[Cyrus]

The ridiculousness in the arguments heard in this thread is much greater than the ridiculousness of the mistake commited by the judge at the event (writing up the report in the wrong language).

It all boils down to this: Rules are rules and they are the same for everybody. And if a swimmer violates the rules, he is out. (Note that I do not know whether the American swimmer actually did violate the rules or not.)

The argument about the American swimmer "being the best swimmer in the world anyway", is pure nonsense. Why do we need the games then?? Some committee should just get together and hand out the awards on the basis of past results! No, on the contrary, this the essence of a sporting event, that you have to prove, there and then, that you are the best. So the fact that the Olympics are held every 4 years, makes the occasion that much tougher. So what?

The other athlete, now, showed camaraderie -- and not sportsmanship. What's sportmanship got to do with allowing a rule infraction? (The other athlete was not in a position to know if the American did violate the rule or not, but proceeded on the basis that "the American is the best anyway". Bullcrap. Then why did he compete in the damn event?)

Finally, that "wrong language" argument used in the American swimmer's objection should not hold water (pun intended). But it did, unfortunately. This means, literally, that rule observance during the event itself takes a back seat to reporting procedure about the event. Which is patently wrong.

--Cyrus