Omega says Cavic touched first

No it doesn't. It just means his hands were moving forward slower than Phelps' were. I base my argument that Phelps won on three major facts: 1. The pad recorded his touch .01 second before Cavic. 2. The photo series published by SI shows Phelps clearly touching the wall while Cavic appears not to be yet. Some people disagree and suggest Cavic is also touching in this photo. If so--at best--this is only evidence of a tie, not a victory for Cavic. 3. Serbia protested, but withdrew their protest after seeing the official video. I dont want to keep stirring it up, but there are easy respsoses to each of these: 1) No one is doubting that Phelps activated the pad first. The entire dispute is wether the pad functioned correctly when *some* believe the photos/video show Cavic touching first. 2) I dont think anyone can conclusively say anything from the photos on either side. The cameras aren't close enough and they appear one way to some people and another way to others. No one produces a photo that convinces everyone. 3) The omega official states that everyone who saw the video agreed that Cavic touched first, but were satisfied that he didn't push it hard enough to activate it first. He claims they withdrew protests not because they believed Phelps touched first, but because he activated the pad first and thus there was no other legal result possible. The bottom line is Phelps is the legal winner and you can debate the true winner forever until someone produces proof that convinces EVERYONE who sees it. The only other standard fans can use right now is performance in subsequent races.

Apparently *some* do, but so far no one has shown any evidence showing Cavic touching first in this thread. Really, I'd love to see it. And, just for the record, I'm not trying to argue with you, David. I keep hearing there's evidence showing Cavic touched first, but no one seems to have it. I didn't think you were being argumentative, but I appreciate you clarifying it regardless. :) I am not either. I also agree with you there is no proof Cavic touched first.

Apparently *some* do, but so far no one has shown any evidence showing Cavic touching first in this thread. Really, I'd love to see it. And, just for the record, I'm not trying to argue with you, David. I keep hearing there's evidence showing Cavic touched first, but no one seems to have it. Kirk, I showed you the NY times picture which was taken .01 or .02 before the SI photo. I think Cavic's finger appears on the wall and Phelps does not. Of the two photos, in my opinion the NY times/ Phleps photo is the clearest one of the swimmers hand not being on the wall. But I don't think it is clear!

I'm with Ande on this one. The current generation of touch pads require a specific force level to be triggered. If it's the same for everyone (i.e all the pads are operating in identical manner) then the finish requirements are the same. Since the race is decided by times derived from the pads, then it doesn't matter when someone touches the wall, it matters when they trigger the pad. A lot of discussion has occurred around the concept that Cavic's fingers contacted the wall first. Looking at all the photos and slow speed footage, I have absolutely no trouble believing that Cavic's fingers were in contact with the wall first. But to quote Bill Murray: It just doesn't matter!!!! In Olympic Swimming the winner is determined by the swimmer who triggers the electronic timing system first NOT who touches the wall first. Even my 8 yo swimmers know to drive into the touch pad hard. Get over it, so you touched the wall first? Other than you and your coach, who really cares, you didn't finish hard so you came up .01 seconds short. And had ANOTHER chance to prove you were faster and didn't get it done. Let it go, just let it go. Yes, the winner is determined by a machine, which is much more accurate, than human.This is the way it should be. But the idea behind is that the machine never fails... The Olympic Winner should be the one who wins, and in this case who finishes the distance first - it was Cavic. "then it doesn't matter when someone touches the wall, it matters when they trigger the pad." "In Olympic Swimming the winner is determined by the swimmer who triggers the electronic timing system first NOT who touches the wall first. " I hope you don't belive in those two sentences. Because they are simply not true. It should be the other way around. Your name is shown at the top of the display, because you were the fastest, and not because you pused hard enough the pad. Cause-effect. Until the Men's 100 Butterfly Beijing 2008 everybody thought that the system is flawless... They thought 'if someone touches the wall first they will be named first in the race.' Let's exaggerate a little bit. What if the system brakes down so much,that even though the winner wins by - let's say - 2 seconds, yet his toch pad does not trigger somehow, but it does for the guy behind? You still tell for your swimmers that the second guy is the winner?? I hope not...

Evidence? Yeah, I'm beginning to believe those who say Cavic touched first are just doing this to irritate the rest of us. It does NOT look like Cavic touched first in any photo or video I've seen. Please show me a picture where it looks like Cavic touched first! Unless someone can do this how can you possibly doubt the timing system? Some yahoo from Omega claiming Cavic touched first is not evidence. What's wrong with declaring a TIE? The finish order will continue to be defined by the limits of the technology/equipment. But it wasn't a tie. Phelps won by .01!

