A Fitness & exercise forum. FitnessBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FitnessBanter.com forum » Fitness & Exercise » Swimming
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"The rules are the same for everybody..." - Sweetenham



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 20th 04, 03:20 PM
gmail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "The rules are the same for everybody..." - Sweetenham

"...and there has to be a cut-off somewhere. He is the most
experienced swimmer in Britain and he misjudged."

Bill (an Australian who was recruited by Britain to be their
performance director) was speaking about Mark Foster, a World-Record
holder in 50 Free SC. Foster had a slow swim in the Trials, and
although he won, failed to make the standard set by the selectors.

As a result, Foster will not swim at the Olympics. Foster has
appealed, claiming an injury, but the rules state that such a claim
must be made prior to the race (and it must be supported by medical
experts etcetera etcetera).

"It looks like the end of a career" said Sweetenham.

Foster has recieved support from another former sprinter. Gary Hall
Jr. has (co-)written a piece decrying Sweetenham's position; the
article pointedly ingores the improvement of the GB squad since the
uncompromising Sweetenham took over. He may not be entirely happy
with the support, as Gary Hall Jr.'s athletic image might be
charitably described as less than totally respectable; Foster may feel
dammed by the fulsome praise.

There are were no reports of Sweetenham's reaction to the strange
events following his native country's Trials, where a similar
situation involving Ian Thorpe seems to have resulted in legal and
verbal gymnastics aimed at getting Thorpe back in his event despite
his failure to qualify. If Thorpe repeats his error in Athens then no
doubt the loss of this no-nonsense attitude from Australian Swimming
will be doubly felt.
  #2  
Old April 20th 04, 04:19 PM
Bill Geiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "The rules are the same for everybody..." - Sweetenham

Although the sporting venue differs, this reminds me of what happend to
Roberto DeVicenzo during the 1968 Masters Golf Tournament, where he signed
his scorecard for a score higher than his actual score on the 17th hole,
signing for a par 4 when actually made a birdie 3. Under the Rules of Golf,
the higher score stands once a player has signed his card. If not for this
mistake, DeVicenzo would have tied for first place with Bob Goalby, and the
two would have met in an 18-hole playoff the next day.

Rules are rules. Even for stars.

Sometimes.


"gmail" wrote in message
om...
"...and there has to be a cut-off somewhere. He is the most
experienced swimmer in Britain and he misjudged."

Bill (an Australian who was recruited by Britain to be their
performance director) was speaking about Mark Foster, a World-Record
holder in 50 Free SC. Foster had a slow swim in the Trials, and
although he won, failed to make the standard set by the selectors.

As a result, Foster will not swim at the Olympics. Foster has
appealed, claiming an injury, but the rules state that such a claim
must be made prior to the race (and it must be supported by medical
experts etcetera etcetera).

"It looks like the end of a career" said Sweetenham.

Foster has recieved support from another former sprinter. Gary Hall
Jr. has (co-)written a piece decrying Sweetenham's position; the
article pointedly ingores the improvement of the GB squad since the
uncompromising Sweetenham took over. He may not be entirely happy
with the support, as Gary Hall Jr.'s athletic image might be
charitably described as less than totally respectable; Foster may feel
dammed by the fulsome praise.

There are were no reports of Sweetenham's reaction to the strange
events following his native country's Trials, where a similar
situation involving Ian Thorpe seems to have resulted in legal and
verbal gymnastics aimed at getting Thorpe back in his event despite
his failure to qualify. If Thorpe repeats his error in Athens then no
doubt the loss of this no-nonsense attitude from Australian Swimming
will be doubly felt.



  #3  
Old April 20th 04, 11:45 PM
Fran
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "The rules are the same for everybody..." - Sweetenham

(gmail) wrote in message . com...
"...and there has to be a cut-off somewhere. He is the most
experienced swimmer in Britain and he misjudged."

Bill (an Australian who was recruited by Britain to be their
performance director) was speaking about Mark Foster, a World-Record
holder in 50 Free SC. Foster had a slow swim in the Trials, and
although he won, failed to make the standard set by the selectors.


Two things.

