ground ball go pass him at first base) that's why it is so interesting because you will never know what will happen (1980 US Hockey team beating the Russian team - who saw that coming).

"Golly", I'd like to see the kid who QUALIFIED for the race get a chance. Afterall, he's trained for a little while to earn it. Plus, there is no guarantee (as Matt points out) that the US benefits from Thorpe being out. Some stud may come along and change the entire "game" (see: Sieben, Jon '84 AUS 100 Butterfly or Poll, Sylvia '88 Costa Rica 200 Freestyle). Upsets happen (caused by any variety of instances) and that is why the "no guarantees" side of this is so fun: Sieben, Roque Santos, Nelson Diebel, the tie between Steinsifer and Woodhead in '84, Amanda Beard's win in '00, Sadeyev's 200 in '92. Would anyone change any of these things?

Originally posted by swimr4life That is why we disagree. I definitely am a conservative. Go by the rules. Actually we agree. I just know it won't happen.

Hey Kirk, my bad on Buckner - once he left the Dodgers I never really followed him that much. In regards to he IOC - they don't have much to say, each countries governing sports body determines who to send or what the criteria for selection is (as long as the athlete is in compliance about the International Rules, drug use etc).

Hey Aquageek, True they allowed the NBA players in (and of course more recently NHL players into Ol)ympic hockey. But I don't think that the US Olympic basketball comittee decided after the OLympic team tryouts to look at the team and say ' yeah these guys are good but we really should send the NBA players to be more competitive and then redo their selection with NBA players on the eve of the games so to speak. Another point in allowing the 'professional' athletes to play in their respective sport helped level the playing field a little to the then soviet communist countries. Their respective team/players would have been considered professional athletes (Vlad the hockey goalie would be a major in the army, his military job was not that of a pilot but a hockey goalie, so in essence he was a professional hockey player in the guise of an army officer). If I recall correctly under the old USA AAU rules some amateaur athletes would have gotten in trouble for being an Olympic swimmer and earning a living as a swim instructor or Alpine skier giving ski lessons. They would have been seen as professional athletes even though they were not earning a living racing in their respective sport but the fact of getting paid for doing something close to their sport (Can't remember what the Hoopla was on high jumper Dwight Stone but I believe it was close to these guidelines). Anyways I think it would be bad form for Thorpe to even consider taking a spot in the 400 free or for Australia swimming to even consider letting Thorpe swim.

I agree with SwampThing--it's hypocritical to take such a hard line stance with Thorpe, citing the Olympic ideal, when in fact we have strayed pretty far from that ideal (professional athletes, corporate sponsorship, etc.). I think you have to look at his "transgression" (falling off the block before the start of the race) and put it into context. Australia is allowed to choose their athletes like any othe country.