Mark Foster and the Olympics

Former Member
Former Member
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:
Parents
  • 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.)
Reply
  • 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.)
Children
No Data