Thorpe and the rules (long)

i don't think anyone is disputing the fact that Thorpe
shouldn't be installed to his 'rightful' position as
Australia's qualifier for the 400 free - rather that
that rule is especially harsh when you're selecting your
best team.

yes, the rules should shadow the event you're trialling for
in order to simulate the pressure and situation, however no
one in their right mind can reasonably say Thorpe isn't the
obvious choice for that slot, and the rules should account
for that, even if it is in place only for the trial
situation to safeguard your own interests.

"TRPLATT" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:20040330200811.16845.00000413@mb-
m28.aol.com...

Quoted message said:

The only reason that this debate is continuing is because
Thorpe is a

superstar

Quoted message said:

and the odds on favorite to win a gold medal in the 400
free. If the

violator

Quoted message said:

was a second tier swimmer, he would be out and that
would end it.

At a more fundamental level what is the function of rules
in swimming?

Lets

Quoted message said:

consider a couple of different scenarios.

The first two involve failing to touch the wall on a turn.

1) The start to the 400 free is clean and after 345 meters
Thorpe has a

half

Quoted message said:

pool length on the rest of the field. He misjudges the
turn, gets no push

off

Quoted message said:

the wall but continues to win by a few strokes over
his nearest

competitor. The

Quoted message said:

judge disqualifies him because he failed to touch the
wall. High

resolution

Quoted message said:

ceiling cameras (spy satellite variety - humor me) confirm
the judges

deckside

Quoted message said:

ruling. Thorpe gained no advantage and won anyway. Why
should he be disqualified?

2) Same race, same situation. One of Thorpe's desperate
competitors flips

at

Quoted message said:

the 325 mark (middle of the pool), and while losing
momentum, out touches

a

Quoted message said:

fast closing Thorpedo at the wall. The judge disqualifies
the miscreant

and

Quoted message said:

Thorpe wins. The miscreant did give up momentum but gained
an unfair

advantage

Quoted message said:

by failing to swim the entire race and we would all agree
with the disqualification.

Analysis: Neither swimmer completed the entire race. Both
are guilty of

rule

Quoted message said:

violations and both deserve to be disqualified. Where do
the officials

draw the

Quoted message said:

line between the two situations?

The third scenario involves the start.

1) The 100 freestyle the referee calls the swimmers to the
blocks and the starter commands, "swimmers" take your
mark. In a fraction of a second the swimmers are in the
water and one swimmer gets a phenomenal jump and has

1/2 a

Quoted message said:

body length on the field at 15 meters. By the end of the
race our leader

is

Quoted message said:

fading but hangs on to win by .01 second.

a) If the winner moved at any point before the starting
horn sounded, he

had

Quoted message said:

an unfair advantage and should be disqualified.

b) If the winner correctly (and dangerously) anticipated
the starting

horn but

Quoted message said:

did not move before it sounded he is good (and lucky) and
is the winner.

Analysis: The line between an unfair and fair start is
very small but can

have

Quoted message said:

significant consequences.

(Shades of Rowdy Gaines and Mark Stockwell - Los Angeles
1984. Most Australians, including Stockwell as I recall)
claim Gaines jumped and

Americans

Quoted message said:

claim the start was fair and Rowdy lived dangerously.)

The no chance rule was (I suspect) instituted to attempt
to reduce the

chance

Quoted message said:

of a competitor "catching a flyer" and gaining an unfair
advantage. This

levels

Quoted message said:

the playing field unless a competitor is willing to take
the chance of

false

Quoted message said:

starting and being disqualified.

It is hard to tell from the videotape whether Thorpe was
trying to get an advantage that he didn't need, or just
lost his balance. This same

situation

Quoted message said:

occurred in the NCAA Track and Field championships (800
meters I think)

and the

Quoted message said:

competitor was disqualified. Thorpe is an experienced
swimmer and should

not

Quoted message said:

make that kind of mistake.

Rules (and the officials strict adherence to them)
protects "all"

competitors

Quoted message said:

against gross cheating, as well as attempts to obtain
small unfair

advantages,

Quoted message said:

although every once in awhile someone will catch a flyer -
legally. I

don't

Quoted message said:

know what Thorpe was thinking, but he broke the rules and
should be disqualified.

