Slowtwitch Forums: Triathlon Forum: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread: Page 2

Bike Shops Coaches Fitters Race Calendar NEW Running Stores Stack & Reach Training Log Triathlon Clubs
		MAIN INDEX	RULES & LEGEND	LOG IN

Search for (options)

Newsletter Signup

Slowtwitch Forums: Triathlon Forum:
Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

View All

Slowman

Feb 11, 09 17:41

Post #26 of 173 (1042 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [Philbert] [In reply to]	Can't Post

"One of the great debates in this (sometimes very interesting) line of work has been whether or not employers have the right to monitor employees in their off time through drug testing."

this is a little different. the analogy would be: we're firing you because we think you smoked pot. furthermore, we forbid you from working at any other company in the world if you choose to stay in this line of work.

that's the functional analogy here.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Philbert

Feb 11, 09 17:51

Post #27 of 173 (1031 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [Slowman] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Quote:

this is a little different. the analogy would be: we're firing you because we think you smoked pot. furthermore, we forbid you from working at any other company in the world if you choose to stay in this line of work.

that's the functional analogy here.

Agreed. I was getting more at the first part, but the second part is very important, too. I think this is a precedent worth thinking hard about.
Dr. Philip Skiba, PhysFarm Training Systems
Twitter: DrPhilipSkiba
RaceDay Apollo: British Triathlon is using RaceDay Apollo. Click here to learn why.

(This post was edited by Philbert on Feb 11, 09 17:52)

Slowman

Feb 11, 09 17:59

Post #28 of 173 (1025 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [sdmike] [In reply to]	Can't Post

"I was having a hard time understanding what you where getting at."

i don't think anybody else had a hard time understanding it. i think i crafted it fairly clearly. therefore, i think the onus is on you to back and read it, unless you just aren't interested, which is also fine.

"Now because the discussion was next to zero, you create your own thread? It seems like you have a real woody going for the USOC."

i explained in the first post of this thread why i started the thread, because an official at the USOC to whom i spoke this afternoon noted this final sentence in my OpEd: I'll see you over in our Reader Forum. it clicks to the main forum table, and he professed confusion. perhaps i should not have written that last sentence, but i did, so i thought it best to give him and others a more precise place to click to.

"The guy is suspended for what 3 to 6 months. Did he even plan on competing?"

yes, he did, in australia i believe. there were several exhibition races that he will miss. but if your larger point is that phelps will do just fine anyway, i think you're absolutely right.

"I really don't have any simpathy for him."

i don't have much sympathy either. it isn't phelps i'm interested in. its the idea of a government, or governing body, making value judgments on how you and i ought to live, rather than simply sticking to its mission of sports development, fairness and organization.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

ShawnF

Feb 11, 09 18:26

Post #29 of 173 (1008 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [Slowman] [In reply to]	Can't Post

It's my understanding that by accepting the monthly stipend from USA Swimming he has signed an 'agreement', which contains the athlete code of conduct. He obviously violated this code by getting caught with his face in a bong and USA Swimming has the right, based on the 'agreement', to punish him. Without the 'agreement' for the stipend, I don't think they could legally punish/suspend him.

shawn
AVIA Running
AVIA on Facebook

madracus

Feb 11, 09 18:40

Post #30 of 173 (1001 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [ShawnF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To:

This is not a situation where any anti-doping rule was violated, but we decided to send a strong message to Michael because he disappointed so many people, particularly the hundreds of thousands of USA Swimming member kids who look up to him as a role model and a hero.

Maybe I will get nailed to the wall for saying this but WTF. If anything this has made me like Phelps more. I think it was so healthy to see super man, having fun at a party like a regular kid. It takes so much stress out of the kids that think that they need to be just like the picture perfect portrait hero, and at the end fall to the hands of EPO and God knows how much crap out there because they can't match up to their heroes or as I said the unreal portrait of their hero.

In this Forum the topic of olympic village parties has been covered, athletes completely drunk and having sex all over the place, it has been described as the biggest multi cultural party ever LOVE ALL, DRINK ALL, SMOKE ALL.. Why not suspend those athletes??? (I'm not saying they should be suspended just that it looks like a similar case of bad image) Phelps had so much media attention that he did not even get to enjoy his medals with his friends... well now he is doing just that AND I SAY GOOD, CELEBRATE!!! then go back to the pool train more and win more!

