Ridiculousness at the Olympics

[Martin Aigner]

Happened yesterday at the 200m male backstroke event, final run.

Aaron Peirsol (USA) wins with a distance of 2.4 seconds the gold medal in front of Markus Rogan (AUT) and Razvan Florea (RUM). But for a long time there is no result to be seen on the screen in the stadium, which usually means that there might be a disqualification of one/more of the athleths. Finally the results shows: Gold: Markus Rogan, Silver: Razvan Florea, Bronze: James Goddard (GBR). Winner Aaron Peirsol is disqualified. Reason: He made some illegitimate moves at the turn.

Of course the US team protests, and after several minutes the protest succeeds. Reason: The judge, who said that Aaron Peirsol made the illegitimate move wrote his statement in french, and not in english, which is a formal faillure!!!

Now both, the austrian and english team objects. This objection is finally declined.

But that´s not the end of the story. The english team thinks about going to the international sports court and wants another verdict. (Who cares about winning a medal a couple of months after the end of the olympic games anyway???)

Now there is an interesting discussion in Austria, whether Rogan should be decleared winner or not. Peirsol most probably made illegal moves, but this, if at all, gave him an advantage of maybe some hundreths of seconds. But since he was ahead 2.4 seconds, it definetly was not a pivotal advantage. Others argue, that rules are rules, and it doesn´t matter how big the lead was.

IMHO, though the last argument has some merits, I still think that it would be wrong to disqualify Aaron Peirsol, since I´m sure he didn´t do it to gain an advantage or even did it on purpose.

What I really liked about the whole szenario: Markus Rogan, as soon as he saw that we was declared olympic champion, went to Aaron Peirsol and told him to object. In an interview he said that he´s just as happy with his silver medal, since he knows that he´s the second best backstroke swimmer in the world, but that Peirsol was simply better. Winning the gold medal wouldn´t be as important to him as the friendship with Peirsol is. I really liked that a lot.

What bothers me: Olympic games should be the main event in a 4 years period of swimming (and most of the other sports). How can it be that judges disqualify somebody and then write the report in a wrong language??? And furthermore: So what, I guess it wouldn´t be too tough to translate his statement.

Pretty ridiculous IMHO.

Your thoughts?

Martin Aigner

[Sloats]

Do you remember when the Olympics we fun and not so serious. Winter 1980 would do it for me. Heiden, Heiden, and Myre. Throw in a couple of bobsled countries in which we didn't rank and there was no espinoge on the bobsled designs. Moscow 1980 and LA 1984 and all of the political, corporate, professional, legal BS has totally killed the Olympics for me. I see nothing great about little 14 year old girls permantly stunting their growth doing triple airial sommersaults on two broken fibias, a strained ankle, and a broken wrist just so they can get a medal and justify the 70 hours a week of lost childhood they sacrificed.

[elwoodblues]

Rogan's behavior in the whole debacle was extraordinary. His behavior was world class.

[mrjim]

Most of the professionals I've heard comment on this said his turn was totally legit. However, if he did cheat he should be DQ'd, regardless of how much he won by.

Like you said, the most impressive thing to me was that Rogan immediately supported him and encouraged him to protest, thus giving up his chance at a gold. That's sportsmanship and and being ethical. If he cheated, it's the exact opposite and he should be DQ'd.

[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

[paland]

[ QUOTE ]
No, on the contrary, this the essence of a sporting event, that you have to prove, there and then, that you are the best.

[/ QUOTE ]
Except iin College Football, where the champ IS just voted on.

[Usul]

Cyrus, you begin your post by saying quite clearly that RULES ARE RULES. You then proceed to argue that the fact that the judge did not follow the RULES is irrelevent. The rule that all DQs should be written in english is there for the same reason the rule which the swimmer was DQed for is there. You have greatly contridicted yourself.

[mikech]

That was exactly the point that came to my mind while reading Cyrus's post. If "rules are rules," why should procedural rules be any less important than competition rules? I'd love to hear a justification...

[Cyrus]

"You begin your post by saying quite clearly that RULES ARE RULES. You then proceed to argue that the fact that the judge did not follow the RULES is irrelevant. You have greatly contridicted yourself."

No, I did not.

I was very specific. In fact, this is how I ended my post: Rule infraction during the game should take precedence over rule infraction about reporting on the game.

In plain English, here's an example: If a player commits a foul during an American football play, and the referee instead of throwing the yellow flag, throws down by mistake (or intentionally!) his wig, the call stands.

When (if!) the American swimmer broke the rules, he stood to be disqualified as soon as a proper objection was filed. This was done. Now the question becomes, if two infractions occured, which takes precedence, the rules of the game or the rules about reporting on the game?

I say the first. You say the second.

Are you truly proud that your man would win on such a technicality, and an erroneously-based one at that?

[Usul]

First of all, he's not my man. I cheer against American atheletes. Second of all, he commited no foul, and is the just winner of the event, as is the consensus of the olympic officials. Therefore ALL rules were enforced, as they should be. Not pick a rule to enforce at the expense of others, as you suggest.