1. As I've said elsewhere, using just one selection tool is not the
best way to select the best team. The problem here is far more
foreseeable than what happened to Ian Thorpe and that's why it's poor.
2. At least he got a chance to swim the trial. He presumably knew how
fast he had to go to get in, and failed.


There are were no reports of Sweetenham's reaction to the strange
events following his native country's Trials, where a similar
situation involving Ian Thorpe seems to have resulted in legal and
verbal gymnastics aimed at getting Thorpe back in his event despite
his failure to qualify. If Thorpe repeats his error in Athens then no
doubt the loss of this no-nonsense attitude from Australian Swimming
will be doubly felt.


If he does he'll probably deserve a kick in the butt, but Australian
Swimming's attitude was complete nonsense. A person who makes this
mistake is most unlikely to repeat it. Most never do it, and few do it
twice. Excluding someone from the Olympics because they made the one
mistake is irrational -- if you want the best team.

If your car doesn't start first time do you get out and take the bus?
Do you have the car towed so as to avoid running the risk of it not
starting a second time? Do you ask the mechanic to go over it looking
for the fault before replacing the entire electrical and fuel
distribution system based on not finding a fault? While this is going
on do you take pride in a "no-nonsense attitude" to motor vehicle
maintenance?

Or do you do what most do and just kick it over a second time?

FRAN
  #4  
Old April 20th 04, 11:52 PM
Fran
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "The rules are the same for everybody..." - Sweetenham

"Bill Geiser" wrote in message .com...
Although the sporting venue differs, this reminds me of what happend to
Roberto DeVicenzo during the 1968 Masters Golf Tournament, where he signed
his scorecard for a score higher than his actual score on the 17th hole,
signing for a par 4 when actually made a birdie 3. Under the Rules of Golf,
the higher score stands once a player has signed his card. If not for this
mistake, DeVicenzo would have tied for first place with Bob Goalby, and the
two would have met in an 18-hole playoff the next day.

Rules are rules. Even for stars.

Sometimes.

Who's Roberto DeVicenzo? Who's Bob Goalby? In what universe were/are
they stars? Never heard of them.

Anyway, even if they were, dumb rules, if that's what this one was,
and it sounds like it, are not rules, they are just dumb.

Mindless adherence to rules entails throwing reason out the window. It
casts to the winds of bureaucratic caprice the basis for all good
human conduct. In the end, all humans are responsible for the choices
they make, and saying that they were "just following the rules" is an
inadequate defence. What rational people want to know is ... were you
right to do so?

FRAN
  #5  
Old April 21st 04, 04:19 AM
Bill Geiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "The rules are the same for everybody..." - Sweetenham


"Fran" wrote in message
m...
Who's Roberto DeVicenzo? Who's Bob Goalby? In what universe were/are
they stars? Never heard of them.


Fran, thanks for taking time to respond to my post.

Roberto DeVicenzo and Bob Goalby were two of the world's finest golfers in
the late '60's. While you may not appreciate this, in the 60's, golfers had
a far greater worldwide following in terms of TV coverage and fans than
swimming. That's still the case today. Moreover, the Master's Golf
Tournament is considered one of the 4 'Majors' - one of the 4 top Golf
tournaments played each year. To a golfer, winning a 'Major', such as the
Masters, is every bit as important as winning an Olympic Gold Medal. In
fact, one could argue winning a "Major" is more important that winning
Olympic Gold, as there are only 4 'Majors' per year vs. the many Olympic
Golds issued every 4 years.

Anyway, even if they were, dumb rules, if that's what this one was,
and it sounds like it, are not rules, they are just dumb.


Dumb rule? Perhaps to you - but the culture of Golf is very much entwined
with 'dumb rules' such as this. Did you know Golfers are required to call
penalties on themselves? For example, if you ground your putter - and the
ball moves (even if you didn't strike it & you are the only person who saw
it move) - you are required to call a stroke on yourself. And, the beauty of
the sport is the vast majority of golfers do just that. No matter where you
play, worldwide, the rules are the same.

To me, this is not dumb....its an intregal part of the sport.....and an
intregal reason why its so appealing. Some people call it sportsmanship.

Wonder how the world would react if Thorpe called a penalty on himself?
While it certainly wouldn't have helped Australia win a Gold....people would
have certainly gained a higher degree of respect for the man's integrity.
Maybe swimming, too. Fran while that may not matter to you, it does to
others.