This is ridiculous, if pot is not listed as an illegal substance then let the cops deal with it, if he doesn't get caught then let his parents deal with it.

Lets get rid of all those cheaters all the ones that use PEDs lets give them time in jail, and life time suspensions. But lets give the good ones, the ones who volunteer to the drug test programs, and still win, some slack, let them have some fun they are humans too. We need some antiheroes too, some normal people to look up too... not media-made fictitious heroes!

ViVa Phelps, and life, he was not my hero but now he is! God bless him and give him more gold medals and hope to see him race a tri some day when he gets enough of the fishy stuff.

BTW. I've never had a smoke of pot in my life... mucho! mucho! cerveza and rum I must admit, but no drugs
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Every morning a gazelle wakes up knowing, it must run faster than the fastest lion or it will be killed...
Every morning a lion wakes up knowing it must outwit and outrun (at least) the slowest gazelle or it will starve to death...
It doesn't matter whether you are a lion or a gazelle, when the sun comes up, you'd better start running.

Slowman

Feb 11, 09 18:48

Post #31 of 173 (992 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [ShawnF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

"Without the 'agreement' for the stipend, I don't think they could legally punish/suspend him."

i think it's pretty arguable that he well more that earns his stipend. but, i think this is the closest to a workplace analogy, and the USOC has a defensible case for witholding the stipend.

is it appropriate to have a code of conduct for the maintenance of the stipend and, if so, should it be all boy scouty in theme? second, and more troublesome for me, is the competition ban. can there be a code of conduct that everybody has to adhere to in order to make a living in this industry? and that's what it is, an industry. there is room for a "code" that describes professional conduct, per that profession. lawyers ought not to overbill. doctors ought not to fail to "do no harm." therapists ought not to diddle their clients. athletes ought not to take performance enhancers, or cut the course.

again, what if he was hauled to jail for civil disobedience? standing in front of an abortion clinic in defiance of a court order? are you violating the code of conduct? what is the basis for the code? hair neatly clipped about the ears? what are talking about here? whose code? whose conduct?

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

rhys

Feb 11, 09 18:56

Post #32 of 173 (986 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [gbot] [In reply to]	Can't Post

RE: Ross Regliati - well said!

For those not catching on, Ross tested POSITIVE for pot after winning a gold medal at an olympics in snowboarding. The IOC let him keep it. Funny that eh...

I mean, who f-in cares about this? Seriously, I actually see a huge marketing opportunity wasted. Kellogs could have stood by their youthful man, press released the crap out of him turning his mistake to good and asked him to visit every bloody school in the nation to talk about mistakes, consequences, and what NOT to do.

Anyway, we're Canadian and are really laughing are asses of at how much swirl a hit from the bong has caused-:)
http://www.rhysspencer.blogspot.com/

devashish_paul

Feb 11, 09 19:10

Post #33 of 173 (972 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [Slowman] [In reply to]	Can't Post

....you know, as much as I am on your side and I think that USOC and swim fed Nazis are effectively idiots of "banning" Phelps, what I found more troubling about your reader poll is that ~25% voted in favour of some sanction or another....well, I am sure that none of these guys ever speeded in their cars, nor rolled through stop signs, nor drank beer under age, or smoked pot or or or.

What athletes do with their private lives should is really none of our business as long as it does not enhance their performance on the field of play.

I think in Canada when Ross Rebagliati tested postive in Nagano for pot after winning the snowboard gold, the entire nation was chuckling that Ross went partying with his buddies before leaving Whistler for Nagano, inhales some second hand smoke (or first hand, we really don't care) and still has a trace of it in his body and then rips down the mountain several days later and wins gold.

Meanwhile ST readers to the tune of a quarter feel a sanction is warranted....I say, "smoke it up young Mikey....enjoy your youth, cause you spent most of it looking at that black line chasing those 14 gold medals, while all your peers were partying, drinking, smoking and gettin laid!!!"

