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.
Originally posted by Matt S
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.
I think you're way off base here. In fact I'd like to see Thorpe in the race. It just won't be the same without him. Yet, I also know that Thorpe competing would be wrong because he didn't qualify. In fact, I'm offended that someone would even suggest that we're glad to see Thorpe out so an American has a chance.
Your point about Australia should be able to select their team however they see fit is o.k. as long as they determine how this selection is going to be made a priori and communicate this to the competitors. When the results aren't how they want them it is pretty darn lame to go back and say, "oh, we really meant to choose the team this way, not the way we said initially."
And let me clarify one thing here: Thorpe has done nothing wrong yet. From what I've seen he's accepted the fact that he was DQed. Until Stevens actually decides to step down or not step down it isn't fair to compare Thorpe to Jeff Farrell.
I often wonder in the Australian Olympic trials, did the starter have anything to do with Thorpe's falling in the water?
Not having seen the film of it, I have to wonder. In many countries the officials have way too much power, are treated like royalty. They have their own break rooms with spiral wrapped ham, wines and drinks, all the goodies that the swimmers never see. I have seen this with my own eyes!
With the no false start rule, you would think Thorpe thought someone else moved, he surely has many years now of international experience. No rookie here.
A small (population) country like Australia should be able to send it's best swimmers with out our intervention. Many countries don't even have their own trials.
I am still upset on why we only get to send two swimmers instead of three per event, and don't get me started about how Algeria has more world power that the USA, so sending Thorpe is fine by me.
Originally posted by Karen Duggan
Come on. Everybody has to play by the same rules, world's fastest or not.
With the exception of my lone supporter (now I know how Ion feels, except he has no supporters), you all seem to be confusing the act of being DQ'ed with the Australian Swim Federation or Olympic Cmte decision to allow him to complete.
No one has yet to provide any rule that the Australians are breaking by choosing the team of their choice. It's up to them, period.
If Australia is allowed to choose their own team, regardless of what a bunch of USMS posters thinks, what's the big deal? It's their team, their decision. The US has bent the rules just as much so we can get our precious medals.
This harping on sportsmanship and good-consciousness is naive. This is the Olympics and people do what they have to do win. Sorry, that's the way it is, for the US, Lower East Croatia and Australia.
I was under the impression that there were rules, and Australia chose not to follow them in their selection process.
Well, if there are no rules in their selection process, let him swim.
It's their country. However, if they are skirting the rules think of the irony- an island nation originally populated by convicts (aside from the aborigines of course) and they still can't obey society's rules ;) (I am poking fun, I have family there. Although I insist that they were guards back in the day not convicts!!!)
"bureauocracy"- I believe. Don't quote me though!
By the way, I know I rarely drive the speed limit, I just never get caught. With the Olympic selection process the whole world is watching. I think it's one thing to do it (break a rule) privately, another in public, let alone in front of the whole world. (Again that's assuming that they chose to skirt the rules).
Aquageek, you'll never be alone ;)
I'm coming to this discussion late, but count me with Aquageek also.
I think some people are missing some vital points in all this. First, the Olympics is supposed to be an opportunity for countries to pit their best athletes against each other. It's up to the individual countries to choose who they think are their best. That means that if the best in the US are professional athletes, they should be allowed to compete. That means that if Australia determines that someone who they consider their best didn't qualify in their regular selection process, they can choose that person anyway.
Why have a selection process in the first place? It's to choose the best athletes for the real competition down the line. That's its primary purpose, and if it fails in that mission, the country should be able to use an alternate process to choose their athlete. That may be difficult for overly-litigious Americans, who sue when their daughters don't make the cheerleading squad, to understand; but the FAIR and SPORTSMANLIKE thing in all this would be for the BEST to compete, through whatever selection process the country wants to use.
Furthermore, it would be UNFAIR to the other athletes competing in the Olympics to be robbed of the opportunity to compete against Thorpe. Suppose you won the gold medal in that event, but you didn't race against the guy who is considered the best in the world. Your gold medal, which is supposed to go to the best in the world, would always be tainted. You would always be left wondering whether you were really the best, or if Thorpe would have beaten you. It would always be "He won the gold... But only because Thorpe didn't compete that year." At that level, I would want to compete against the best, regardless of how his country chose him to compete.