It would be a shame if the Australian Olympic Committee
violated its own selection procedures and put Thorpe in
the 400 free as much as I would

like to

Quoted message said:

see him swim it.

You either play by rules or don't play. It is the only way
to insure that training, talent, and fair play will win -
at least the majority of the

time.

Quoted message said:

TRP

I think this entire situation shows that the false start
rule that was initiated in 1998 needs to be revisited. I've
been out of competitive swimming for a long time and did not
realize that it had gone to one and done. I remember long
ago, each individual swimmer was allowed 1 false start, then
was DQ'd on the second. That got ridiculous because you
could have 4 or 5 attempts before getting a race started.
Then, as I recall, the rule went to one false start on
anybody counted as one for the entire field, then the next
person to false start would be DQ'd. I like that method
better that one and done. The one and done system seems to
lend itself to sitaution like this where a person could
slip, get overbalanced, etc. I just don't like it.

The rules are as they are. Thorpe was deked and IMO,
shouldn't be allowed to compete, as much as we all would
like to see it. But I hope that FINA changes the rule after
the Olympics to something a little more equitable.

[email hidden] (TRPLATT) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

b) If the winner correctly (and dangerously) anticipated
the starting horn but did not move before it sounded
he is good (and lucky) and is the winner.

Analysis: The line between an unfair and fair start is
very small but can have significant consequences.

(Shades of Rowdy Gaines and Mark Stockwell - Los Angeles
1984. Most Australians, including Stockwell as I recall)
claim Gaines jumped and Americans claim the start was fair
and Rowdy lived dangerously.)

Don Talbot in his latest book says Gaines coach remembered
the starter from the previous year's Pan-American Games
having an itchy trigger finger and told Gaines to be ready
for a very quick start. The Australian complaint was that
Stockwell wasn't even down and steady when the gun went off.
Afterwards Talbot congratulated Gaines' coach on his
foresight.

(Jacques Shark) said:

[email hidden] (TRPLATT) wrote in message news:<20040330200811.16845.00000413@mb-
m28.aol.com>...

Quoted message said:

b) If the winner correctly (and dangerously) anticipated
the starting horn but did not move before it sounded
he is good (and lucky) and is the winner.

Analysis: The line between an unfair and fair start is
very small but can have significant consequences.

(Shades of Rowdy Gaines and Mark Stockwell - Los Angeles
1984. Most Australians, including Stockwell as I recall)
claim Gaines jumped and Americans claim the start was
fair and Rowdy lived dangerously.)

Don Talbot in his latest book says Gaines coach remembered
the starter from the previous year's Pan-American Games
having an itchy trigger finger and told Gaines to be ready
for a very quick start. The Australian complaint was that
Stockwell wasn't even down and steady when the gun went
off. Afterwards Talbot congratulated Gaines' coach on his
foresight.

If they implemented electronic starts and allow movement on
the blocks, there would be no arguments.

martin

Michael Sollner said:

I think this entire situation shows that the false start
rule that was initiated in 1998 needs to be revisited.
I've been out of competitive swimming for a long time and
did not realize that it had gone to one and done. I
remember long ago, each individual swimmer was allowed 1
false start, then was DQ'd on the second. That got
ridiculous because you could have 4 or 5 attempts before
getting a race started. Then, as I recall, the rule went
to one false start on anybody counted as one for the
entire field, then the next person to false start would be
DQ'd. I like that method better that one and done. The one
and done system seems to lend itself to sitaution like
this where a person could slip, get overbalanced, etc. I
just don't like it.

The rules are as they are. Thorpe was deked and IMO,
shouldn't be allowed to compete, as much as we all would
like to see it. But I hope that FINA changes the rule
after the Olympics to something a little more equitable.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Thorpe shouldn't
have been DQ'd. What I do find objectionable is that he
unable to defend his title because of it. It's a sick joke
as far as I'm concerned. He is the greatest 400m swimmer in
history. The Olympics are the supreme occassion in sport.
He's been training most of his life for this very occasion,
and now it's been snatched away from him.