Frankly I like my champions and heros to be somewhat human. I don't need Phelps nor Charles Barkley to be a role model. I have some parents to do that, and sadly, my son is stuck with me :-)

Dev

www.kestrelbicycles.com |www.infinitnutrition.ca | www.nineteenwetsuits.com
Free camps: Whiteface Hill Climb + Epicman Lake Placid 3k/180k/21k June 10/11 2010

(This post was edited by devashish_paul on Feb 11, 09 19:11)

gamebofh

Feb 11, 09 19:22

Post #34 of 173 (956 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [devashish_paul] [In reply to]	Can't Post

I don't need Phelps nor Charles Barkley to be a role model. I have some parents to do that, and sadly, my son is stuck with me :-)

Sing it brother. ;)

-Jot

GregX

Feb 11, 09 19:23

Post #35 of 173 (956 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [ShawnF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

i didn't know about the stipend. any idea if his agreement with usa swimming had any language about smokin' stuff?

but a scary thing: 2% of forum poll responders think a lifetime ban is appropriate.

holy sh*t.

if appears that there are some folks out there who believe the idiotic 'drug war' drivel and propaganda.

and that's even scarier ...

Where would you want to swim ?

devashish_paul

Feb 11, 09 19:35

Post #36 of 173 (945 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [gamebofh] [In reply to]	Can't Post

So they got Brian Williams inteviewing Jacques Rogge on CBC now. Jacques says, "What happens with Michael Phelps is regrettable...he promised to not do it again. He is young and deserves a second chance...."

WTF???? A second chance for what exactly? Why does Mr. Rogge care what Michael does with his spare time ? Friggin bullshit and infinite hypocrisy all around...this from the same IOC organization that is perpetually on the take from bidding cities with big $$$$ and big gifts and "favours"....tell me what is worse....bribery or pot? Please Mr. Rogge, go clean up your federation before you ask the 8 time medalist what he can inhale at a party!!!

STP

Feb 11, 09 19:41

Post #37 of 173 (939 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [Slowman] [In reply to]	Can't Post

The USOC is just coming in after the fact and looking for a little good PR.

USA Swimming suspended Phelps. Since USA Swimming is probably the most successful US NGB in terms of medals produced at the Olympics and its top to bottom athlete development program is the envy of most other sports, I think they deserve a little benefit of the doubt on their decision to suspend Phelps. Ture, it was a PR move. Its meaningless as far as Phelps is concerned since it will have almost no affect on him competitionwise since this he had very few meets scheduled during this period and those he will miss will not mess up his program for the year.

But, one needs to look at USA Swimmings membership and how it develops swimmers to understand what they were up to here. Swimming is a kids' sport. It is not Major League Baseball. Its Little League where the top rung is the big leagues. The 10 year old down the street who swims has the same membership card, pays the same dues and swims under the same rules in front of the same officials as Phelps et al.

USA Swimming currently has 257,180 members. (that's the real number see http://www.usaswimming.org/.../Statistics-2008.pdf

Of those, only 9,672 are over 18 years old. Part of USA Swimmings constituancy is elite athletes but the organization is run by the age groupers and the folks on top know that the future medalists come from the age group ranks. They treat the kids well and it is a very clear seamless road from the local age group meet to the Olympic trials. USA Swimming has to answer to the moms and dads of the age group ranks (USA Swimming has 75,000 members who are 10 years old or younger). Among that group are the future gold medalists and maybe even the next Phelps. It undoubtably was important to USA Swimming to send a message to the 10 year old future Phelps, wherever he or she may be and make sure his/her mom keeps driving him to practice every day instead of having them decide to take up soccer.

devashish_paul

Feb 11, 09 19:56

Post #38 of 173 (930 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [STP] [In reply to]	Can't Post

What message was sent by the USA Swimming to the 10 year old swimmer?

That smoking pot is not a good thing?

I thought this is the reponsibility of the parent of the aforementioned 10 year old. The swimming federation should stick to swimming. They don't need to delve into telling kids what moral code is good bad or ugly. Parents don't need to offload the responsibility of parenting to any sports federation. They should just offload the responosibility of getting their kids a skill in a particular sport to a specific sports federation....the rest belongs in the realm of parenting!!! Seems pretty simple.

