Slowtwitch Forums: Triathlon Forum: Okay, here's the Phelps discussion thread: Page 6

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

trail

Feb 12, 09 14:51

Post #126 of 173 (738 views)

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

In Reply To:

what you're saying is that if an athlete smokes pot entirely legally in a european country, a u.s.-based governing body can ban the athlete worldwide from earning a living, because they in their own private view think that's bad for the image of their organization. that's what you're saying, it seems to me.

No! I actually (almost) totally agree with you. But these are #3/#4 arguments according to the above list. #1/#2 are covered contractually. If Phelps wanted to take USA Swimming to court he could argue that they overstepped their bounds and enacted a penalty totally out of proportion to the offense. There is no argument that USA Swimming doesn't have the authority to enact *some* penalty. I was arguing details - not the big picture.

gbot

Feb 12, 09 14:52

Post #127 of 173 (738 views)

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

...and they shouldn't worry, because even if he were swimming's version of Michael Irvin he'd still be their cash cow.

Who knows, maybe even moreso.

Brick

Feb 12, 09 14:54

Post #128 of 173 (732 views)

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

US Swimming's mission is not to win gold medals at all or any or even most costs. Their mission includes growing and maintaining the sport. We will disagree if you contend that the image of the sport is immaterial to that mission.

devashish_paul

Feb 12, 09 14:55

Post #129 of 173 (732 views)

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

Yes, you did overlay your moral code because you said that smoking pot affects the marketable image. There is no proof of this. Can you actually say what the metric of the magintude of a marketable image is? $$$$, memberships, gold medals, appearances in media, formation of new clubs, ....?

What's is the gauge for the marketable image and how did Phelps tank it? Let's go measure before bong and after bong. And then let's go and measure it after the clowns imposed the ban and then we'll really see who is tanking the image :-)

As I said earlier in the thread, when Ross Rebagliati got nailed for pot, the Canadian public laughed the entire thing off as a bunch of IOC clowns on a witch hunt. By eand large, Americans seems to support Phelps' behavior. But there is this minority that seems to be up in arms about the entire thing as if he is supposed to live by some uberbodly standard that even American presidents have transgressed....

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

STP

Feb 12, 09 14:57

Post #130 of 173 (728 views)

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

you will be banned if you are convicted or, or confess to, a crime the level of misdemeanor or higher.

there. i did it in one sentence.

Based on this and other comments you've made you definitely need to stop playing lawyer. You are really really bad at it.

In most states, failing to produce a valid vehicle registration during a traffic stop is a misdeanor. So now Phelps can smoke pot but if he can't find the registration in his govoe box later that evening he's banned from the sport? Your rule says "will" not "may" so the ban is now mandatory. No room for mercy or judgment.

Actually, DUI is at least a misdemeanor if not a felony so by your rule he would have been banned 4 years ago and we'd never had to have this debate. . . .

Often, a slightly vague rule is better than one that is too specific and rigid, as long as you have trust in the system. Since you obviously don't trust the authorities here (USOC, USA Swimming) there is probably no possible rule that would satisfy you since no matter what the rule is, the organization, as the drafting and then charging party, is always going to get first crack at defining what is a violation.

Brick

Feb 12, 09 15:02

Post #131 of 173 (725 views)

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

Kelloggs thinks it negatively impacted his marketable image.

I think it is naive and even wrong to say that it did not impact his image. Maybe it impacted it positively or maybe it impacted it negatively or maybe it impacted it positively for some and negatively for others ... but it had an impact.

Maybe I did not make the point well but I tried to make the point that US Swimming has a legitimate interest in presenting a marketable image and a marketable image that it thinks is positive. It, like other organizations, has a right to ask that its members work to maintain that image and to sanction its members if they do not. Dan and I disagree as to the level of detail or the type of yardstick, if any, that should be be published in order to be properly enforced.

STP

Feb 12, 09 15:03

Post #132 of 173 (725 views)

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

Or him drinking himself into oblivion and then appearing for press conferences so hung over that he pukes on his shoes and treats reporters rudely.

