No Thorpe in 400M???

No Ian in the 400m, No Cathy in the 400m.

It will be interesting to see who rises up to be Australia’s hero in these games.

Not happy[glum]

Shushar

“All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them.” – Walt Disney

The rules of world swimming governing body FINA is as follows:
Section SW4.4 states: “Any swimmer starting before the starting signal has been given shall be disqualified.”

Tough rule! Prefer the 1 false start like in the 100mtr. sprint athletics.

All the years of effort down the drain because of one single mistake in a split of a second. Very sad.
Are the rules for machines or human beings?

Very true, Stupid rule , but still a rule!

Regards Bear

POSITVE CASHFLOW properties and Joint Ventures available!
For the BEST deals register via E-mail [email protected]
DONT MISS OUT!!!!!

Hi Felicity…

It’s a stupid rule, but no matter how stupid the rule is, it should not be different just because the person who breached it is Ian Thorpe, that was the point I was trying to make about Joe Blow.

If a sport is governed by rules, they can’t just cover some of the competitors and not others, otherwise there’s no point having them in the first place.

Like I said, hopefully this will force the rule to be changed, but it’ll still be too late for him.

As for John Howard labelling the case a “national tragedy” that is a disgrace. Bali was a national tragedy, Thorpe missing out on a gold medal is not.

cheers
r

>>If it was some Joe Blow who usually finishes 5 minutes after Thorpe and had no chance of qualifying would there be such a fuss? I doubt it.
<<

Exactly, that is right.

However ………….., the difference between Thorpe and an also run comepetitor is the very reason why the rule should have been overridden in this case.

Unless of course if management had reason to belief that it was a deliberate tactic by Thorpe to unsettle the rest of the field. (which I don’t believe to be the case).

I have seen a similar situation take place (in another sport) where the strongest person by far happened to get eliminated.

As it turned out he did finish up going to the Games though in a different weight category (totally out of place).

I wonder whether it isn’t possible for someone who is outstanding to yet be selected by having more than one competitor nominated for the same event.

Or perhaps there could be a rule that a previous gold medal winner could automatically be added to the team, if warranted ?

Yeh, I know the other contenders will scream to high heaven. So what ?

Pisces

Oh dear, I am about to get myself into some very hot h20.

When one is choosing athletes, one can be totally objective, or subjective.

Years ago, a lot of sports were subjective. Weightlifters had no chance of making the team unless they were very good friends with the coach. There was a female rower who was ousted by her three teammates for another lady, despite the fact that she was not as good in all objective measures. Rob de castella got to defend his marathon despite being way down on the objective list. My problem with this? We usually sent only 2 runners, but made an exception by adding Rob. My problem? What about the third ranked marathon runner BETTER and more able on current form than de castella? Well they miss out.

A bit like Anna Kournikova and all of her wildcard entries. Fair enough when she was a young prodigy, and not really yet up to scratch, but time and time again she got the wildcards. The press loved it, the sponsors loved it, the papers and the tv loved it. So why does wrappack not like this scenario? Because each time she competed, she took the place of another lady higher ranked, with a greater desire, ability to win, simply because of her better looks. Legally, we cannot discriminate against race, religion, sexuality, but we can certainly discriminate to our hearts content over ugliness.

All athletes should know the rules. Those who do not are either extremely naiive or absolute morons. On the weekend brisbane fields and extra player and scores a try. Is there a problem in counting? Why can they not wait for the man to leave the field PRIOR to first stepping on, or is it just lazyness of the coach, team manager and the dickhead who ran onto the field? Idiots in league will continue to do spear tackles and swinging elbows head high. The cost? stuff all fines and maybe a week or two off. The potential damage? Spinal damage. In todays SMH, a scrum collapsed and a player died of spinal injuries (NZ, I think). So wheres the outcry? Old and young players still seem to be of the opinion that the manliness of scrums should not be reduced. Let me ask this. How often does the feeding team win? Almost all the time. 95+%. So where is the ‘competition’ of the scrum? If the ref gave the feeding team the ball, same result almost all of the time with less probs of spinal injuries.

About a year ago, our female swimmers jumped into the pool in celebration, a gesture which is, I feel, the very minimum, very rude. Ahhhh, but after the were disqualified, there is an outcry in the press. Why? Because they ‘won’. But, even in horse racing, first past the post does not always win. Protests can always be lodged by anyone before correct weight is called.

Which brings me round to recent swimming events. I must admit, I love the rule regarding false starts in swimming. Loved it yesterday, and agree that it should be kept today.

Many years back, I remember watching the olympics. The swimming was atrociously boring. Let me fully explain. There was the 2 false start rule. That is, two false starts could occur, and then, if anyone false started after that, they would be disqualified. Thus, if No1 massively false started, then no1 did again, then no6 did, then no6 was disqualified. And guess what happened time and time again? False starts would happen that were so blatently obvious, jumping in lazily by over half a second, and swimming back to the side. In almost all events it happened. It slowed things down to a silly game of tit for tat, I know someone is going to , so I will. On one occasion, I can remember three obvious simultaneous false starts! Made doing the washing interesting by comparison.

The reason for such stringent rules in the olympics is because of these idiots streaching the rules far too often, far too much.

Now, with instant disqualification, there are almost no false starts at all.

So, I do believe that thorpe should have been disqualified. My hat off to him on his graciousness in defeat. I can only imagine the angst and heartache that he must currently be feeling

I really believe that all athletes should face objective measures, but that it should not be based on a SOLE event. Thus, if there were two or three meets that could be used for times, then ones best time should go forward.

THis would allow all athletes to compete on even footing, and allowing for the odd bad day/stuff up.

The reason aus only sends two swimmers is cost, plain and simple. I personally reckon it should be at least three, and probably four for all events. Particularly in swimming where we are so dominant.

I totally agree (although it is more like 99%) because League scrums have become a joke. There is no need for them. They should just award the team the ball.

On the other hand, maybe they should look at how Rugby Union sets a scrum where the forwards actually work to get the ball. It is more like 80% of the time the team feeding gets the ball.

But I am getting so [offtopic] now I should just quit.

‘Eat rich food, barbeque a yuppie’ [greedy]

Personally, I think Craig Stevens should be swimming. He was the one who qualified, not Ian Thorpe. On the other hand I also agree that an Olympic champion should have the automatic right to defend their title at the next Olympics.

“Looking forward to the day when I can tell the boss where to go”