Mindless adherence to rules entails throwing reason out the window. It
casts to the winds of bureaucratic caprice the basis for all good
human conduct. In the end, all humans are responsible for the choices
they make, and saying that they were "just following the rules" is an
inadequate defence. What rational people want to know is ... were you
right to do so?


While your view, no doubt, feels good in the short run, let's not forget to
consider the long term impact. Changing rules on the fly to enhance your
odds of winning is a very slippery slope and has very serious long-range
ramifications. Where does it stop? Who determines where it stops? Do the
rule changes apply to one or all or a priviledged few?

So, like I said. Rules are rules. Even for stars.

Sometimes.


  #6  
Old April 21st 04, 05:35 AM
Count Scrofula
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "The rules are the same for everybody..." - Sweetenham


"Fran" wrote in message
om...
(gmail) wrote in message

. com...
"...and there has to be a cut-off somewhere. He is the most
experienced swimmer in Britain and he misjudged."

Bill (an Australian who was recruited by Britain to be their
performance director) was speaking about Mark Foster, a World-Record
holder in 50 Free SC. Foster had a slow swim in the Trials, and
although he won, failed to make the standard set by the selectors.


Two things.

1. As I've said elsewhere, using just one selection tool is not the
best way to select the best team. The problem here is far more
foreseeable than what happened to Ian Thorpe and that's why it's poor.


Okay, we all agree on that one.

2. At least he got a chance to swim the trial. He presumably knew how
fast he had to go to get in, and failed.


thorpe didn't have a chance to swim the trial? he sure did, and he screwed
the pooch!



There are were no reports of Sweetenham's reaction to the strange
events following his native country's Trials, where a similar
situation involving Ian Thorpe seems to have resulted in legal and
verbal gymnastics aimed at getting Thorpe back in his event despite
his failure to qualify. If Thorpe repeats his error in Athens then no
doubt the loss of this no-nonsense attitude from Australian Swimming
will be doubly felt.


If he does he'll probably deserve a kick in the butt, but Australian
Swimming's attitude was complete nonsense. A person who makes this
mistake is most unlikely to repeat it. Most never do it, and few do it
twice. Excluding someone from the Olympics because they made the one
mistake is irrational -- if you want the best team.


Cruel irony is waiting with a DQ for the aussies


If your car doesn't start first time do you get out and take the bus?
Do you have the car towed so as to avoid running the risk of it not
starting a second time? Do you ask the mechanic to go over it looking
for the fault before replacing the entire electrical and fuel
distribution system based on not finding a fault? While this is going
on do you take pride in a "no-nonsense attitude" to motor vehicle
maintenance?

Or do you do what most do and just kick it over a second time?


Do you use valid analogies, or just spurious crap?


FRAN



  #7  
Old April 21st 04, 08:12 AM
Fran
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "The rules are the same for everybody..." - Sweetenham

"Bill Geiser" wrote in message om...
"Fran" wrote in message
m...
Who's Roberto DeVicenzo? Who's Bob Goalby? In what universe were/are
they stars? Never heard of them.


Fran, thanks for taking time to respond to my post.

Roberto DeVicenzo and Bob Goalby were two of the world's finest golfers in
the late '60's. While you may not appreciate this, in the 60's, golfers had
a far greater worldwide following in terms of TV coverage and fans than
swimming. That's still the case today. Moreover, the Master's Golf
Tournament is considered one of the 4 'Majors' - one of the 4 top Golf
tournaments played each year. To a golfer, winning a 'Major', such as the
Masters, is every bit as important as winning an Olympic Gold Medal. In
fact, one could argue winning a "Major" is more important that winning
Olympic Gold, as there are only 4 'Majors' per year vs. the many Olympic
Golds issued every 4 years.

Anyway, even if they were, dumb rules, if that's what this one was,
and it sounds like it, are not rules, they are just dumb.


Dumb rule? Perhaps to you - but the culture of Golf is very much entwined
with 'dumb rules' such as this. Did you know Golfers are required to call
penalties on themselves? For example, if you ground your putter - and the
ball moves (even if you didn't strike it & you are the only person who saw
it move) - you are required to call a stroke on yourself. And, the beauty of
the sport is the vast majority of golfers do just that.