Ted Turner did that after winning an America's Cup race, only he was just drunk, not hung over (yet). I was a teenager at the time involved in sailing. I thought it was pretty cool. Later that year I and several of my crewmates got permanetly banned from our home yatch club after a post race celebration. There is no doubt that famous people can be a bad influence . . .

Slowman

Feb 12, 09 15:24

Post #133 of 173 (712 views)

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

"But does this preserve the image they have a right to seek to present?"

i don't know. i'm just asking for some idea as to what the standard is, so we can talk about that standard.

"Or him drinking himself into oblivion and then appearing for press conferences so hung over that he pukes on his shoes and treats reporters rudely."

what about drinking to oblivion and puking in your backyard, but captured on a youtube video somebody took of you?

"Or possibly going to Reno and spending a couple hundred grand on huge well-publicized group sex parties for all his peeps at a brothel."

now you're talking! except, not reno, but in the next county over where that activity would be perfectly legal. what is the standard? that's all i'm asking.

i'm not looking for an exhaustive list. i'm saying if the USOC wants to preserve its own credibility as a fair arbiter of behavior, it needs to have a come to jesus about this and think through what its own limits on behavior ought to be -- a public discussion, not a private one inside its own walls. it was not that many years ago that athletes like phelps were banned if they accepted any money at all for athletic performances. in the 1970s taking money for racing warranted you a ban from your governing body. times change. this is one of those times where the USOC needs to account for this ban with an explanation of what it should prohibit and what it should not. the longer it delays, the more it's saying: we don't want any limit on what we might do, so we're not going to have that discussion.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Slowman

Feb 12, 09 15:34

Post #134 of 173 (706 views)

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

"So now Phelps can smoke pot but if he can't find the registration in his govoe box later that evening he's banned from the sport?"

i agree with you completely. that would be a silly standard. but it's your standard, no? you, not i, brought up phelps' criminality as your defense for his ban. you said:

he had been photographed in Amsterdam, maybe he would not have caved - but he was in South Carolina where the activity he admitted too is illegal (arrests are going on as we speak according to AP).

so, which is it? criminal behavior is justification for the ban? or it ought not be used as justification of the ban? please make up your mind. i'm looking for a standard that athletes can hang their hats on. you won't provide one. the USOC won't provide one. ought it to be criminal behavior? you decide. but please decide something. now that i've educated you on the federal architecture of sports governance, i hope you can come up with a standard better than has phelps been naughty or nice?

"Based on this and other comments you've made you definitely need to stop playing lawyer. You are really really bad at it."

i don't know, i think i'm doing pretty well.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Bigkens

Feb 12, 09 15:41

Post #135 of 173 (703 views)

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

Dev,

I see that your post is no. 38 out of 132, so the discussion may have evolved significantly from here, but I say, right on.

As you said, the shame is the ban lets parents shut an open door on a perfect opportunity to talk with their kids about drugs, and responsibility, and self respect, because the swimming fed. did the talking for them.

gbot

Feb 12, 09 15:44

Post #136 of 173 (700 views)

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

In Reply To:

I agree that the image of the sport is material to that mission, what I disagree with is that the image of Michael Phelps specifically has any material effect on that mission.

I would even contend that presenting Phelps as a squeaky-clean uber-man 'robo-athlete' hurts the sport vs. presenting him as a normal 23-year-old who does normal 23-year-old things and ALSO works hard and kicks ass in the pool.

devashish_paul

Feb 12, 09 16:10

Post #137 of 173 (690 views)

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

I would even contend that presenting Phelps as a squeaky-clean uber-man 'robo-athlete' hurts the sport vs. presenting him as a normal 23-year-old who does normal 23-year-old things and ALSO works hard and kicks ass in the pool.

Thank you....we live in a world of reality. Parents can easily explain to 10 year olds that athletes are human and look at that guy Phelps who worked hard as heck and won all those medals. But that same guy Phelps has also made a bad decision by allegedly putting drugs in his mouth during a party.

