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
  #21  
Old April 22nd 04, 08:50 PM
gmail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "The rules are the same for everybody..." - Sweetenham

Martin W. Smith wrote in message . ..


In this case, the sole purpose of the race was to see who could do the
best time.


If that were the case they would have let him go again.

And again, and again and again, until he had managed to get through
the first part of race correctly.

However, the rules for the Olympics will not be like that, and so, as
with most countries, the Australian Trials ape the event for which
they are a selection. As Thorpe was unable to start correctly in a
situation which was only supposed to mimic the real thing, any
decision to place him in the event regardless of his failure to
qualify at the trial not only smells bad to swimmers, but also may
look bad on television in front of millions.

Fish rot starting at the head.
  #22  
Old April 22nd 04, 11:30 PM
Colin Priest
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "The rules are the same for everybody..." - Sweetenham


"Count Scrofula" wrote in message
...
snip
changed the rules. why is it so difficult for you, fran and the other
aussie apologists to see the morally bankrupt nature of the changing of

the
rules all in the name of trying to get a gold?

snip

Funny that comment comes from someone who doesn't care what the rules
actually say.

And no rules have been changed. At present Craig Stevens is still the 2nd
swimmer in the 400m.


  #23  
Old April 23rd 04, 05:08 AM
Fran
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "The rules are the same for everybody..." - Sweetenham

(gmail) wrote in message . com...
Martin W. Smith wrote in message . ..


In this case, the sole purpose of the race was to see who could do the
best time.


If that were the case they would have let him go again.

And again, and again and again, until he had managed to get through
the first part of race correctly.

However, the rules for the Olympics will not be like that, and so, as
with most countries, the Australian Trials ape the event for which
they are a selection. As Thorpe was unable to start correctly in a
situation which was only supposed to mimic the real thing, any
decision to place him in the event regardless of his failure to
qualify at the trial not only smells bad to swimmers, but also may
look bad on television in front of millions.


On this logic, perhaps Thorpe should be withdrawn from all events
involving that style of entry into the pool. Better safe than sorry!

The trials "ape" the event principally by discovering how quickly each
swimmer can swim the relevant distance using the relevant stroke. That
is the main thing qualifying swimmers, and the main "unknown". Every
swimmer is assumed to be capable of correctly entering the pool,
because they almost always do. And when they don't, unlike the time
they put in, which is likely to be quite close to what one can
anticipate, it's an anomaly. You don't pick teams on the basis of
anomalies, if you want to perform optimally.

What "looks bad on television in front of millions" are events where
the best practitioners of the skills are excluded. This is sometimes
unavoidable -- injury or illness, some grievous offence like doping or
a criminal act -- but it always lowers the status of the contest. When
some Olympic official gets up in front of millions and says "these
were the best games ever" he doesn't want people snorting derisively
into their beer.


Fish rot starting at the head.


On that I agree. The heads of Australian Swimming should accept
responsibility for this cock up and resign.

FRAN
  #24  
Old April 23rd 04, 06:22 AM
Martin W. Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "The rules are the same for everybody..." - Sweetenham

Al wrote:

In article ,
says...
[...]
The difference is that Australia is free to choose its team however it
wishes, and you get to **** and moan about it.


Why is Australia's decision regarding Thorpe such a sacred cow? I.e.,
in the universe of topics that this newsgroup addresses, why in the case
of this topic, does disagreeing = "****ing and moaning?"

I understand that his disqualification and the fact that he's swimming
the 400 based on the committee's decision are two different issues - but
I don't see why either shouldn't be open to public scrutiny (regardless
of whether you're Australian or not.)


It *is* open to public scutiny. So is the public scrutiny. Why are you
complaining about my public scrutiny of the public scrutiny?

martin

  #25  
Old April 23rd 04, 06:25 AM
Martin W. Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "The rules are the same for everybody..." - Sweetenham

"jtaylor" wrote:


Martin W. Smith wrote in message
.. .

In this case, the sole purpose of the race was to see who could do the
best time.


No, it was to see who finished first. The time was secondary.


Since they start at the same time, first place equates to best time.
The purpose of the race was to determine the fastest two swimmers in
that event for the purpose of sending them to Greece to represent
Australia in the same event in the Olympics.

martin

  #26  
Old April 23rd 04, 06:33 AM
Martin W. Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "The rules are the same for everybody..." - Sweetenham

"Count Scrofula" wrote:


"Martin W. Smith" wrote in message
.. .
"jtaylor" wrote:



----- Original Message -----
From: Fran
Newsgroups: rec.sport.swimming
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 9:19 PM
Subject: "The rules are the same for everybody..." - Sweetenham

No, he failed the start procedure that anticipates the race and
forfeited his chance to participate. You'll note that the clock timing
the race is synchronised with the official race start. The time = the
duration of the race, and does not begin at the time they mount the
blocks.