I'm also sick of hearing all this phoney hogwash about rules
and fairness. As far as I'm concerned Thorpe shouldn't even
have to qualify. As defending champion he should be given
automatic entrance. You know it makes sense.

Ernest the Sheep said:

Michael Sollner said:

I think this entire situation shows that the false start
rule that was initiated in 1998 needs to be revisited.
I've been out of competitive swimming for a long time and
did not realize that it had gone to one and done. I
remember long ago, each individual swimmer was allowed 1
false start, then was DQ'd on the second. That got
ridiculous because you could have 4 or 5 attempts before
getting a race started. Then, as I recall, the rule went
to one false start on anybody counted as one for the
entire field, then the next person to false start would
be DQ'd. I like that method better that one and done. The
one and done system seems to lend itself to sitaution
like this where a person could slip, get overbalanced,
etc. I just don't like it.

The rules are as they are. Thorpe was deked and IMO,
shouldn't be allowed to compete, as much as we all would
like to see it. But I hope that FINA changes the rule
after the Olympics to something a little more equitable.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Thorpe shouldn't
have been DQ'd. What I do find objectionable is that he
unable to defend his title because of it. It's a sick joke
as far as I'm concerned. He is the greatest 400m swimmer in
history. The Olympics are the supreme occassion in sport.
He's been training most of his life for this very occasion,
and now it's been snatched away from him.

What about the World Championships? The O;ympics are bigger
only because of the hype, certainly not because the race
means anything more in swimming than any other race where
the best 400 men can be there.

Quoted message said:

I'm also sick of hearing all this phoney hogwash about
rules and fairness. As far as I'm concerned Thorpe
shouldn't even have to qualify. As defending champion
he should be given automatic entrance. You know it
makes sense.

That isn't phoney hogwash. You don't change the rules in the
middle of the qualification process; you do it right after
the Olympics so all the swimmers know what is expected of
them and don't have to worry about shifting goalposts.

Martin W. Smith said:

"Ernest the Sheep" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Michael Sollner said:

I think this entire situation shows that the false start
rule that was initiated in 1998 needs to be revisited.
I've been out of competitive swimming for a long time
and did not realize that it had gone to one and done. I
remember long ago, each individual swimmer was allowed 1
false start, then was DQ'd on the second. That got
ridiculous because you could have 4 or 5 attempts before
getting a race started. Then, as I recall, the rule went
to one false start on anybody counted as one for the
entire field, then the next person to false start would
be DQ'd. I like that method better that one and done.
The one and done system seems to lend itself to
sitaution like this where a person could slip, get
overbalanced, etc. I just don't like it.

The rules are as they are. Thorpe was deked and IMO,
shouldn't be allowed to compete, as much as we all would
like to see it. But I hope that FINA changes the rule
after the Olympics to something a little more equitable.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Thorpe shouldn't
have been DQ'd. What I do find objectionable is that he
unable to defend his title because of it. It's a sick
joke as far as I'm concerned. He is the greatest 400m
swimmer in history. The Olympics are the supreme
occassion in sport. He's been training most of his life
for this very occasion, and now it's been snatched away
from him.

What about the World Championships? The O;ympics are
bigger only because of the hype, certainly not because the
race means anything more in swimming than any other race
where the best 400 men can be there.

Stop being such a clown! The Olympics are the biggest
event in sport.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm also sick of hearing all this phoney hogwash about
rules and fairness. As far as I'm concerned Thorpe
shouldn't even have to qualify. As defending champion
he should be given automatic entrance. You know it
makes sense.

That isn't phoney hogwash. You don't change the rules in
the middle of the qualification process; you do it right
after the Olympics so all the swimmers know what is
expected of them and don't have to worry about shifting
goalposts.

Why not? Clearly the rules are flawed.

