Mark Foster and the Olympics

Aquageek is right, there is no deserving, and the IOC allows its member countries to decide who to send any way they want. So it seems to me is that the best way is to decide in the interests of the individual country. So the process should start by the careful selection of the committee or individual that decides this - they should be particularly sensitive to perception and political realities. The best way to assure this is for the selectors to be chosen by the political leaders. Primary attention should be paid to the perception of the athletes by foreign countries, and how well they represent the best ideals of their own nation. For example, if they don't have a good chance of winning the athletes should probably not go, as it would be embarrassing to have a low percentage of medals, and it does cost money to send these athletes. Most countries want others to believe that its citizens are hard working and obedient to authority, so if the athlete is lazy, argues with his coach, or does not take national meets seriously, he/she should probably not go, either. We all want our athletes to be moral, because our country is moral, so it is important that the athletes represent the highest standards of society. Single female athletes, for example, should not have been pregnant in the past, or play cards with men late at night. If the athlete does not truly represent the nation, why should he or she attend? For example, some athletes may come from marginal groups that are causing domestic problems (or don't look like we want to look like,) so probably should not go because their attendence could cause issues. Related to that last issue, sometimes athletes are not properly patriotic. They sometimes would be tempted to not return; that would look very bad, so it is better if they never left. Given the political realities, it is often better to select famous athletes, or well-connected athletes, as being better for the nation's general athletic program. For example, if a well-respected athlete's attendence encourages more participation in the sport, that can only be good, right? So I think it is clear that 'trials' are far to risky. Sometimes the best athletes or individuals are not selected. Even worse, sometimes inappropriate athletes are selected.

Either individual countries are free to pick their teams or they aren't. We can discuss and argue about what is fair till the cows come home but that's what it comes down to. The alternative is what? The IOC setting a uniform method that all countries have to follow? I don't know about everyone else but I'd sure hate to see that even as a suggestion. It's hard to watch any great athlete fail, whatever fail means, but it happens all the time. It's part of what makes sport a great thing. Nobody wins all the time. There are no absolutes(except that Thorpe will swim the 400) and nobody is owed anything and nobody deserves anything. Either Foster and Stevens come out of this stronger or they decide they're done. That may be cold but it's a fact. People end their careers after the trials all the time.

Originally posted by mattson Originally posted by aquageek If you are discriminating by race or religion, yes it is a law. What in the world? How does this have anything to do with racial or religions discrimination? It is not a law, period. Are you saying that any time somone discriminates against another person, it is a law? Thanks for continuing to call me Ion. That's an effective way to reduce my arguments to meaningless jabber.

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?

By Aquakeek. There is no right to go to the Olympics, there is no deserving What is so strange about this is that Foster, who is coming off injury, WON the olympic trial and finished over half a second UNDER the Olympic qualifying time. He has plainly qualified to swim this event. However Bill Sweetenham for his own reasons has decided that this is not good enough, so he stays at home and a chance for a bronze or silver medal for the UK has been blown . The term "excess baggage" infuriates me, and I do agree that it is good to send young people to the games to experience the occasion. So that when they go as medal contenders in 4 years time they could perform better. Anyway, it is very nice of Bill to help all the other swim teams at Athens to gain extra medals.

Still very unclear on how this Foster is being discriminated against, racially or religiously as you suggested. Olympic cmtes don't make laws, governments do. What discrimination is he being subjected to? I find it comical that you suggest he deserves a spot on his team despite the fact he didn't cut it. This whole notion of deserving drives me nuts. Fortunately, in sports, you win based on ability. If deserving was all it would take, here are some tidbits: Phil Mickelson would have won a major a long time ago. He deserves it, he's a nice family guy. Charles Barkely would have won an NBA ring. He deserves it, he did more with a 6'6" frame than almost anyone else. Ray Lewis would not have won a Super Bowl. He participated in murder (later acquited), he doesn't deserve super stardom. Ion would be top 10 in his events. He deserves it, he works out harder than almost all of us COMBINED. Lastly, I believe America is awash with entitlement. It's all over the news, check court cases, no one ever claims fault. If you want solid proof, check your post. You believe Foster is entitled to a spot on his team.

I have some sympathy for Foster but I think that this discussion needs some perspective on British swimming. In 2000, for the first time ever, there were no British olympic swimming medals. There were also very few PBs in swimming at the games. In fact, the British swimming team at Sydney were perhaps best known for keeping our triple-jumper, Jonathan Edwards, awake at night through their partying. After Sydney, Bill Sweetenham came in and changed attitudes hugely. He did this by setting very high expectations of the swimmers, both in training and at meets. One part of this was the setting of high hurdles in terms of entry times for the Olympics. The reason presumably was that if the standards were tough, the best would rise to the challenge and meet them. Of course, some would try very hard and unfortunately fail, but overall Britain would have a better team and the chance of being competitive in several events. This is what has happened, we now have the chance of winning a few medals in Athens with the like of Mew, Gibson, Edmonds, Cook, Marshall, Davies, Smith, Parry, Tait, Goddard, Turner, Francis etc. So, by being tough, a good team has been produced and British swimming will benefit. Some individuals are disappointed and maybe the wrong swimmer has been left at home for one or two events but that's the way of sport. If Sweetenham hadn't turned things around, its likely that we'd be sending another non-competitive team to Athens. Of course Mark Foster would probably get into the 50m free final and maybe even win a medal so why not bend the rules for him? If its done for him, who else will appeal? How will the qualifying standards be perceived next time around- flexible? Foster knew what he needed to do and unfortunately didn't achieve it. Let's also remember that Foster has already been to four Olympics. If I remember correctly, his best position was 6th.

I'm confused. On the one hand, Australia should not under any circumstances alter their selection criteria to allow Thorpe to swim, after he fell off the block before the start of the 400, but on the other hand Great Britain should ignore their time standards for qualifying and add Foster to the team? Their time standards were not created to target Foster specifically--had he swum faster, he'd be on the team. Where's the injustice? Each country can establish their own criteria and select their own team.

Originally posted by aquageek I find it comical that you suggest he deserves a spot on his team despite the fact he didn't cut it. This whole notion of deserving drives me nuts. Fortunately, in sports, you win based on ability. .... Unless your name is Thorpe. Then you are on the team because you deserve it and are entitled to it! :confused:

Originally posted by mattson I'm asking that, if the standards are keeping Foster out, do you think they should be changed for the next time? No. Time standards always keep someone out. That's the point. If they and the Japanese have decided tougher time standards will help their overall program then it goes back to their country and their rules. It certainly looks to me like their programs are heading in the right direction overall. I'm having a hard time understanding what the issue is. I doubt this was done to specifically single out Foster. He just happened to be one of those that didn't make the cut.