I'm no golf afficionado, and if what you say is true, this is
admirable no doubt, and it may reflect the fact that the rule has
widely accepted merits, in terms of promoting the skills that are
supposed to be rewarded in a round of golf. If so, then the rule isn't
dumb, and following it is entriely reasonable. But this wasn't about
selecting a team (as with Thorpe) but competing in an event. Yes,
Thorpe was competing in an event AS WELL and although I think the no
false start rule is a dumb one, if it was in force, and the referee
thought he was diving in he was right to DQ him.

However the spillover is the effect on selection, since it utterly
distorts the data on which selection is based.

Let's illustrate this. Let's say a government calls an election. It's
really close but floods in a couple of seats mean that a block of
voters can't make it to the polling booths. When the poll closes it
means that a fairly comfortable victory goes to one side. Do we redo
the polls and move the goalposts?

Well yes, we do. Important questions are supposed to be decided on
their merits, rather than on anomalies. If we want to know what people
think, a "straw poll" in the local pub is not regarded as an adequate
research base -- especially when there are explcit reasons for
thinking the data so gathered is tainted.

That this occurred required the intersection of the no false start
rule and the single selection trial policy -- and an outrageous fluke
-- which I now regard as a piece of serendipity. I would have made
this argument BEFORE Thorpe fell into the pool in ungainly fashion,
and a might have posed this very scenario. had I done so, it would
have been regarded as farfetched and I'd have had to admit it seemed
unlikely.

But weird stuff happens. Kismet really, because this fiasco may just
be big enough to get things fixed for next time.

No matter where you
play, worldwide, the rules are the same.

To me, this is not dumb....its an intregal part of the sport.....and an
integral reason why its so appealing. Some people call it sportsmanship.


So do I. But I maintain that dumb rules ought to be thrown out and in
the interim, treated as void.

Wonder how the world would react if Thorpe called a penalty on himself?
While it certainly wouldn't have helped Australia win a Gold....people would
have certainly gained a higher degree of respect for the man's integrity.
Maybe swimming, too. Fran while that may not matter to you, it does to
others.


I thought it wasd only we lefties who were supposed to be obsessed
with the warm inner glow. Don't get me wrong, though. I agree. And if
it were JUST about that race, no problem.


Mindless adherence to rules entails throwing reason out the window. It
casts to the winds of bureaucratic caprice the basis for all good
human conduct. In the end, all humans are responsible for the choices
they make, and saying that they were "just following the rules" is an
inadequate defence. What rational people want to know is ... were you
right to do so?


While your view, no doubt, feels good in the short run, let's not forget to
consider the long term impact. Changing rules on the fly to enhance your
odds of winning is a very slippery slope and has very serious long-range
ramifications. Where does it stop? Who determines where it stops?


The selection rules are a matter for each sporting body. They
determine where it stops.

Do the
rule changes apply to one or all or a privileged few?


It depends. Some on your US Golf tour earn exemption from
qualification because of prior good performances. They get
"privileges". But the privileges are built into the rules. It's up to
the sporting body to decide how to sort out how to deal with their
stakeholders, bearing in mind that their overall goal is promotion of
the sport through, inter alia, Olympic success, and cash generation
consequent thereon.


So, like I said. Rules are rules. Even for stars.

Sometimes.


Just as well it's only sometimes. Itr sounds way to authoritarian and
irrational for my secular and leftist sensibilities.

FRAN
  #8  
Old April 21st 04, 12:53 PM
gmail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "The rules are the same for everybody..." - Sweetenham

"Bill Geiser" wrote in message

No matter where you
play, worldwide, the rules are the same.

To me, this is not dumb....its an intregal part of the sport.....and an
intregal reason why its so appealing. Some people call it sportsmanship.


Not just in Golf.