My kid sees the hard work that Phelps put into winning medals. The lesson about sport ends there. The lesson about what is OK and not OK to put in your mouth is handled at home. What Phelps does or does not put into his mouth does not set the boundaries for what the 12 year old is permitted to do.

Dev

Slowman

Feb 11, 09 20:20

Post #39 of 173 (916 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [STP] [In reply to]	Can't Post

i don't see that USA Swimming's success rate is relevant. again, what if phelps had gone to jail for violating a court order, continuing to demonstrate in front of an abortion clinic? would Swimming's success rate have a bearing on whether they ought to ban him or not ban him for that behavior? don't you think the question is what sorts of behavior ought to impact phelps' ability to compete, rather than whether swimming has a successful program? if USA Swimming starts to perform badly in the medal count, does the behavior they previously restricted all of a sudden become behavior they have no right to restrict?

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Macho Grande

Feb 11, 09 20:45

Post #40 of 173 (901 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [Slowman] [In reply to]	Can't Post

I was surprised that the USOC did anything to Phelps, but then again I see where they are coming from, like it or not. However Slowman, I don't think this is a moral or ethics issue as you sort-of allude to. I think it's one of marketing and perception.

To carry your analogy a bit, Phelps is not only an employee of the company he's the employee of the month, year, decade, and perhaps of all time. He's already in the Ring of Honor and he still has more time to get some work done. He's the face of the company and he got caught with his face in a bong. So, what does the USOC do? They suspend him for three months, a time frame where he wasn't going to compete anyhow and they take away his stipend, money he doesn't really need.

It's an issue of perception, and rightly or wrongly, USOC had to do something lest his actions seen permissible to others who MIGHT do the same. I'm about the biggest libertarian you'll ever find, but in this case its a perception issue.
If they did nothing, then they look bad. Cal it knee jerk or whatever, but they had to do something.

Do athletes go crazy and smoke it up? Sure, but how many are dumb enough to get a photo taken of them hitting the bong?

In the eyes of USOC, something had to be done, even a small slap on the wrist.

Bob
----------------------------------------------------------

(This Space for Rent)

gbot

Feb 11, 09 20:55

Post #41 of 173 (894 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [Macho Grande] [In reply to]	Can't Post

You bring up a question that still hasn't been answered to my satisfaction.

WHY did they have to do something? Why couldn't have they just done... nothing? What are the supposedly grave consequences which would have occurred if they had simply not reacted to the situation AT ALL?

Macho Grande

Feb 11, 09 21:00

Post #42 of 173 (887 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [gbot] [In reply to]	Can't Post

IMHO this comes down to an issue of perception. Do nothing and you look weak. DO something and what's the worst you get, yelled at for suspending a guy? Int he media you look tough, but to the sport participants you look like the old guy who whipped out his shotgun because the kids were on your tree lawn.

I am not saying what they did was right or wrong, I just see why they did it.

And, for what its worth, I don't pretend to know Michael Phelps at all, but in this case he was a moron. For smoking pot? No. For getting his picture taken doing it.

Bob
----------------------------------------------------------

(This Space for Rent)

PirateGirl

Feb 11, 09 21:29

Post #43 of 173 (881 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [Slowman] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Dan,

while I haven't really given much thought to the Micheal Phelps situation, I have given a LOT of thought to the Air Force Academy evangelism situation. As a 1995 grad, who remembers when Focus on the Family moved to Colorado Springs, I have always thought that the amount of evangelism reported at the Academy in the recent years is a result of the faith based organization strong hold in the springs.

While religion (of the Christian variety) seemed to be ingrained into the Academy way of life (prayers before meals, games, i don't remember the evangelism (beyond the once a weekly seemingly benign yell down the hall "bible study in the squadron assembly room in 10 minutes"), but that might be more of a result of me drinking my way through the academy and remembering very little other than the penny pitchers of beer and dollar long island ice teas at various bars around town....oh and the marijuana smoking scandal that never made the news my senior year, but a couple of cadets left the Academy over it.