People in this country are so caught up in legalities that they sometimes forget why things are done in the first place. The rules Australia put in place for their Olympic trials are meaningless if they don't serve the primary goal of those trials. Luckily, it looks like their own rules allow for what they're doing; and perhaps the Australians aren't as quick to run crying to a lawyer when things don't go their way, and the next place finisher will let the more fair decision stand without a lawsuit.
Count me along with Shaky and Geek. Y'all have great arguments in support of the best competing against the best and have changed my feelings regarding this. If the Aussies think it's ok for him to compete then so be it. If Thorpe accepts the spot, he should not be disparaged for it. If he doesn't, then whoever wins the gold should not feel they did not have the opportunity to compete against the best. The Olympics are a pro event regardless what we all wish they would be. We just finally got wise and started using our paid atheletes when we could as well as trying to keep our non professional sports competitors in their respective sports when we have the ability to do so. If we go by some of the arguments here, we would have basically high school basketball players up against 30 plus year olds throughout the world and more than half of our Olympic swim team would not even be able to compete today.
Why even have Olympic Trials then? If Australia already knew Thorpe was #1 why not automatically give him a spot. So the Trials were just a formality? It appears that way.
Maybe they should change the process throughout the season leading up to the Olympics that the fastest times swum that season go- who needs the Trials?
I want to see Thorpe swim at the Olympics, just as i want to see Mark Foster swim there.
I have a healthy disrespect for rules, beurocracy ( how do you spell that word ! ) and the people who make them. Why should a rule stop Australia sending the person who is the best in the world at that event.
Rules are meant to be broken however laws must be obeyed. ! I guess running my own business for decades has given me this attitude.
My wife used to work at the University of British Columbia, Canada. There you were not allowed to even change a lightbulb, the janitors union would strike if you did that, Crazy !!
Let him go and let him swim. I would argue the same if it was Crocker or Phelps in the same position and i guess 99% of the USMS posters, in that situation, would be looking to find a way to see them swim at the Olympics !
You guys (Aquageek, Shaky, Sam) are absolutely right. These aren't laws we are dealing with. They are rules put in place to form a selection process to find the best individuals possible to represent your country. A governing body can set them up, update them, and modify them any way they'd like. My issue is that the process they used and have used for years worked (in theory, until Thorpe had his momentary problem with gravity). The best two athletes (who remained on their feet) finished the race and earned the right to swim at the Olympics. Except that the best guy in the race (AND world) didn't get one of the two spots (because of the aforementioned boo-boo). Now, AFTER THE RACE HAS BEEN COMPLETED, they decide that their own rules don't work and they are going to change them to suit their needs. To the dissenters who say that we are bitter b/c no one can touch Thorpe and this helps us: would ANYONE down there care if Stevens fell in, got deeked, and Thorpe and Hackett went on to go 1-2? No. They only want to bend the rules (I know, that they set) to help themselves. It doesn't feel right. Sorry. Oh, and don't tell me that Stevens is in this decision by himself. The "powers" are sitting on him and screwing this kid up inside something fierce. Aquageek, you are a world class cynic (that is why you are so enjoyed here!!), so I know that you won't be swayed, (or care for this next one) but there really SHOULD be something to be said for the so-called "Olympic Ideal," not to mention "dancin' with the girl that brung you."
Sorry Karen, I've always had the image of Nancy and Carrie crying on the awards podium etched in my brain and I locked on Sippy for some reason.
If the Aussies want to choose their team, let them. The Olympics are about (or should be) the best in the world.
Choosing the team now is much better than our trials in July, one month before the Games. I don't understand that thinking. Swimmers will have to taper for the trials to make the team and then turn around and begin a taper for the Games. What sense does that make? Can someone make the case for our trials being when they are? I would like to hear a rationale.
Maybe they should hold the Games without national designation. Just the best athletes in the world! No medal count. Wishful thinking.
Glenn