Then you can tell you kid, "Just remember Jonny, this is a perfect example of a situation where you should apply the following rule....NEVER PUT YOURSELF IN A SITUATION THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE TO EXPLAIN YOURSELF OUT OF LATER". If you think you have to explain yourself to anyone some time later for your behaviour, probably best to never go there in the first place. Kids can learn from their heros messing up. Parents need to be the role models. Let Phelps swim and let the swim federation worry about swimming, not what Phelps does on his own time.

Also probably a good chance to let kids know, "That rockstar plays the guitar great, and Phelps swims awesome, and Crosby sure can shoot a puck in the net, but just remember, yuo don't need to copy everything they do...go play the guitar, do swim, skate all evening on the local rink, but use your brain and only follow the good things that these superstars do, cause all their behaviour may or may not be up to our own standards".

I think more athletes just need to speak out like Charles Barkley and tell parents to be role models instead of parents offloading that to athletes. Then USOC certainly does not need to worry about what Phelps puts in his mouth, because they are comfortable knowing that parents are still parenting and are pointing out to their kids that they should certainly follow Phelps' work ethic in the pool.

As for Kelloggs dropping Phelps, as a private corporation, that is their call. I'm not going to eat Kelloggs for this reason alone. Seems like they are just as shortsighted as the USOC...

Dev

Karl

Feb 12, 09 16:35

Post #138 of 173 (680 views)

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

Phelps was the poster boy of the Olympics. He embarrassed the athletic community. He got a little suspension to show the world the Olympics cares about his misbehavior. I think they had to do something. It was a calculated and political reaction. I think it was fair. However, I am a clean cut, never wanted to use drugs kind of guy.
Personally, I do not hold him to super human standards, but he made a choice and took responsibility for it. I think that was good of him.
I think we all should get over it and move on.

mdtrihard

Feb 12, 09 17:48

Post #139 of 173 (668 views)

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

The bunny is out of the box. I need to get me some of those marijuana cigarettes so I can fly!!!!

AndrewSaar

Feb 13, 09 5:58

Post #140 of 173 (637 views)

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

"okay, now we're getting somewhere. all we need to do is determine: what are these values? what if phelps was hauled off to jail for protesting in front of an old growth redwood? what if he was hauled off to jail for protesting in front of william morris' headquarters? what values? whose values? the USOC took probably $1 million out of phelps' pocket. we can debate the amount, but the amount is not insigifnicant. USADA can give us a list of banned PEDs. is it not fair that we find out what these amorphous banned behaviors are?"

This is one of the murkier issues, whose values, to deal with as it is not something you can set in stone. It to me is somewhat of a floating target in that it should represent the basic shared values of that group. The leadership of that group interprets what they believe those values to be and possibly (probably) end up wrong at times, but the group will voice it's displeasure with the inappropriate interpretation of the common morals and the leadership will either adapt to the voiced opinion or be changed out. I think there are plenty of cases where you could argue that it would be difficult if not impossible to determine that a given action would cross the boundary of what's acceptable. But when approaching that line, you know you're taking more and more of a chance of crossing it and that's a price you pay for playing near the line. In this case however there can be no doubt that Phelps knew the the USOC and USA Swimming would not approve of him toking up. It's an illegal substance for the general populace, you can't possibly imagine that doing something that is generally looked down upon (Slowtwitch is NOT a good cross section of society), something most parents would not recommend their kids do, is going to do anything but cause trouble for you. While one can argue that the punishment might not fit the crime (where are you getting the $1 mill figure from? Not saying you're wrong but I hadn't seen anything approaching that documented) it would be difficult for me to imagine a realistic argument that the punishment should not have been unexpected.

"so it's okay if they take $1 million out phelps' pocket, but not $5 million? or, it's okay that they banned phelps, but it would not be okay if they banned another athlete, who could not afford that loss of income, even if that other athlete did the exact same thing. that's what you're saying?"