I guess I also think that part of the reason the evangelism took such a strong hold at the Academy is because of the demographics of the cadets. I don't know percentages for sure, but I do know as a liberal, i was in a VERY SMALL minority. Take the demographics, mostly conservative and impressionable (I'm not associating conservative and impressionable, because as a liberal I was just as impressionable at that time) and the fact that each cadet is assigned a sponsor and a lot of the sponsors were assigned based on religious preferences (so the cadets could go to church with their sponsor) if desired, I think it was a 'perfect storm' for the evangelism to grow.

But I'm not sold that the response of the USOC is due to the town they hold down fort in. I guess I have a hard time thinking that an autonomous organization can really be influenced that much, if they aren't already pre-disposed to that line of thought. Or mabye I'm just as naive now as I was when I decided to go to the Academy thinking everyone in the military is as open minded as they should be. I tend to think the response of USOC and Phelp's sponsors is because people don't know how many swimmers smoke pot....but everyone knows baseball player dope. :-)

And while I'm one of those who have no problem with people smoking pot, and I think it should be legalized, I don't think a 3 month suspension is much of a punishment. It seems more like, "well, we gotta do something because there might be an uproar if we don't, so what's the least we can give him that will look like we are acting on this"

(This post was edited by PirateGirl on Feb 11, 09 22:57)

devashish_paul

Feb 12, 09 4:52

Post #44 of 173 (840 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [Macho Grande] [In reply to]	Can't Post

So it is OK for Clinton to inhale pot and earn his living, but not OK for Phelps to inhale pot and do his trade? While I understand the perception that USA swimming is trying to lay out, it really is none of their business. Phelps is not the first swimmer in the federation to inhale pot. How about they ban every other swimmer at each NCAA Div 1 school who inhales at a frat house party. People, take out your phones, start snapping pics and forward to USA Swimming, so that they can be fair and ban everyone whose pic arrives in the mail....

Dev

www.kestrelbicycles.com |www.infinitnutrition.ca | www.nineteenwetsuits.com
Free camps: Whiteface Hill Climb + Epicman Lake Placid 3k/180k/21k June 10/11 2010

Macho Grande

Feb 12, 09 5:46

Post #45 of 173 (825 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [devashish_paul] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Dev:

First of all, Clinton didn't inhale...

Second, you're missing my point on Phelps. Personally I think he's a moron for smoking dope, but do I care much if he does? Nope, not one bit. However, the USOC does care if he smokes dope becaue, as I mentioned, he's their poster child. If you went and asked 10,000 people to name an Olympic athlete I'd bet at least 75% name Phelps. Given this, the USOC had to do something. And, the realtively small slap on the wrist of three months isn't inhibiting Phelps from making his living, he wasn't going to race anyhow.

If you want to argue, discuss, or go further with this, I am game, but I'm not concerned about the issue of smoking dope. My entire thesis is that the USOC had to do something from a perception standopoint, not some moral high ground.

Bob
----------------------------------------------------------

(This Space for Rent)

gbot

Feb 12, 09 6:16

Post #46 of 173 (812 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [Macho Grande] [In reply to]	Can't Post

I don't see how that's necessarily true. I don't think they did have to do anything from a perception standpoint - in fact, I think the actions they did take were counterproductive from a perception standpoint. Doing nothing would have been better.

They made themselves look like heavy-handed moralizers, which I think is a lot worse than doing nothing.

Macho Grande

Feb 12, 09 6:27

Post #47 of 173 (803 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [gbot] [In reply to]	Can't Post

I guess my thought is that if they did nothing, what message would it send? If, after Phelps manned up and admitted it was him, they simply sat on their hands, how would it look?

When some other rinky dink (I say that jokingly) Olympian messes up, it's OK to look the other way or do nothing. When it's Michael Phelps, it's a totally different story.

Bob
----------------------------------------------------------

(This Space for Rent)

devashish_paul

Feb 12, 09 6:38

Post #48 of 173 (796 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [Macho Grande] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Again, why is USOC concerned about what the poster child does in his personal life as long as he does not enhance his performance in racing through cheating.