Ernest the Sheep said:

Martin W. Smith said:

"Ernest the Sheep"

Quoted message said:

Michael Sollner wrote:
> I think this entire situation shows that the false
> start rule that was initiated in 1998 needs to be
> revisited. I've been out of competitive swimming for a
> long time and did not realize that it had gone to one
> and done. I remember long ago, each individual swimmer
> was allowed 1 false start, then was DQ'd on the
> second. That got ridiculous because you could have 4
> or 5 attempts before getting a race started. Then, as
> I recall, the rule went to one false start on anybody
> counted as one for the entire field, then the next
> person to false start would be DQ'd. I like that
> method better that one and done. The one and done
> system seems to lend itself to sitaution like this
> where a person could slip, get overbalanced, etc. I
> just don't like it.
>
> The rules are as they are. Thorpe was deked and IMO,
> shouldn't be allowed to compete, as much as we all
> would like to see it. But I hope that FINA changes the
> rule after the Olympics to something a little more
> equitable.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Thorpe shouldn't
have been DQ'd. What I do find objectionable is that he
unable to defend his title because of it. It's a sick
joke as far as I'm concerned. He is the greatest 400m
swimmer in history. The Olympics are the supreme
occassion in sport. He's been training most of his life
for this very occasion, and now it's been snatched away
from him.

What about the World Championships? The O;ympics are
bigger only because of the hype, certainly not because
the race means anything more in swimming than any other
race where the best 400 men can be there.

Stop being such a clown! The Olympics are the biggest event
in sport.

Because of the hype, not because they actually represent
races that are the most important in swimming. One can
easily argue that the World Championships and the Pan
Pacific Championships are more important swimming events.

Certainly the US World Series is a bigger baseball
competition than Olympic baseball, and the World Series of
Cricket is even bigger than the World Series of baseball,
and cricket isn't even an Olympic sport.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm also sick of hearing all this phoney hogwash about
rules and fairness. As far as I'm concerned Thorpe
shouldn't even have to qualify. As defending champion he
should be given automatic entrance. You know it makes
sense.

That isn't phoney hogwash. You don't change the rules in
the middle of the qualification process; you do it right
after the Olympics so all the swimmers know what is
expected of them and don't have to worry about shifting
goalposts.

Why not? Clearly the rules are flawed.

Clearly? Clearly to you, you mean. It is clear to me that
the rules are flawed with respect to performance enhancing
drugs, since the current rules require the world to spend
hundreds of millions of dollars on drug testing that could
be spent on sports.

martin

Martin W. Smith said:

"Ernest the Sheep" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Martin W. Smith said:

"Ernest the Sheep" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

> Michael Sollner wrote:
>> I think this entire situation shows that the false
>> start rule that was initiated in 1998 needs to be
>> revisited. I've been out of competitive swimming for a
>> long time and did not realize that it had gone to one
>> and done. I remember long ago, each individual swimmer
>> was allowed 1 false start, then was DQ'd on the
>> second. That got ridiculous because you could have 4
>> or 5 attempts before getting a race started. Then, as
>> I recall, the rule went to one false start on anybody
>> counted as one for the entire field, then the next
>> person to false start would be DQ'd. I like that
>> method better that one and done. The one and done
>> system seems to lend itself to sitaution like this
>> where a person could slip, get overbalanced, etc. I
>> just don't like it.
>>
>> The rules are as they are. Thorpe was deked and IMO,
>> shouldn't be allowed to compete, as much as we all
>> would like to see it. But I hope that FINA changes the
>> rule after the Olympics to something a little more
>> equitable.
>
> I don't think anyone is suggesting that Thorpe
> shouldn't have been DQ'd. What I do find objectionable
> is that he unable to defend his title because of it.
> It's a sick joke as far as I'm concerned. He is the
> greatest 400m swimmer in history. The Olympics are the
> supreme occassion in sport. He's been training most of
> his life for this very occasion, and now it's been
> snatched away from him.

What about the World Championships? The O;ympics are
bigger only because of the hype, certainly not because
the race means anything more in swimming than any other
race where the best 400 men can be there.

Stop being such a clown! The Olympics are the biggest
event in sport.

Because of the hype, not because they actually represent
races that are the most important in swimming. One can
easily argue that the World Championships and the Pan
Pacific Championships are more important swimming events.

Go on then. I'm all ears.

Quoted message said:

Certainly the US World Series is a bigger baseball
competition than Olympic baseball, and the World Series of
Cricket is even bigger than the World Series of baseball,
and cricket isn't even an Olympic sport.