Consider Stanley Anthony Stanczyk - possibly the best on a
pound-for-pound, most likely the fastest weightlifter of all time. A
multple WR holder who competed in the days before coaches like
Gennardi Touretski became infamous names, Stan was going for the
snatch WR at the 1948 Olympics. The judges decision was that it was a
good lift, but Stanley had felt his knee touch the floor. He put the
weight down, tapped his knee, shook his head "no". and walked away -
loosing the WR.
  #9  
Old April 21st 04, 02:58 PM
Fran
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "The rules are the same for everybody..." - Sweetenham

"Count Scrofula" wrote in message ...
"Fran" wrote in message
om...
(gmail) wrote in message

. com...
"...and there has to be a cut-off somewhere. He is the most
experienced swimmer in Britain and he misjudged."

Bill (an Australian who was recruited by Britain to be their
performance director) was speaking about Mark Foster, a World-Record
holder in 50 Free SC. Foster had a slow swim in the Trials, and
although he won, failed to make the standard set by the selectors.


Two things.

1. As I've said elsewhere, using just one selection tool is not the
best way to select the best team. The problem here is far more
foreseeable than what happened to Ian Thorpe and that's why it's poor.


Okay, we all agree on that one.

2. At least he got a chance to swim the trial. He presumably knew how
fast he had to go to get in, and failed.


thorpe didn't have a chance to swim the trial? he sure did, and he screwed
the pooch!


Well since, strictly speaking, his fall into the pool was interpreted
as a false start, by definition, he was disqualified before the start
of the race. Accordingly, he never got a chance to swim the trial, or
perhaps it was removed before he got the chance to exercise it. Either
way.



There are were no reports of Sweetenham's reaction to the strange
events following his native country's Trials, where a similar
situation involving Ian Thorpe seems to have resulted in legal and
verbal gymnastics aimed at getting Thorpe back in his event despite
his failure to qualify. If Thorpe repeats his error in Athens then no
doubt the loss of this no-nonsense attitude from Australian Swimming
will be doubly felt.


If he does he'll probably deserve a kick in the butt, but Australian
Swimming's attitude was complete nonsense. A person who makes this
mistake is most unlikely to repeat it. Most never do it, and few do it
twice. Excluding someone from the Olympics because they made the one
mistake is irrational -- if you want the best team.


Cruel irony is waiting with a DQ for the aussies


Statistically unlikely.


If your car doesn't start first time do you get out and take the bus?
Do you have the car towed so as to avoid running the risk of it not
starting a second time? Do you ask the mechanic to go over it looking
for the fault before replacing the entire electrical and fuel
distribution system based on not finding a fault? While this is going
on do you take pride in a "no-nonsense attitude" to motor vehicle
maintenance?

Or do you do what most do and just kick it over a second time?


Do you use valid analogies, or just spurious crap?


Analogies aren't argument. They prove nothing. I was inviting geiser
to examine the way he was reasoning by using an analogy. Sometimes,
what people see as wrong with an analogy can shine as much light on an
argument as what people like me think is a good analogy.

By all means, Mr Scrofula, let's see if you can shed some light on how
inappropriate my analogy is to the scenario Geiser outlined. he was
implying I believe that failing to impose upon Thorpe the full cost of
his error would predispose him/Australia to some greater or equal
disaster in the future.

You do "do" light don't you, or are you just in the heat business?


FRAN
  #10  
Old April 21st 04, 04:34 PM
jtaylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "The rules are the same for everybody..." - Sweetenham


Fran wrote in message
om...

Well since, strictly speaking, his fall into the pool was interpreted
as a false start, by definition, he was disqualified before the start
of the race. Accordingly, he never got a chance to swim the trial, or
perhaps it was removed before he got the chance to exercise it.


You just don't (won't?) understand, will you.

The race (and the start) begins when the swimmers are called to the blocks
by the referee. Screw up after that, and you are dq'd. Whether it's for a
false start, for a stroke infraction, or for reaching across and punching
the swimmer next to you, does not matter. You have had your chance and you
have blown it.

So, "strictly speaking", Thorpe DID have his chance and he DID "screw the
pooch".




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Send a protest about Ian Thorpe Murray Swimming 73 April 8th 04 09:42 AM
Thorpe and the rules (long) TRPLATT Swimming 19 April 2nd 04 11:56 AM
rules of running schuburg Running 34 December 20th 03 03:50 PM
Rules for open water swimming... Martin W. Smith Swimming 1 August 20th 03 09:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.