I feel the punishment should fit the crime. I still don't understand the $1 Mill figure, but I would say that the ban that USA Swimming imposed, 3 months, does not seem outrageous. Once again, the punishment doled out should be representative of the situation. For the same reason that you don't impose a $1 Billion fine on a small tobacco company that only makes $5 Mill a year, but you might on Altria who pulls in $5 Bill in profit a year, suspending Phelps for 3 months might be appropriate, but suspending a no name swimmer who uses the meager income from USA Swimming and meets to make ends barely meet each month wouldn't make sense. The punishment sounds the same but the effect isn't. So you might choose a punishment that didn't hurt the lower end swimmer as much in the pocketbook but forced him to instead sacrifice time to volunteer at youth swimming camps or something. People seem to latch onto the amounts without taking into account the effect. Pretending that they really are taking $1 Mill out of Phelps pocket is never going to be the same as if they took that out of mine...not the least because that would leave me owing them $999,995. :-)

-Andrew Saar
It is better to do the right thing and be paid poorly,
than to do the wrong thing and be rewarded richly.

trexleradam

Feb 13, 09 7:39

Post #141 of 173 (622 views)

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

This business about the values public people can espouse without penalty is pretty interesting. I personally find it worrisome how the logic of marketing and 'image management' constrains people to tow the line in our society, and I don't think the very few cause-supporters in Hollywood changes the simple observation that most of being a celebrity means keeping your mouth shut. There is a serious disconnect between free speech and political correctness.
However, I'm not at all convinced the Phelps case demonstrates this issue: Phelps was doing something illegal, didn't want the public to see the photo, certainly didn't intend to advocate for it. (Although I'm actually kind of intrigued by the idea of Phelps as the deliberate posterchild for legalization.

(We haven't even gotten to the creepy UK tabloid media, that takes anything that anyone could find objectionable and deliberately stirs the pot for totally cynical reasons)

Jaymz

Feb 13, 09 8:39

Post #142 of 173 (608 views)

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

Surely this has to do with the question of legalities rather than performance enhancing. I previously smoked but don't any more. I can not imagine turning up to an Olympic final stoned. It would simply be ridiculous. Funny as hell but you wouldn't win. Are all illegal drugs on the banned list? If so then it may be that the powers that be don't want stoners. Why is that? Because smoking has such an adverse affect on peoples lives that they would not get anywhere or make anything of themselves. Oh, wait a minute, so he won more gold medals than anyone else ever. That's that little argument out of the window.

So, it's not performance enhancing, it doesn't necessarily ruin your life if used in moderation, as I suspect Phelps does, so what is left? Just a couple of old farts who don't like it.

He's still an idiot for using in in front of people that would be likely to photograph him doing it though. They may be old farts but they still make the decisions and he must have known that. But then he is still one of the best athletes the games has ever seen. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Tri N OC

Feb 13, 09 9:10

Post #143 of 173 (594 views)

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

i'm not looking for an exhaustive list. i'm saying if the USOC wants to preserve its own credibility as a fair arbiter of behavior, it needs to have a come to jesus about this and think through what its own limits on behavior ought to be -- a public discussion, not a private one inside its own walls.

You are coming at this from the wrong perspective, or at least not from USOC's perspective. You are taking the athelete's perspective by seeking a definitive list or standard (criminality?). While certainly desirable, brightline rules have their limitations. (One example is designer drugs as a method to defeat drug charges). The goal of a morals provision is to provide an incentive (avoid negative consequences) for avoiding anything less than the highest form of conduct (what would an angel do) sought by the group promulgating the standard.

To enforce this, many employment agreements have a provision for terminating the contract if the employee does anything which would bring the employer into disrepute or harm its reputation. Is this an ever shifting standard? It certainly can be, but the practical application is not nearly as onerous as you might think. It can, however, lead to inconsistant results. In Phelps' case, Kelloggs decided there was sufficient reason not to renew while Speedo and Omega decided the behavior was not sufficiently harmful to their brands to end the relationship. What is the poor athelete to do? Choose your sponsor wisely. In the case of USOC, growing acceptance of the ganja notwithstanding, I don't think anyone is surprised that it takes a dim view of it.