I have no idea what you're on about.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I'm also sick of hearing all this phoney hogwash about
> rules and fairness. As far as I'm concerned Thorpe
> shouldn't even have to qualify. As defending champion
> he should be given automatic entrance. You know it
> makes sense.

That isn't phoney hogwash. You don't change the rules in
the middle of the qualification process; you do it right
after the Olympics so all the swimmers know what is
expected of them and don't have to worry about shifting
goalposts.

Why not? Clearly the rules are flawed.

Clearly? Clearly to you, you mean. It is clear to me that
the rules are flawed with respect to performance enhancing
drugs, since the current rules require the world to spend
hundreds of millions of dollars on drug testing that could
be spent on sports.

Oh, so now you're in favour of drugs. I'm beginning to
suspect you may be some sort of usenet kook!

Ernest the Sheep said:

Martin W. Smith said:

"Ernest the Sheep"

Quoted message said:

Martin W. Smith wrote:
> "Ernest the Sheep" <[email hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>> Michael Sollner wrote:
>>> I think this entire situation shows that the false
>>> start rule that was initiated in 1998 needs to be
>>> revisited. I've been out of competitive swimming for
>>> a long time and did not realize that it had gone to
>>> one and done. I remember long ago, each individual
>>> swimmer was allowed 1 false start, then was DQ'd on
>>> the second. That got ridiculous because you could
>>> have 4 or 5 attempts before getting a race started.
>>> Then, as I recall, the rule went to one false start
>>> on anybody counted as one for the entire field, then
>>> the next person to false start would be DQ'd. I like
>>> that method better that one and done. The one and
>>> done system seems to lend itself to sitaution like
>>> this where a person could slip, get overbalanced,
>>> etc. I just don't like it.
>>>
>>> The rules are as they are. Thorpe was deked and IMO,
>>> shouldn't be allowed to compete, as much as we all
>>> would like to see it. But I hope that FINA changes
>>> the rule after the Olympics to something a little
>>> more equitable.
>>
>> I don't think anyone is suggesting that Thorpe
>> shouldn't have been DQ'd. What I do find objectionable
>> is that he unable to defend his title because of it.
>> It's a sick joke as far as I'm concerned. He is the
>> greatest 400m swimmer in history. The Olympics are the
>> supreme occassion in sport. He's been training most of
>> his life for this very occasion, and now it's been
>> snatched away from him.
>
> What about the World Championships? The O;ympics are
> bigger only because of the hype, certainly not because
> the race means anything more in swimming than any other
> race where the best 400 men can be there.

Stop being such a clown! The Olympics are the biggest
event in sport.

Because of the hype, not because they actually represent
races that are the most important in swimming. One can
easily argue that the World Championships and the Pan
Pacific Championships are more important swimming events.

Go on then. I'm all ears.

I already did. More of the best swimmers can attend.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Certainly the US World Series is a bigger baseball
competition than Olympic baseball, and the World Series
of Cricket is even bigger than the World Series of
baseball, and cricket isn't even an Olympic sport.

I have no idea what you're on about.

Where did you get confused?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> I'm also sick of hearing all this phoney hogwash about
>> rules and fairness. As far as I'm concerned Thorpe
>> shouldn't even have to qualify. As defending champion
>> he should be given automatic entrance. You know it
>> makes sense.
>
> That isn't phoney hogwash. You don't change the rules
> in the middle of the qualification process; you do it
> right after the Olympics so all the swimmers know what
> is expected of them and don't have to worry about
> shifting goalposts.

Why not? Clearly the rules are flawed.

Clearly? Clearly to you, you mean. It is clear to me that
the rules are flawed with respect to performance
enhancing drugs, since the current rules require the
world to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on drug
testing that could be spent on sports.

Oh, so now you're in favour of drugs. I'm beginning to
suspect you may be some sort of usenet kook!