Poster children are just regular guys who happen to be faster than the rest of the world in a sport. There is nothing codified anywhere saying that they have no human flaws and succumb to the same desires and vices as anyone else. Frankly, I find it refreshing that they do show human qualities and I can actually use these as examples to my own son on what is appropriate and not....it does not matter how successful you are in one domain, it does not mean you will be perfect everywhere.

My point is that USA Swimming and USOC dont' have to do anything. It is not their job to police the 8 time gold medalist's private life. If he goes wild like a 70's era rock star, that really is his choice.

It is up to the parents of kids to point out that the rock star antics are not what the kids need to follow, but the hard work that got the 8 medals is something to follow. The USOC and USA swimming should just stay out of the parenting loop. As Charles Barkley said, "I'm not a role model, parents are role models". USA Swimming should get on with it, cause this is a slippery slop in that they should now technically hand out suspensions to any USA Swimming athlete whose picture is taken while partying and smoking dope.

The person who should be hammering on Michael is his mother if she really feels that putting away a bit of dope in an off season party is a big deal. If that was my son, I'd just say, "Look son, if you want to party and go nuts, that's your choice. Just keep in mind that your big $$$$ sponsors may or may not stay on the bandwagon...."

STP

Feb 12, 09 6:44

Post #49 of 173 (792 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [Slowman] [In reply to]	Can't Post

you have to remember, i'm a process guy.

Here's the "process." Like many sports, when you join USA Swimming, you pay them a fee ($53 per year in this case) and you get some stuff in return like some insurance, a bimonthly magazine, and the right to enter USA Swimming sanctioned meets. In return, you agree to a writen code of conduct. All this makes up a contract and its written and signed. Every USA Swimmer does this so my 13 year old opperates under the same code of conduct as Michael Phelps.

The code spells out a bunch of specific acts that can get you in trouble (it applies to coaches too who have to be members as well to coach ). There are several specific rules dealing with what can be termed as "recreational" drugs (as opposed to the seperate rules on PEDS) but these focus on dealing or coaches providing drugs or being present when they are being use. Its doesn't look to me like anyone can prove Phelps violated any of these specific rules since they are pretty narrow. Its clear from reading the rules that just smoking pot by itself is not against the rules so there won't be any witchunts in USA Swimming's future.

But, the last rule is the general catch all that is in all these types of codes allowing discipline for "any act, conduct or admission . . . which is detremental to the image of USA Swimming or the sport of swimming."

No doubt Phelps violated this clause. But, its not just because he smoked pot that he violated it. If my daughter who is a member of USA Swimming did that she would have trouble with me but USA Swimming would not care a bit. She is not fast enough to be in the public eye so she could commit mass murder (unless maybe if she did it at a swim meet . . ) and it would not be "detrimental" to USA Swimming. But, since Phelps is a superstar and world wide celebrity, the threshold for what he can do that would be "detrimental" to swimming is much much lower. With great talent comes great respondibilties. The contract thus has a sliding scale built into it. Your average swimmer can get stoned all he wants and USA Swimming is not going to give a crap. Michael Phelps can kick a dog and he might get in trouble. That's just the way the world of celebrity works.

But, back to process. This is about a process specific as you can get. Its a written contract. Phelps breached the contract. (clause 304.3.15 of the Code of Conduct to be specific). USA Swimming imposed discipline constistant with sanctions authorized in clause 304.2 of the Code of Conduct.

devashish_paul

Feb 12, 09 6:59

Post #50 of 173 (781 views)

Re: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread [STP] [In reply to]	Can't Post

OK, while I can see why the rule is built in and how it was applied in this case, I can also see a variety of lawyers having a field day with it :-)....these catch all clauses are typically weak at best when challenged hard. Phelps and his lawyers of course have a vested financial interest to not challenge it. And is a 23 year old partying his ass off detrimental to the image of USA Swimming. Based on the ST poll 77% I would inferr say no, but 23 I inferr say yes. Does this small sample support the 'detrimental to the image' ?

Personally I like the image it portrays...win 8 gold medals, work your ass off after being a monk for several months and then party all nite like its 1999 :-)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

View All