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.

[adios]

Markus Rogan seems like a class act to me. So does Piersol. FWIW Rowdy Gaines a former champion swimmer who was doing the commentary on TV didn't think there was an infraction. Piersol is the best in the world in the event and Rogan recognizes that.

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
Peirsol most probably made illegal moves...

[/ QUOTE ]

The announcers here in the US said they didn't see anything illegal. Who knows? Also, it wasn't just the fact that the judge submitted his report in the wrong language. His verbal description of the foul did not match the written description.

[Sloats]

Wait,

A French judge involved in another Olympic gold medal controversy?

[swimfan]

I agree Rogan's behavior was terrific and admire him for it.

As for the turn, in essence it's legitimate. As Reese said, if Peirsol gets DQ'd for that, everyone else should be DQ'd as well.

As I'm sure you've read, the DQ was a result of his glide. To paraphrase the exact rule, when completing the stroke motion into the wall he must be continually in the motion of the turn. If he finishes the stroke and is still gliding into the wall, it's a DQ. If anything, it costs time. From what I saw, his turn was fine. There was a small glide, but not enough where it would be called in competition; again, all backstrokers are guilty of this.

[Kevmath]

It would have been ironic if Piersol was DQ'd when he had accused Kosuke Kitajima of Japan for allegedly using an illegal dolphin kick in the 100m breaststroke on Sunday.

Kevin...

[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