Goals have been clearly set for some time so those who qualify to the standards we’ve set will know they’re capable of returning from Athens having achieved something – they’re not simply going to the Olympic Games as excess baggage.
This is a quote from a very Henryk Lakomy, Sports science & fitness director at British Swimming.
So they feel that Mark Foster is excess baggage ! :mad:
He could win a medal, but i guess we will never know and that is one less medal for Britain. Ah well, there is always the breaststroke. Which seems to be the only stroke that UK swimmers can do well !:mad:
Originally posted by swimmer
He's not getting screwed. He didn't meet the published criteria.
...
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?
Here is my take. Yes, they knew about the standards in advance, but I think those standards are completely nuts. So in that sense, yes they are being screwed. ;)
I thought it used to be an honor to just compete in the Olympics. The next time I think that people in the US are too obsessed with (gold) medels, I'll remember the trial standards set in Britain and Japan.
Isn't there a school of thought that the only way to get experience/confidence in big games, is to compete in big games? (I hear this all the time in football and basketball: the advantage of playoff experience.) Newer swimmers, even if they aren't fast enough to medal now, could use these Olympics to work the jitters out, so they'll be ready for the *next* Olympics.
We keep hearing about Foster getting screwed, but I'm sure there are others at the British trials who won but didn't make the team, right? Why single Foster out. If he got screwed, they all did.
Heck, let's make the Olympics the feel-good-event-of-the-year and take everyone. We can call it No Swimmer Left Behind.
I've never seen or heard so much bellyaching about fairness. Maybe everyone should get a gold medal so no one's feeling are hurt.
Maybe for next year's Super Bowl we should allow the worst team to participate so they can get their jitters out in the event they ever show enough skill to actually get to the big game.
The thing is, some of the BEST swimmers in large nations such as Japan and the UK are getting left home because someone sitting on deck has decided on time standards that need to be met. We're not talking about leaving Eric Moussambani home, we're talking about leaving swimmers home who have a realistic, but perhaps outside, shot at medaling. You don't think they deserve to go?
Originally posted by knelson
The thing is, some of the BEST swimmers in large nations such as Japan and the UK are getting left home because someone sitting on deck has decided on time standards that need to be met. We're not talking about leaving Eric Moussambani home, we're talking about leaving swimmers home who have a realistic, but perhaps outside, shot at medaling. You don't think they deserve to go?
I can't believe what I read and it's no wonder sports is so strange these days with parents suing schools because their sons and daughters "deserved" to be on a team and didn't make the cut.
There is no right to go to the Olympics, there is no deserving.
As our resident cynic, Shaky, would say "kum ba yah."
swimmer, I think knelson gave a better response than I could.
Originally posted by aquageek
I can't believe what I read and it's no wonder sports is so strange these days with parents suing schools because their sons and daughters "deserved" to be on a team and didn't make the cut.
AGeek, what the heck? Where did the suing come from? Are you saying that there are *no* cases where a coach used unreasonable criteria (like race, for example) to select their team? There are such things as unjust laws, which need to be challenged. (Damn, I should have paid more attention to Thoreau in high school.) Yes, there are frivilous cases by parents with a sense of entitlement, but it is unworthy of you to apply them for this discussion.
Foster is the best sprinter in Britain, among the top in the world, and legitimate medal contender. The current standards are keeping him from competing. This strikes me as rather strange. The justification given for those standards seem (to me) completely arbitrary and without reason. If there was something I overlooked, then I was hoping it would be mentioned. I gave a reason why you might want to bring one of your nations top swimmers to compete against the world's best, even if you are not going to make the final 8. (Pardon... top 3.) This is not about "No Swimmer Left Behind". I am making an argument that the current selection being imposed might lead to weaker teams in the future.
There is nothing I can do to change their decision, I know that. But that shouldn't stop us from discussing what *would* be a reasonable set of standards, for the future. If a set of rules are not working, you don't sit around and say "those are the rules, you're stuck". You find ways of improving them.
There is no right to go to the Olympics, there is no deserving.
What should the Olympics be about, and who should go? (Maybe some day, someone on this forum will be in a position to decide those rules. This is your chance to say how it *should* be, rather than settling for how things are.)
Former Member
Originally posted by mattson
Here is my take. Yes, they knew about the standards in advance, but I think those standards are completely nuts. So in that sense, yes they are being screwed. ;)
I thought it used to be an honor to just compete in the Olympics. The next time I think that people in the US are too obsessed with (gold) medels, I'll remember the trial standards set in Britain and Japan.