The time being synchronised with the starting signal is irrelevant.

Timing
is a secondary measure of a race - an example being that if the times do

not
agree with the judged order of finish, they are adjusted.


In this case, the sole purpose of the race was to see who could do the
best time.


Or at least win the race. And the purpose of seeing who won the race was to
select the olympic team. that was the way the team was to be selected, the
top two in the trials.


That's right. But it didn't work, and they decided to change the
result. If I had been Stevens, I would have objected, but I guess he
didn't, so that's the way it is.

The race includes all actions that make up a "start". If a swimmer is

unable
to perform any part of a race according to the rules, then "strictly
speaking", he (or she) should be disqualified. This includes, as has

already
been pointed out to you, actions that preceed the starting signal - some

of
which can result in a DQ.

You only get one chance, from referee's whistle until "clear the pool".
Thorpe's chance began when the ref began the start, and although his
athletic effort was brief, it nevertheless WAS his race. Ther's no
difference between what happened and what would have been the result if

he
had got out of the pool after one length, or been judged a false start

where
it was too late to recall the swimmers, and handed his DQ after 400

metres.
He was out, fair and square.


The difference is that Australia is free to choose its team however it
wishes, and you get to **** and moan about it.


And the rules as set by australia were that the top two from the trials
would swim in the olympics. when the desired outcome didn't occur, they
changed the rules. why is it so difficult for you, fran and the other
aussie apologists to see the morally bankrupt nature of the changing of the
rules all in the name of trying to get a gold?


Because it isn't morally bankrupt. It isn't a moral issue.

Media reports are that Thorpe knew this - why do you disagree with the
swimer?


Nobody disagrees with the swimmer. Why do you keep asking that
question?

The purpose of the Australian Olympic Trials is to provide the
Australian Olympic Committee with data for choosing the best
Australian Olympic Team. In this case, the system used by the
Australian Olympic Committee failed, so the australian Olympic
committe can correct the mistake if it chooses


No, the purpose of the trials was to determine the members of the team, with
the top two in the 400 comprising the team for that event.


That wasn't the purpose. That was the process. They aren't the same.

It's not just
another data point. Why don't you go back to the "it wasn't really a start"
lie?


It wasn't a lie. It wasn't a start according to the definition. We
went through the rules. I assume you read them. Read them again.

martin

  #28  
Old April 23rd 04, 12:20 PM
jtaylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "The rules are the same for everybody..." - Sweetenham


Martin W. Smith wrote in message
...
"jtaylor" wrote:


Martin W. Smith wrote in message
.. .

In this case, the sole purpose of the race was to see who could do the
best time.


No, it was to see who finished first. The time was secondary.


Since they start at the same time, first place equates to best time.


Not always.

Timers vary, and timing equipment fails on occasion, and that's why it is a
secondary measure of finish.

And of course there's the chance that someone could attempt to gain an
advantage on the start - like failing to assume a still position, leading to
a bolt or topple from the blocks. There are rules to ensure a fair start.
Good thing too, and they should be enforced WITHOUT favour.

  #29  
Old April 23rd 04, 12:23 PM
jtaylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "The rules are the same for everybody..." - Sweetenham


Fran wrote in message
om...


The trials "ape" the event principally by discovering how quickly each
swimmer can swim the relevant distance using the relevant stroke.


No, it's to discover who can DO THE EVENT - which includes a legal start.

That
is the main thing qualifying swimmers, and the main "unknown". Every
swimmer is assumed to be capable of correctly entering the pool,


No they are not - as there are rules to deal with those who do not.


  #30  
Old April 23rd 04, 12:34 PM
Martin W. Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "The rules are the same for everybody..." - Sweetenham

"jtaylor" wrote:


Martin W. Smith wrote in message
.. .
"jtaylor" wrote:


Martin W. Smith wrote in message
.. .

In this case, the sole purpose of the race was to see who could do the
best time.

No, it was to see who finished first. The time was secondary.


Since they start at the same time, first place equates to best time.


Not always.

Timers vary, and timing equipment fails on occasion, and that's why it is a
secondary measure of finish.


None of that would have affected the outcome in this case. Thorpe
would have won by a few body lengths.

And of course there's the chance that someone could attempt to gain an
advantage on the start - like failing to assume a still position, leading to
a bolt or topple from the blocks. There are rules to ensure a fair start.
Good thing too, and they should be enforced WITHOUT favour.


And in the Olympics, they will be enforced without favour. And
apparently Ian Thorpe will be in the 400.

martin

 




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 08:42 AM
Thorpe and the rules (long) TRPLATT Swimming 19 April 2nd 04 10:56 AM
rules of running schuburg Running 34 December 20th 03 02:50 PM
Rules for open water swimming... Martin W. Smith Swimming 1 August 20th 03 08:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:34 AM.


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.