Slowman

Feb 13, 09 9:38

Post #144 of 173 (586 views)

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

"Slowtwitch is NOT a good cross section of society"

this is what i found:

Time magazine poll: Did Michael Phelps deserve a three month ban from USA Swimming? (8525 respondents)
57% no, 43% yes

---

Mixx.com Do you think people are overreacting over Michael Phelps smoking pot? (241 Total Votes):
Yes, he's just a young person experimenting 41%
No, marijuana is illegal and to be taken seriously 22%
People always overreact when it comes to famous icons 33%

---

Rocky Mountain News. Did Michael Phelps ruin his image with the bong incident? (2227 Total Votes):
Yes 38% 860
No 61% 1367

---

Zimbio.com Do you care that Michael Phelps smokes pot? (305 votes):
No, it's really not that big of a deal. 67%
Yes, this totally changes my perception of him. 18%
I don't care, but I think he should be punished. 12%
I don't care, but I don't think it should affect his career. 3%

---

i think it's clear what the general population thinks. i don't think our demographic is a bad mirror of america. i think we're pretty representative, and these polls seem to reflect that.

i think the world is changing. i don't know if i would've expected these results i see above. perhaps you might find a poll that shows a result other than what i'm listing above, but i didn't cherry pick, i chose the first four polls i could find.

it sure seems to me that the USOC and USA Swimming are out of step. chuck wielgus (head of USA Swimming) used as his sole stated criterion for the ban that phelps disappointed so many people.

it's not that i think these organizations should always govern by popular opinion. but if you're going to hand out bans using as a determiner how many people an athlete has disappointed, then you are making governance decisions based on popular opinion. if this is the case, you'd better gauge the opinion of your constituency correctly. it appears wielgus did not.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

AndrewSaar

Feb 13, 09 10:57

Post #145 of 173 (566 views)

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

Very possible that they are out of step. I think personally the polls are a bit off, at least from the people I know, many of whom have smoked up a number of times. But I agree, if the consensus amongst the population of USOC fans and USA Swimming members is in line with those polls they might need to reassess their stance. Though as the head I have to admit, I'd have a very hard time feeling comfortable making decisions to get laxer with my interpretation of what is morally OK based on polls that came out anything like the Time poll. Moral standards in my view are slippery, people naturally want things to be more lax as it's difficult to hold up to morals, but that's their inherent value in a way. It's only once things have slipped WAY too far that people all the sudden start calling for more morality. Instead of putting in the effort to maintain the moral standard they instead seesaw back and forth.

One last point and then I'll shut up, likely to much applause. To me some of these things aren't as open to majority rule as others. For the same reason this country is not and very clearly was not meant to be, a 100% democracy, but instead a democratic republic, these organizations sometimes have to have leadership that doesn't necessarily sway to mob rule. A coach of a swim team does not put up to a vote if the team should do a hard workout. He might make adjustments to the workouts if everyone says their bodies are slammed and that they've been pushed too hard, but just because all the kids say "We don't want to do a hard workout" doesn't mean a hard workout isn't what they need. Now if the team should wear blue or green suits this season, sure that's a majority rule decision, but if they should do the workout needed is not up for a vote per se. He knows that even though that's what they all want right now and might ask for the whole next week, when they hit the swim meet they're going to wish they had put in the workouts they needed rather than playing Marco Polo as they get blown away by the other teams.

