i know we've batted this around a bit already here and in the lavender room (that secret place where you go, online, if your family isn't looking). but i was talking to a USOC official today, establishing my bona fides, and he said, "no need to explain. i know who you are, i was reading your OpEd this morning, and i followed the link at the end of the story to... nowhere."
well, he's sort of right. this forum is the place that these discussions take place, and the link i put at the end of the article just went to the main forum table. i am guessing, tho, that i need to be more explicit, because i just googled michael phelps along with jim scherr, the USOC's executive director, and that opinion piece here on slowtwitch came up first. accordingly, i'm changing the link at the end of that opinion piece of phelps to this thread specifically (instead of just the main forum table).
one great thing about this forum: you can think fondly of us here for hosting the site, yet be demonstrably, and very apparently, in abject disagreement with me (i love that about you). i think a representative first sentence on this forum might be: "thanks for hosting slowtwtich, dan, but, you ignorant slut...!"
i am therefore gratified to note that in this one narrow case, of michael phelps' suspension, it appears 75 percent of you think as i do (based on the poll we're taking right now on the right hand side of the page you're reading). we may have come to our conclusions for different reasons, but the end result is the same: that michael phelps should not be serving a suspension.
nevertheless, my concern is not for phelps, who will be fine. it's for the behavioral marker the USOC is establishing, that the rules of competition are not the beginning and the end of it; that the USOC has now widened its circumference of sanctionable behavior to include any and all behavior it deems unacceptable.
there is a second point. what i did not write in my OpEd, but what i wonder about, is this: i suspect the religious intolerance exhibited at times over the past decade at the Air Force Academy has as an aggravating cause its location proximate to the (at least) 80 evangelical organizations that call colorado springs headquarters. i therefore wonder whether this apparent need for michael phelps to not only race fairly, but act morally, at all times, has as its impetus the same prime movers that (i suspect) caused the air force academy across town to inject a belief system into what ought to be free of such influences. in other words, if any large organization headquartered in the springs going to be influenced by the evangelicals, as it might be influenced by mormons were it on salt lake city. would the USOC be banning phelps from competition for pic of him toking if it had been headquartered for the past quarter century in, say, portland, oregon? or san francisco?
mind, this is just a guess, and i'm casting about looking for reasons why the USOC seems now to want to exert influence into how we comport ourselves in areas wholly unconnected to the sporting life. i also wonder if this is about morality or legality (phelps is not even guilty of a misdemeanor, he is guilty of behavior which, if prosecuteted, resulting in a conviction, would only then be a misdemeanor). if it's just because it's pot, well, then it's about a moral standard, and then we have to start the discussion of what moral standard. whose moral standard. and that's where i have the problem.
finally, i'm left to wonder where this stops. is the USOC willing to say this begins and ends with those who have been on an olympic team and are still actively competing professional athletes? or those also who aspire to be an olympian? who aspire to be world class? who hold pro cards? who compete at national or world age group or masters championships? or who are simply annual members of federations?
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
well, he's sort of right. this forum is the place that these discussions take place, and the link i put at the end of the article just went to the main forum table. i am guessing, tho, that i need to be more explicit, because i just googled michael phelps along with jim scherr, the USOC's executive director, and that opinion piece here on slowtwitch came up first. accordingly, i'm changing the link at the end of that opinion piece of phelps to this thread specifically (instead of just the main forum table).
one great thing about this forum: you can think fondly of us here for hosting the site, yet be demonstrably, and very apparently, in abject disagreement with me (i love that about you). i think a representative first sentence on this forum might be: "thanks for hosting slowtwtich, dan, but, you ignorant slut...!"
i am therefore gratified to note that in this one narrow case, of michael phelps' suspension, it appears 75 percent of you think as i do (based on the poll we're taking right now on the right hand side of the page you're reading). we may have come to our conclusions for different reasons, but the end result is the same: that michael phelps should not be serving a suspension.
nevertheless, my concern is not for phelps, who will be fine. it's for the behavioral marker the USOC is establishing, that the rules of competition are not the beginning and the end of it; that the USOC has now widened its circumference of sanctionable behavior to include any and all behavior it deems unacceptable.
there is a second point. what i did not write in my OpEd, but what i wonder about, is this: i suspect the religious intolerance exhibited at times over the past decade at the Air Force Academy has as an aggravating cause its location proximate to the (at least) 80 evangelical organizations that call colorado springs headquarters. i therefore wonder whether this apparent need for michael phelps to not only race fairly, but act morally, at all times, has as its impetus the same prime movers that (i suspect) caused the air force academy across town to inject a belief system into what ought to be free of such influences. in other words, if any large organization headquartered in the springs going to be influenced by the evangelicals, as it might be influenced by mormons were it on salt lake city. would the USOC be banning phelps from competition for pic of him toking if it had been headquartered for the past quarter century in, say, portland, oregon? or san francisco?
mind, this is just a guess, and i'm casting about looking for reasons why the USOC seems now to want to exert influence into how we comport ourselves in areas wholly unconnected to the sporting life. i also wonder if this is about morality or legality (phelps is not even guilty of a misdemeanor, he is guilty of behavior which, if prosecuteted, resulting in a conviction, would only then be a misdemeanor). if it's just because it's pot, well, then it's about a moral standard, and then we have to start the discussion of what moral standard. whose moral standard. and that's where i have the problem.
finally, i'm left to wonder where this stops. is the USOC willing to say this begins and ends with those who have been on an olympic team and are still actively competing professional athletes? or those also who aspire to be an olympian? who aspire to be world class? who hold pro cards? who compete at national or world age group or masters championships? or who are simply annual members of federations?
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman