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:
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.)
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.)