I think a lot of times in society people are quick to say "Well I don't want to judge him because I don't want to be judged" and that's fine if what you're doing is striving for mediocrity. But if you're striving for something more, then judgment has to come into play. The coach has to judge that, no, you DO need a hard workout. Do you sometimes get judges in place that cause damage? Sure. But I think that when you're careful about who you let judge the number of times that happens is outweighed by the overall negative effect that having no judgement or mob rule judgement would have had. I also think a lot of people cannot separate out the judgement of the act from the person. I can tell you that I think that Phelps smoking up was a negative thing, that I think the net negative far outweighs the positive, but that's because I think the ACT is what was negative. I don't think Phelps is a bad person, I don't know him in the least, but at the same time I don't need to know him to be able to judge the act. It's like when I was younger and talking with girl friends about some girl they knew and I said things like "Her thighs look like cottage cheese on sticks" they'd respond "That's not true, she's really nice"...wait what? I wasn't commenting on her as a person at all, I was saying she was sporting cellulite on a massive scale. She can be the nicest person on Earth and still have ugly thighs. She could also be the meanest person on Earth. The two things are not connected. I think a lot of the response to this from people has been similar. They don't see Phelps as a bad guy, there's a lot of love for that man going around, but they interpret any chastising of his actions as chastising instead of him (which some of it may unfairly be).

I said I was only going to say one more thing didn't I? Crud. Well that makes me a bit of a liar, which goes against my moral code, so feel free to judge that action or even me. I guess I could pretend that was all one thing I said. :-)

-Andrew Saar
It is better to do the right thing and be paid poorly,
than to do the wrong thing and be rewarded richly.

Slowman

Feb 13, 09 11:35

Post #146 of 173 (554 views)

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

"To me some of these things aren't as open to majority rule as others."

i agree with you entirely. but majority rule seems the standard used by usa swimming for the ban -- the disappointment of so many (tho fewer, it seems, than who were disappointed by the ban). if slowtwitch is not representative of the general public, it is more representative of the slice of the public that chuck wielgus serves: the athletes. his organization is not owned by the public, or the staff, or the sponsors. it's owned by the swimmers.

but i'm with you, i think leadership, wisdom, judgment, and the rule of law (or bylaw) trump polls. if this is what wielgus wants to rely upon to make his decision, bravo. but then let's have wielgus enter into this discussion like that we're having on slowtwitch -- let's have him educate, and bring along, that 3/4 of us who don't understand his action. but he's not interested in that dialogue, at least that i can see. go to swimming's home page, and find anything about the phelps ban. there was a one-paragraph statement several days ago, long gone from view now.

i don't think wielgus is acting in the best interest of swimming. i think he's acting in the best interest of his organization, that is, he's putting the jobs, the income, the status, of his office in colorado springs ahead of the best interest of the swimmers he's supposed to represent.

"One last point and then I'll shut up"

please don't shut up. if you have things to say, say them. that's what the forum's for.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

AndrewSaar

Feb 13, 09 11:52

Post #147 of 173 (544 views)

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

I agree with you entirely in that when someone judges like it he/they did, you better be able to back up your judgment or at least face the criticism of that judgement head on. I'm actually even ok with a "I know pornography when I see it" argument within reason, as long as you actually have the guts to come out in the face of things and say that and mean it.

You're much more familiar with that organization I'm sure and probably infinitely more familiar with the actual people involved. So my view doesn't carry a lot of weight on their motivations. This might very well have been a case where one guy is putting the priorities in the wrong order. That's certainly something I feel at least a bit of sympathy for him on as it can be an extraordinarily hard balance to strike between what is good for the organization and in turn ends up good for the members and what is just good for the organization. These situations are where intent starts to mean a lot more to me. If Wielgus was intent on preserving the reputation, the status, the moral high ground that he felt the organization and it's members currently had by instituting a ban on a member for behaviour he felt reduced that then I still applaud him. If instead he intended to protect his own reputation and the view of the organization at the top as being admirable while stunting what was good for the whole then I denounce him.

It most certainly sounds like he may very well have been doing the latter and that is sad. I still am thrilled with the fact that Phelps did what, on the surface at least, was the stand up thing to do to me. Take accountability, take your licks, don't whine about it. If you think it's honestly unfair then by all means address it, but don't use celebrity or loopholes that can be expanded or other nonsense like that to avoid the punishment. Like I said before, I don't know him, he might be a complete jerk who kicks puppies on his way to swim practice, but the actions at least are admirable to me.

PS: To those with no sense of humor, I am not actually claiming that Phelps kicks puppies...I'm not saying he doesn't, but I'm not saying he does.