You can't see the flaw then? It is a very major flaw. The
rule banning performance enhnacing drugs costs more to
enforce than maybe even the remaining cost of the world's
swimming programs.

martin

Martin W. Smith said:

"Ernest the Sheep" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Martin W. Smith said:

"Ernest the Sheep" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

> Martin W. Smith wrote:
>> "Ernest the Sheep" <[email hidden]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Sollner wrote:
>>>> I think this entire situation shows that the false
>>>> start rule that was initiated in 1998 needs to be
>>>> revisited. I've been out of competitive swimming for
>>>> a long time and did not realize that it had gone to
>>>> one and done. I remember long ago, each individual
>>>> swimmer was allowed 1 false start, then was DQ'd on
>>>> the second. That got ridiculous because you could
>>>> have 4 or 5 attempts before getting a race started.
>>>> Then, as I recall, the rule went to one false start
>>>> on anybody counted as one for the entire field, then
>>>> the next person to false start would be DQ'd. I like
>>>> that method better that one and done. The one and
>>>> done system seems to lend itself to sitaution like
>>>> this where a person could slip, get overbalanced,
>>>> etc. I just don't like it.
>>>>
>>>> The rules are as they are. Thorpe was deked and IMO,
>>>> shouldn't be allowed to compete, as much as we all
>>>> would like to see it. But I hope that FINA changes
>>>> the rule after the Olympics to something a little
>>>> more equitable.
>>>
>>> I don't think anyone is suggesting that Thorpe
>>> shouldn't have been DQ'd. What I do find
>>> objectionable is that he unable to defend his title
>>> because of it. It's a sick joke as far as I'm
>>> concerned. He is the greatest 400m swimmer in
>>> history. The Olympics are the supreme occassion in
>>> sport. He's been training most of his life for this
>>> very occasion, and now it's been snatched away from
>>> him.
>>
>> What about the World Championships? The O;ympics are
>> bigger only because of the hype, certainly not because
>> the race means anything more in swimming than any
>> other race where the best 400 men can be there.
>
> Stop being such a clown! The Olympics are the biggest
> event in sport.

Because of the hype, not because they actually represent
races that are the most important in swimming. One can
easily argue that the World Championships and the Pan
Pacific Championships are more important swimming
events.

Go on then. I'm all ears.

I already did. More of the best swimmers can attend.

I think each country is allowed one extra swimmer. But it's
not unheard of for a swimmer to sit out the World champs
because they don't fit in with their wider goals. However
I've never heard of a swimmer sitting out the Olympics.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Certainly the US World Series is a bigger baseball
competition than Olympic baseball, and the World Series
of Cricket is even bigger than the World Series of
baseball, and cricket isn't even an Olympic sport.

I have no idea what you're on about.

Where did you get confused?

Where ever I read one of your posts.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> I'm also sick of hearing all this phoney hogwash
>>> about rules and fairness. As far as I'm concerned
>>> Thorpe shouldn't even have to qualify. As defending
>>> champion he should be given automatic entrance. You
>>> know it makes sense.
>>
>> That isn't phoney hogwash. You don't change the rules
>> in the middle of the qualification process; you do it
>> right after the Olympics so all the swimmers know what
>> is expected of them and don't have to worry about
>> shifting goalposts.
>
> Why not? Clearly the rules are flawed.

Clearly? Clearly to you, you mean. It is clear to me
that the rules are flawed with respect to performance
enhancing drugs, since the current rules require the
world to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on drug
testing that could be spent on sports.

Oh, so now you're in favour of drugs. I'm beginning to
suspect you may be some sort of usenet kook!

You can't see the flaw then? It is a very major flaw. The
rule banning performance enhnacing drugs costs more to
enforce than maybe even the remaining cost of the world's
swimming programs.

That's a good point. Let's just allow wholesale
cheating then.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

That's a good point. Let's just allow wholesale
cheating then.

I thought rules and fairness were "phoney hogwash?"

- Al

Al said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

That's a good point. Let's just allow wholesale
cheating then.

I thought rules and fairness were "phoney hogwash?"

- Al

They are when they are used as a pretence to justify a
patently absurd situation.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Larry Weisenthal said:

Quoted message said:

> I'm also sick of hearing all this phoney hogwash about
> rules and fairness.