Isn't there a school of thought that the only way to get experience/confidence in big games, is to compete in big games? (I hear this all the time in football and basketball: the advantage of playoff experience.) Newer swimmers, even if they aren't fast enough to medal now, could use these Olympics to work the jitters out, so they'll be ready for the *next* Olympics.
Then Thorpe got screwed screwed(temporary as it may be), Foster is screwed(stupid criteria), Stevens is screwed because he isn't Thorpe, Esposito is screwed because he got sick at the wrong time. There will be some sad tale in every country that'll make somebody say they got screwed. Somebody is always going to think the selection criteria, no matter what it is, is nuts. There has to be some way to make the selection and that means someone is going to get left out.
Originally posted by mattson
AGeek, what the heck? Where did the suing come from? Are you saying that there are *no* cases where a coach used unreasonable criteria (like race, for example) to select their team? There are such things as unjust laws, which need to be challenged. (Damn, I should have paid more attention to Thoreau in high school.) Yes, there are frivilous cases by parents with a sense of entitlement, but it is unworthy of you to apply them for this discussion.
1. I believe there are probably cases where a coach used unreasonable criteria but that doesn't mean someone deserves a spot on any team.
2. This is not a law.
3. A person who feels they are derserving of an Olympic spot is no different than a parent who thinks their kid deserves a spot on the football team.
4. Everyone feels entitled these days. It's really annoying.
Originally posted by aquageek
1. I believe there are probably cases where a coach used unreasonable criteria but that doesn't mean someone deserves a spot on any team.
I should have used a better phrase than "unreasonable". If the coach says that they will take the fastest person in a particular time trial, and then decides after the fact to take the second fastest person for new reasons (like race, the parent is a golfing buddy, etc.), then I would say that the fastest kid deserves the spot.
2. This is not a law.
If you are discriminating by race or religion, yes it is a law.
If your money (by taxes or tuition) or going into support of the team, you have some responsibility on how it is used. And those spending it have some responsibility to make sure that selections are based on merit rather than personal whim.
3. A person who feels they are derserving of an Olympic spot is no different than a parent who thinks their kid deserves a spot on the football team.
Are you equating a likely majority of the Australian people, who think that Thorpe deserves to swim the 400, with these litigating "entitled" parents? Interesting take.
4. Everyone feels entitled these days. It's really annoying.
How Ionesque of you. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you meant "too many people feel entitled..."
I was taking a look at the British charter. It had these comments:
"The Team is selected from the best sportsmen and women in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man to compete in 28 summer and 7 winter Olympic sports at arguably the greatest sporting event in the world... There is only one Olympic team; The Great Britain Olympic Team. There is not an Olympic swimming team or an Olympic rowing team.
Do the other British sports have a similar criteria for selection? (Must be medal contending, or you don't go?) Or is it just swimming?
Originally posted by swimmer
nobody is owed anything and nobody deserves anything
Ehh... depends on what you mean. If you mean, in a Cosmic Justice sort of way, then I'll agree with you. On the other hand, let's say that a committee tells you that if you do a certain task, you get a certain reward. If you complete that task, and they welch, then I would say that the *committee* owes you something you deserve. (Whether it is an explanation, the stated reward, or a pound of flesh, would depend on the situation.)
Originally posted by swimmer
We can discuss and argue about what is fair till the cows come home but that's what it comes down to.
If you are asking why discuss it at all, it is because we are swimmers. We are part of a larger community, and should try to make sure the sport thrives (regardless of nationality). Part of that is by having civil, constructive debates.
From the Olympic Charter, the Olympics:
encourages the development of sport for all, which is part of the foundations of high-level sport, which in turn contributes to the development of sport for all
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Even though we can't and won't change anything now, we should still see if there is anything to be gained. For instance, is it desirable for the US to set standards like Britain did? (Why, or why not?) Do we want to change the US standards to allow a loophole in case a Thorp-ean event happens? (This may not be the discussion now, but I think this is a positive direction to take.)
So I'll *try* to keep my discussion in that direction. :D
The issue of "fairness" *must* come up. From the Olympic Charter, the athletes must:
1) be entered by his NOC
2) respect the spirit of fair play and non violence, and behave accordingly on the sportsfield
3) respect and comply in all aspects with the World Anti-Doping Code
(Before anyone complains that this is fantasyland material, I have to start from a reference point that we can all relate to. We can point out where the Olympics have strayed from the original intent, or pick places where the Charter should be changed to reflect the current situation.)
