"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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"...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.

[email hidden] (gmail) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"...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.

Quoted message said:

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

"Bill Geiser" <wpgeiser(no.spam)@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

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

(Fran) said:

"Bill Geiser" <wpgeiser(no.spam)@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

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.

Showing your great knowledge of sport I see?

Quoted message said:

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.

It's not a dumb rule. It's a good rule. That's why it's
still in place.

Quoted message said:

Mindless adherence to rules entails throwing reason out
the window.

Why have rules if you're not going to enforce the rules?

Are you saying if you go through a red light 10 seconds
after it turns red you shouldn't be punished because 10
seconds isn't very long?

"Fran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

"Fran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (gmail) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"...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.

Quoted message said:

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!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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 [censored]?

Quoted message said:

FRAN

"Bill Geiser" <wpgeiser(no.spam)@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Fran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

"Bill Geiser" <wpgeiser(no.spam)@sbcglobal.net> wrote
in message

Quoted message said:

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 [censored] 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.

"Count Scrofula" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Fran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (gmail) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"...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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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 [censored]?

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

Fran <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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".

Mike Edey <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Count Scrofula said:

Quoted message said:

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 [censored]?

Quoted message said:

FRAN

Mmmm, seems to me a more appropriate one would be trying
to talk your way out of a speeding ticket because if you
have to wait any longer you're going to be late and lose
your job. (typo corrected)

Ah no. If you reread an earlier post in this thread (20
April) you will note that I'm not arguing that he shouldn't
have been disqualified.

"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." [End
20 April Quote]

This was a data collection tool, as well as a swimming
event. The benefit was not to Thorpe, but to the selectors
of the team. If the chap going to work had been under
observation for punctuality, and had been late, then the
data might have been an entirely fair indication of the
fellow's work habits. Why was he speeding? Isn't that part
of the risk you take?

But in this case, Geiser was implying that the failure to
allow the deleterious spillover effect to alter the Olympic
team's composition would lead to consequences for Australia
at least as bad. So your analogy is based on it being about
what's good for Thorpe, as opposed to what's good for the
sport in Australia, for the team etc. It's in the team's
interests to have the best swimmers contest the 400.
Anything that obstructs that is by definition, sub optimal.

Quoted message said:

Hmm, actually that one sucks too but it's a lot closer -
Ian didn't just goof up he performed an 'illegal' act.

No, it was an act recognised in the sport with a prescribed
penalty -- Disqualification. In football, encroach the ten
metres in the play the ball -- suffer a penalty. Overstep
the bowling crease on delivery when bowling in cricket, it's
a "no ball". Fail to land the ball within the service area
in tennis, it's a fault. Enter the water early after you've
mounted the blocks, if it's seen by the referee as an
attempt to start, DQ. Seems harsh, but there you are.

Quoted message said:

Sure it wasn't grand larceny or anything (yet - we'll see
who swims after all) and they're be the nut jobs with
claims of 'petty tyrants' & 'quotas' but in the end it
comes down to following pretty well advertised rules set
out well in advance. One might argue that the rule is dumb
but it doesn't change the fact that by getting on the
block, or putting the key in the ignition, you agree to be
bound by them just like every one else.

Actually you can't be fined for speeding until you actually
do it. Putting the key in isn't enough. You can't be done
for drink driving until you actually drive off. This is
largely an evidentiary matter as one finds "intent"
difficult to show.

But yes, Thorpe must be bound by even the silly rules. The
question is though, what do the selectors do now to ensure
they have the best chance of gold-silver, which is what the
exercise is mainly about.

FRAN

"jtaylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Fran <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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".

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.

What a tangle you are in ... and all to make a perfectly
silly point seem reasonable. Rules maybe rules, but in your
case, you seem unsure.

FRAN

"Fran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"jtaylor" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fran <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

by the referee. Screw up after that, and you are dq'd.
Whether it's

for a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

false start, for a stroke infraction, or for reaching
across and

punching

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the swimmer next to you, does not matter. You have had
your chance and

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have blown it.

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

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

pooch".

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.

What a tangle you are in ... and all to make a perfectly
silly point seem reasonable. Rules maybe rules, but in
your case, you seem unsure.

FRAN

More silliness from the intellectually bankrupt fran.

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

Quoted message said:

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.

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.

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

"Count Scrofula" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Fran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"jtaylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fran <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:95f1-
[email hidden]...

> 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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

by the referee. Screw up after that, and you are dq'd.
Whether it's

for a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

false start, for a stroke infraction, or for reaching
across and

punching

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the swimmer next to you, does not matter. You have had
your chance and

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have blown it.

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

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

pooch".

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.

What a tangle you are in ... and all to make a perfectly
silly point seem reasonable. Rules maybe rules, but in
your case, you seem unsure.

FRAN

More silliness from the intellectually bankrupt fran.

I assume from the content of your posts that your interest
in the bandwidth being used here is pecuniary rather than
intellectual.

The fact that I have played one more time shows what a
generous soul I am.

By all means, buy yourself a beer with this if you can.

FRAN

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 [censored] and moan about it.

Quoted message said:

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

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says... [...]

Quoted message said:

The difference is that Australia is free to choose its
team however it wishes, and you get to [censored] 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 =
"pissing 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.)

- Al

Martin W. Smith <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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.

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

unable

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

where

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

metres.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He was out, fair and square.

The difference is that Australia is free to choose its
team however it wishes, and you get to [censored] 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?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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