As far as I'm concerned Thorpe shouldn't even have to
qualify. As defending champion he should be given
automatic entrance. You know it makes sense.<<

Basically, it's Australia's business how they select
their team. The USA didn't give Pablo Morales any
special consideration in '88, though he was the World
Record holder at the time. They also didn't give
Kristine Quance any special consideration in '96, when
she was DQ'd on a controversial turn violation in a race
she won by several body lengths. But this was just the
way that the USA did it. State the rules in advance;
then give everyone a fair chance.

Just another example of the arrogance of the the USA

This comment strikes me as surreal in the extreme. There's
no doubt the USA has no shortage of arrogance, but how this
could possibly be construed as an example is beyond me. I
hope you'll elaborate on this.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What about the guy who came in second and made the
Olympic team, following Thorpe's DQ? He played by the
rules; he trained hard; he made the team. If Thorpe was
to be selected anyway, then why give the bloke the
illusion that he had a chance to make the team, if he
swum the race of his life and if he had a bit of luck?
But this is for the Aussies to decide. The rest of the
world gets to watch, however.

But he didn't swim the race of his life. He swam a 3:48,
not even a pb. Perhaps if he went 3:45 it could be argued
that he must keep his place.

The truth is that he's qualified only as a result of
Thorpe's misfortune. There's really no way to sugar coat
this fact

Quoted message said:

A fair system would be to pre-select one or more "wild
card" superstars to be on the team, no matter what, and
then, in advance, tell everyone precisely how many slots
are open. But it's bad to announce one system and then
to change it after the fact. It really does go contrary
to the ideals of sport. A guy made the Olympics, fair
and square, and now he's left biting his nails to see if
it's going to be taken from him.

I doubt he's biting his nails. He's probably very keen to
make way for Thorpe, but first he needs to qualify for the
1500. Who would want to be remembered as the guy who swam
in the place of Thorpe, effectively denying him his place
in history?

I believe the IOC has the power to hand out wild cards.
They should do so in this case.

- Al

[email hidden] (TRPLATT) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

The only reason that this debate is continuing is because
Thorpe is a superstar and the odds on favorite to win a
gold medal in the 400 free. If the violator was a second
tier swimmer, he would be out and that would end it.

At a more fundamental level what is the function of rules
in swimming? Lets consider a couple of different
scenarios.

The first two involve failing to touch the wall on a turn.

1) The start to the 400 free is clean and after 345 meters
Thorpe has a half pool length on the rest of the field.
He misjudges the turn, gets no push off the wall but
continues to win by a few strokes over his nearest
competitor. The judge disqualifies him because he
failed to touch the wall. High resolution ceiling
cameras (spy satellite variety - humor me) confirm the
judges deckside ruling. Thorpe gained no advantage and
won anyway. Why should he be disqualified?

Perhaps he shouldn't be, (perhaps a one second penalty would
suffice) but at least here it makes some sense. The only
objective way of measuring all be the same standards is to
measure them all by the same standards. And as you say
below, once you say the standard is flexible, you open the
door to scenarios that entirely subvert the conception of
the event. HOWEVER ... the NO false start rule is
unreasonable because an obvious remedy is available that
prevents the conception of the event being subverted. One
false start, charged against the field, is not unreasonable,
and then if someone false started within 1/10 of a second of
the starters gun, a one second penalty (DQ for more than
that) seems fair.

Also, what you do for selection doesn't have to be identical
to the event itself.

FRAN

Ernest the Sheep said:

Al said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

That's a good point. Let's just allow wholesale
cheating then.

I thought rules and fairness were "phoney hogwash?"

- Al

They are when they are used as a pretence to justify a
patently absurd situation.

That doesn't apply in this case, since the rule was in place
long before the patently absurd situation occurred. Not only
that but the it is the rule that caused the patently absurd
situation, so no justification is necessary. And of course
there is nothing unfair about it.

martin

(TRPLATT) said:

The only reason that this debate is continuing is because
Thorpe is a superstar and the odds on favorite to win a
gold medal in the 400 free. If the violator was a second
tier swimmer, he would be out and that would end it.

At a more fundamental level what is the function of rules
in swimming? Lets consider a couple of different scenarios.