Yes, the winner is determined by a machine, which is much more accurate, than human.This is the way it should be. But the idea behind is that the machine never fails... The Olympic Winner should be the one who wins, and in this case who finishes the distance first - it was Cavic. Who said machines never fail? I work in Information Technology, things fail all the time. Then point to clear proof that he touched first. Because there seems to be a lot more proof/analysis for the other conclusion. And without clear proof then the results from electronic timing stand. And as I pointed out, unless there was clear evidence of a malfunction the results must be accepted as accurate. I did clearly point out that the operation of all timing must be the same for all competitors. "then it doesn't matter when someone touches the wall, it matters when they trigger the pad." "In Olympic Swimming the winner is determined by the swimmer who triggers the electronic timing system first NOT who touches the wall first. " I hope you don't belive in those two sentences. Because they are simply not true. It should be the other way around. Your name is shown at the top of the display, because you were the fastest, and not because you pused hard enough the pad. Cause-effect. Until the Men's 100 Butterfly Beijing 2008 everybody thought that the system is flawless... They thought 'if someone touches the wall first they will be named first in the race.' How about you quote the ENTIRE thought instead of just a fragment. "The current generation of touch pads require a specific force level to be triggered. If it's the same for everyone (i.e all the pads are operating in identical manner) then the finish requirements are the same. Since the race is decided by times derived from the pads, then it doesn't matter when someone touches the wall, it matters when they trigger the pad." No, actually in the context of races using touch pads, I beleive what I said. Is it the absolutely most accurate way of determining finish order? I don't know but I'm confident it's the best method currently possible. And every competitor KNOWS that they have to apply pressure to the pads to have them register. It's not like it's a complete surprise to any of them. No actually, the winner is the one who completes the finish requirements of the race first. As I pointed out in Olympic Swimming, the requirements, since touch pads are the timing system used, mean that the swimmer who triggers the pads (from a pure timing aspect, outside of any stroke legality) first wins. In our summer league, it's the middle time of three watches. Puts way too much power in the timers hands as I have many times witnessed a finish were the 2nd place swimmers touches the wall first but the watch times (which have a margin of error of +/- .2 seconds) didn't agree. Let's exaggerate a little bit. What if the system brakes down so much,that even though the winner wins by - let's say - 2 seconds, yet his toch pad does not trigger somehow, but it does for the guy behind? You still tell for your swimmers that the second guy is the winner?? I hope not... You must not work meets with electronic timing because this does happen, when the electronic timing system has been determined to have been faulty (you seem to have missed the point about the timing system must be functioning correctly for all swimmers in my post) or the swimmer has missed the pad, then either an adjustment of the electronic timing shall be made or the backup timing system time shall be used as the official time. For most USA-s meets using electronic timing, the secondary timing is the manual buttons for the electronic timing and the backup to that are hand held watches. For the Olympics if the timing system was determined to have malfunctioned (NOT the case in the 100 Fly final), they would determine times using the high speed cameras. If you don't like the current system, then I suggest you invent one that's better.

You're not wrong. Any part of the head or torso.

The Olympic Winner should be the one who wins, and in this case who finishes the distance first - it was Cavic. Evidence?

The race is over, Phelps triggered the pad .01 before Cavic. The photos conclusively show Phelps hand on the touchpad - look at the angle of his hand - where Cavic does not show the same hand angle. And, like shots in tennis there looks to be daylight between his fingers and the pad. Camera angles are tough, but Phelp's camera angle is the same as Cavics and his hand has squarely hit the pad. Does anyone remember if they had back up timers on the deck in Bejing? If so - and I would imagine there were - what if anything did that show on the time? Did Cavic touch the pad first and not set it off? - then why is it only a .01 difference, it would seem that the time difference would be longer. As somone said - for a 200 pound adult swimmer - even on a glide - the pad would most certainly trigger at that impact. Touch pads are not perfect but if Cavic was to have won that 2008 race the same way Phelps won the Rome 2009 race, and the pads malfunctioned the controversy is non-existent. Before touchpads, the place judge called the order of finish which overruled the hand held analog stopwatches. I know an NCAA All-American who won a 50 free and admitted he never touch the wall, Were some people ever taught, especially on relays, to make a big splash at the end of their leg - masking the touch/takeoff on a relay. I know swimmers in dual meets that would , especially in close races with no touch pads (I know a long time ago) essentially actually jerk back, as though they had touched and "bounced" back from the wall. If they touched first or not, or if they won any races with the tactic I don't know. It seems awfully stupid to try that it if you are that close. - it would be too close to call, but I would guess they were relying on that action to trigger the timers response. We all thought Cavic had won and if we were hand timing, I bet that the stopwatch would have had Cavic winning based on the anticipation of the timers (just human nature). Then again why stop at the second digit beyond the decimal - why not go 3 or 4 digits. Ties are so messy.

Maybe new Olympic tie breaking rule is in order? Any swims within .01 require an immediate re-do of the race. No warm down. Just get up on the blocks and do a swim off. First one to the finish regardless of time is the winner. That would settle everything.