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 aquageek
What in the world? How does this have anything to do with racial or religions discrimination? It is not a law, period.
Take a look at the Olympic Charter, there is a non-discrimination clause when they talk about athlete selection. (Look, we are splitting hairs on "law" and "rule", can we agree on the general issue and move on?)
Originally posted by aquageek
Thanks for continuing to call me Ion. That's an effective way to reduce my arguments to meaningless jabber.
Maybe I was unclear, or maybe you misread. Your arguments, on the whole, are not being described. But when you say that "everyone" is guilty of an overblown sense of entitlement, then issuing such an outrageous blanket statement (without proving it) is deserving the description.
We can talk about "deserving". If someone says "Foster deserves an Olympic spot, because the standards are too tough", then you are correct to say that the person hasn't proved anything. (The two issues are not directly connected.) But take a look back at what knelson said in his second post. He pointed out that the best swimmers in a particular country, who are under Olympic standards and have a chance at medaling, are being left at home. If your standard is that the person has a chance at a medal, then Foster is deserving. If your standard is the time cuts decided, then you can say that Foster is not deserving. But the reason being given for the time cuts is to make sure that selected can have a chance at the medal. The goal of the cuts, and the results of the chosen cuts, appear to be in conflict. Thus, this discussion.
Now after all that, I just read "90 or bust"'s post, where he gave more information. Thank you. So let me be clear on what I am arguing (regardless of what others are). I'm not saying that the rules should be bent to let Foster in. I'm asking that, if the standards are keeping Foster out, do you think they should be changed for the next time?
Originally posted by aquageek
What in the world? How does this have anything to do with racial or religions discrimination? It is not a law, period.
Take a look at the Olympic Charter, there is a non-discrimination clause when they talk about athlete selection. (Look, we are splitting hairs on "law" and "rule", can we agree on the general issue and move on?)
Originally posted by aquageek
Thanks for continuing to call me Ion. That's an effective way to reduce my arguments to meaningless jabber.
Maybe I was unclear, or maybe you misread. Your arguments, on the whole, are not being described. But when you say that "everyone" is guilty of an overblown sense of entitlement, then issuing such an outrageous blanket statement (without proving it) is deserving the description.
We can talk about "deserving". If someone says "Foster deserves an Olympic spot, because the standards are too tough", then you are correct to say that the person hasn't proved anything. (The two issues are not directly connected.) But take a look back at what knelson said in his second post. He pointed out that the best swimmers in a particular country, who are under Olympic standards and have a chance at medaling, are being left at home. If your standard is that the person has a chance at a medal, then Foster is deserving. If your standard is the time cuts decided, then you can say that Foster is not deserving. But the reason being given for the time cuts is to make sure that selected can have a chance at the medal. The goal of the cuts, and the results of the chosen cuts, appear to be in conflict. Thus, this discussion.
Now after all that, I just read "90 or bust"'s post, where he gave more information. Thank you. So let me be clear on what I am arguing (regardless of what others are). I'm not saying that the rules should be bent to let Foster in. I'm asking that, if the standards are keeping Foster out, do you think they should be changed for the next time?