The first two involve failing to touch the wall on a turn.

1) The start to the 400 free is clean and after 345 meters
Thorpe has a half pool length on the rest of the field.
He misjudges the turn, gets no push off the wall but
continues to win by a few strokes over his nearest
competitor. The judge disqualifies him because he failed
to touch the wall. High resolution ceiling cameras (spy
satellite variety - humor me) confirm the judges
deckside ruling. Thorpe gained no advantage and won
anyway. Why should he be disqualified?

As you have phrased it, the question is a moral one. Should
implies a moral issue, but this is not a moral issue, so the
question is wrong. The question is: Did the swimmer break
the rules? Because the answer is yes, the swimmer is
disqualified.

Quoted message said:

2) Same race, same situation. One of Thorpe's desperate
competitors flips at the 325 mark (middle of the pool),
and while losing momentum, out touches a fast closing
Thorpedo at the wall. The judge disqualifies the
miscreant and Thorpe wins. The miscreant did give up
momentum but gained an unfair advantage by failing to
swim the entire race and we would all agree with the
disqualification.

Analysis: Neither swimmer completed the entire race. Both
are guilty of rule violations and both deserve to be
disqualified. Where do the officials draw the line between
the two situations?

Again, there is no line to be drawn. Both cases involve a
rule violation for which the penalty is disqualification, so
the only correct question in either case is: Did the swimmer
break the rules?

Quoted message said:

The third scenario involves the start.

1) The 100 freestyle the referee calls the swimmers to the
blocks and the starter commands, "swimmers" take your
mark. In a fraction of a second the swimmers are in the
water and one swimmer gets a phenomenal jump and has 1/2
a body length on the field at 15 meters. By the end of
the race our leader is fading but hangs on to win by .01
second.

a) If the winner moved at any point before the starting
horn sounded, he had an unfair advantage and should be
disqualified.

That is true only because the rules don't allow movement on
the start. In the relays, movement is allowed on all the
starts after the first. If a legal start were defined as
requiring only that one foot is in contact with the block
when the start is signaled, then there is no unfair
advantage.

In your example, the advantage is unfair because it is
defined as unfair. But in a relay, after the first start,
movement on the blocks is defined to be a fair advantage.

Quoted message said:

b) If the winner correctly (and dangerously) anticipated
the starting horn but did not move before it sounded he
is good (and lucky) and is the winner.

Analysis: The line between an unfair and fair start is very
small but can have significant consequences.

And the line is sometimes defined in the wrong place,
sometimes out of necessity, but sometimes out of refusal
to change.

Quoted message said:

(Shades of Rowdy Gaines and Mark Stockwell - Los Angeles
1984. Most Australians, including Stockwell as I recall)
claim Gaines jumped and Americans claim the start was fair
and Rowdy lived dangerously.)

The no chance rule was (I suspect) instituted to attempt to
reduce the chance of a competitor "catching a flyer" and
gaining an unfair advantage. This levels the playing field
unless a competitor is willing to take the chance of false
starting and being disqualified.

I think it was instituted to prevent delays caused by
swimmers jumping in to get used to the water and/orto
prevent swimmers from trying to psych out the field by
causing frustration. And then it was taken too far and used
everywhere and at all levels.

Quoted message said:

It is hard to tell from the videotape whether Thorpe was
trying to get an advantage that he didn't need, or just
lost his balance. This same situation occurred in the NCAA
Track and Field championships (800 meters I think) and the
competitor was disqualified. Thorpe is an experienced
swimmer and should not make that kind of mistake.

Rules (and the officials strict adherence to them) protects
"all" competitors against gross cheating, as well as
attempts to obtain small unfair advantages, although every
once in awhile someone will catch a flyer - legally. I
don't know what Thorpe was thinking, but he broke the rules
and should be disqualified.

It would be a shame if the Australian Olympic Committee
violated its own selection procedures and put Thorpe in the
400 free as much as I would like to see him swim it.

You either play by rules or don't play. It is the only way
to insure that training, talent, and fair play will win -
at least the majority of the time.

But the rules don't have to be so anal.

martin