-Andrew Saar
It is better to do the right thing and be paid poorly,
than to do the wrong thing and be rewarded richly.

couchweight

Feb 14, 09 0:07

Post #148 of 173 (520 views)

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

"so if he says that he believes the taliban has a strong moral point"

I think you're being a bit too academic here. Drug use is a real problem with kids. Freedom of speech, even if it is idiotic or harmful speech, is something entirely different. Kids seriously wreck their lives with drug use--- It often sets them on a course of not fulfilling their potential. For every successful person who uses or used drugs, there are many more who derailed their lives with them.

So, yes, I am saying that if he went to Amsterdam and lit up at a hash bar, and was idiotic enough to have his picture taken doing it, USA Swimming should drop sponsorship of him. The percentage of kids in swimming gives them a special responsibility.

I am okay with him competing, just not with an organization like USA swimming endorsing him with financial support.
http://twitter.com/mattbigos

Learn

Feb 14, 09 1:21

Post #149 of 173 (515 views)

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

Christian evangelicals = religious intolerance?

You're not an 'ignorant slut,' but you are a bigot. And ignorant.

And I suspect you may be not true to your own argument. I'll get to that in a moment.

The scary Christfreaks are the reason Phelps got banned.... sure. Having visited the AFA, I can't imagine a more religiously tolerant environment. All three major religions have their chapels in the same, centrally-designed building.

Morals clauses are nothing new in promotion contracts - they are ubiquitous. Phelps has chosen to be part of the USOC programme - he has to obey it's rules. Short of violating a civil rights law (and Phelps is the only violator here), they can boot you out.

So what do I mean about not being true to your own argument?

Because I don't believe you when you say your main concern is "the USOC has now widened its circumference of sanctionable behavior to include any and all behavior it deems unacceptable."

I think it really is just about the pot for you.

Consider this: if rather than being photographed at a party with a bong, he had been video taped at a party referring to President Obama as a "n*****" or had called someone a "faggot." Or used another colorful ethnic slur - resulting in him becoming an international embarassment to the US Olympic Team?

Still no USOC suspension?

And what if he a spectator at a dog fight and placing wagers - in Brazil where it is legal? And this story broke a week before the Olympics, when he is is going to march in the Olympic ceremony?

Re: Moral standards. You winge like a typical left coast 'progressive' about moral standards as if they are just magical superstitions - without acknowledging that every law in existance - whether you support it or disagree with it - is a moral standard. Making racial descrimination illegal, providing healthcare to senior citizens and the poor, free education for children - these are all moral decisions.

--
Matt Braynard
Braynard WebDev, Inc.
http://www.braynardwebdev.com
If You Can Imagine It, We Can Do It.

(This post was edited by Learn on Feb 14, 09 1:27)

Learn

Feb 14, 09 1:39

Post #150 of 173 (511 views)

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

From a story on the subject feat: Apolo Ohno. He explains this.

---
Also on the USOC call was speedskater Apolo Anton Ohno, the biggest star of the Salt Lake City Games, who is trying for his third Olympics next year. He fielded a couple of questions about how to handle fame in an age of camera phones and the internet.

�Once we�re allowed to call ourselves U.S. Olympic athletes, there are certain guidelines and protocols that go along with that,� Ohno said. �I think it�s important to represent what you�d like your mom to see or what you�d like little kids to see. It�s important to be aware of your surroundings and the choices you make.�

Athlete behavior has become a significant issue for the USOC over the past two Olympics. A slew of bad behavior by Bode Miller and other winter athletes became a prime topic at the Turin Games in 2006.

The USOC set up its �Ambassador Program� shortly after that to coach athletes on how to act in the spotlight, especially on foreign soil -- a move also timed to help summer athletes maneuver their way through the tricky political climate of the Beijing Olympics.

---
http://www.universalsports.com/...0&ATCLID=3662837
--
Matt Braynard
Braynard WebDev, Inc.
http://www.braynardwebdev.com
If You Can Imagine It, We Can Do It.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

View All