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 KenChertoff
Whatever the merits of Thorpe's situation, the treatment Stevens is getting is unconscionable.
Now, give me a break! Unconcscionable? Talk about hyperbole.
His freaking coach might sell his story. Those might be tears of joy for Stevens, huh? Maybe he can sop up all his poor, pitiful tears with the money he'll get for his story.
I agree with Karen: why hide behind the pretense of an Olympic Trials if they already have a desired result (s)...Thorpe and Hackett in the 200/400, Hackett/Stevens in the 1500, etc.? Oh, that's right, swimming is one of those sports where the titles, accomplishments and performances are earned IN the water and not named or assigned by a governing body. If that's not the case, change it. You apparently have the authority.
Somehow I imagine the money will soothe the angst and pain.
As for rationalization, don't see your point there. Seems ole Stevens is rationalizing his grief and overwhelming emotional burden with an old fashioned tonic, dollars.
Originally posted by aquageek
2. I may be totally mistaken here as I'm doing this from memory. I seem to recall in the 1996 or maybe 2000 Olympics that Carl Lewis DID NOT qualify for some relay but was put on it due to his popular status and desire to break some medal count for a single athlete over a career. It didn't bother me then and this doesn't bother me now. I'm sure there are countless other similar examples.
I think it was in 1996 -- as I recall, at the time it was explained that under USA Track rules, relay teams are NOT selected at the trials meet, but by the head coach (who takes the trials results into consideration, but isn't bound by them). Any advance selection is tentative and can be changed in the head coach's discretion. Whether this is fair or not, at least the athletes know their status is subject to change.
It's true to a limited extent in swimming relays, also -- any of the top six finishers at the trials for the 100 or 200 free can be in the finals relay, not just the top four. For example, in 1996, Sheila Taormina swam a relay final, although she was only the fifth place finisher at the trials.
Different sports have different rules so what happens in one sport isn't really analogous to others. (One false start wouldn't even result in disqualification in track.)
This article about the pressures being put on Craig Stevens to drop out puts a whole new complexion to this story:
www.news.com.au/.../0,4057,9304638%5E13780,00.html
Whatever the merits of Thorpe's situation, the treatment Stevens is getting is unconscionable.
A couple of things:
1. In the abscence of a quotable rule that is being violated, your argument is much less potent. Taking the moral high ground is admirable. But, your morals aren't necessarily those of others. Nor have you proven the Australians are doing anything other than follow their own rules, which, they are allowed to do.
2. I may be totally mistaken here as I'm doing this from memory. I seem to recall in the 1996 or maybe 2000 Olympics that Carl Lewis DID NOT qualify for some relay but was put on it due to his popular status and desire to break some medal count for a single athlete over a career. It didn't bother me then and this doesn't bother me now. I'm sure there are countless other similar examples.
Aquageek, you say that the Australians "are doing anything but follow their own rules, which, they are allowed to do."
The point I am making is that they are now CHANGING those rules because their desired result didn't occur! I'm not going to make any more analogies because the one cited before (uh, oh, sorry to sound like you-know-who), weren't answered:
1. Would anyone have cared if Stevens were dq'd?
2. Why are they bothering with a Trials, if they want certain swimmers in certain events?
I'm not even sure if this is moral high ground that I am sitting on. They have a recognized selection process (same as ours). Whether or not there is an offical name or title ("#307, stroke 14B-4.2, states..."), it is what it is and they have abided by, right up until this gust of wind sent Ian toppling into the drink.
Also, Aquageek, in response to Scancy, you say "The Olympics should follow their rules, much like the Australians should follow theirs. That line is pretty easy to define..."
What line is that? And what rules are you recommending that the Aussies follow? The one that says the top-2 go, then #3 if one of the first two cannot, or the one you are now standing in front of...seems you are a bit muddled yourself on this matter! I thought the rules didn't matter here, b/c they're NOT laws and they can make their own decisions? Are you really on my side in this? (Just when we are making headway, too!!)
