Hmmm. I don't know a lot of the history surrounding his 400m swim. All I know is that I saw pictures of him false starting in that one race and that he wasn't going to swim the 400 because of that. Wasn't there another guy in that heat that deserves the 400m spot if the first or second Aus representative doesn't want to swim the event? I find it hard to believe that Aus only has 3 folks wanting to do the 400 in Athens.

Can you clarify what happened?

Stevens has decided to swim only the 1500 and 4x200. Him and thorpe are friends and Thorpe said that he wouldn't swim the 400m if anyone was trying to put pressure on Stevens, and that he had qualified fair and square so he deserved to do.

replacement 1 also withdrew...To understand I guess you really have to understand what a star Thorpe is in Australia...swimming in Oz and US are very different things.

   

More details:

http://www.smh.com.au/...6/1082831492169.html

Francois in Montreal



Classy decision. The fact is that Thorpe has not lost a 400 in 7 years. He should be in the Olympics.

I understand that Thorpe is to Australia what Michael Jordan probably was to the US. And don't get me wrong... I do want to see Thorpe swim. But part of me says he jumped and that he knew better so tough. :)

I still have memories of the last olympic trials where Maurice Green and Michael Johnson both had problems in their 200 qualifier and didn't run in the Olympics as a result. It was a big disappointment not to be able to see them run in the Olys, but what's fair is fair. The other guys who did get to go probably trained just as hard for the previous four years. *shrug*

That's great news. The picture of him false starting has stayed with me -- what a heartbreaker. I can't think of any possible reason for him to have done it purposefully. Elite or not, sometimes we make mistakes; he's lucky to be afforded a second chance and worthy of that chance.

I have very mixed feelings about Thorpe swimming the 400m. As a swim coach, I worry about what kind of message this sends to our young swimmers. Thorpe was disqualified for a legitimate reason, he false started, certainly not intentional. Yet, he still gets to swim the event. Why? I have had swimmers miss their chance for State meets because of DQ's. My own daughter missed out her chance to qualify for JO's when she was younger. She was seeded first in her event in the qualifying meet, was behind the blocks before her event, and missed it! These things happen, and it is a bummer, but it also helps to build character when kids learn how to deal with adversity.

But, my other train of thought concerns the other 400m qualifiers. Certainly they would want to swim against the best 400m swimmer in the world. How would it affect the medal winners, knowing they did not swim against Thorpe. I guess it is up to the Australians to choose the make-up of their Olympic team. I don't quite get their methods, for instance, Michellie Jones, but I suppose they are trying to build the strongest team that they can so they can beat the American team.

I agree 100%. What about the other 5 swimmers in the final heat? Did they all bow out. What about the 8 in the consolation heat? Just because he is great they "bend" the rules? Next time any one here gets DQd for somehting try the Thorpedo rule to see if it gets you some relief.

Could have been avoided if they adopted the Canadian method for choosing the team. If an athlete has a world class time in the last year (i think) and no one beats that time at trials they can still be on the team. We had a situation similar to Thorpe in the 50 free about 8 years ago (might have been 12) where a swimmer that had medalled in a number of international events leading up to trials false started and was left off the team. The selection rules were changed to try and ensure that we could always send our fastest athletes.

I also believe that the Australian selection rules say that if either of the first two qualifiers withdraws then the spot goes to the "next ranked swimmer" Which could be interpreted to be either the third place qualifier or Thorpe. The rules do not say that it is the next finisher in the race.

---

____________________________________________

"which is like watching one of your buddies announce that he's quitting booze and cigarettes, switching to a Vegan diet and training for triathalons ... but he's going to keep snorting heroin." Bill Simmons, ESPN

1. the other five swimmers did not make the qualifying time.

2. a replacement for stevens could only come from within the already selected oly team

3. the australian public demanded thorpe swim and would have held a gruge against anyone for stopping thorpe take gold

one thing for the record:
Thorpe did not anticipate the start. If you see the picture of him "diving" in the water, you'd laugh...he is clearly falling, he is also known as a slow starter, besides, he was swimming the heat of the 400m and had no pressure whatsoever. he could have waited for everyone to be in the water and still win the heat.

Now, I think that it's normal that because he is great, they bend the rules. If someone wants to use the Thorpedo rule, the swimmer will have to be multiple gold medalist at the worlds, olympics, multiple record holder etc. etc. Right now except Michael Phelps, I don't see anyone qualifying for the same rule. And if Phelps were to false start and not be able to swim, say the 400IM, I would think it's normal that he gets selected anyway, when you are so far ahead of the rest of the field.

No offense, but we are not talking state champs for one swimmer here, we are talking about the olympics for one of the greatest swimmers of all times.

Eventually, Thorpe asked for nothing and his comments in aussie newspapers were like "bummer! I won't swim the 400m, but that's like". "If the aussie committee asks Stevens to withdraw or if there is any pressure on him, I will not swim"...the only thing he said in the direction of swimming the 400m, was "the current champ should be allowed in".

We should bend the rules for the Jordan, Thorpe, Armstrong etc. of the world

1. the other five swimmers did not make the qualifying time.

Neither did Thorpe, he was disqualified.

2. a replacement for stevens could only come from within the already selected oly team

Partially true. It could also come from an alternate with a qualifying time.

3. the australian public demanded thorpe swim and would have held a gruge against anyone for stopping thorpe take gold

The Australian public is against the war in Iraq, yet the Aussie PM is reassuring Aussie presence and support for the war. What the public thinks does not quite matter.

Nevertheless, as the current undisputed Olympic champion in the 400 m free, Thorpe (and any current Olympic champion in shape) should be allowed to defend his title. Not yet a rule, but hopefully one in the near future.

May the best swimmer win.

Irresistable urge to reply...argh!!!!


Ian Thorpe was charged with a false start because he lost his balance on the blocks. Why did he lose his balance? He was a knuckle-head...but not because he was trying to gain an advantage by anticipating the start. The starter held the heat because he/she saw someone not holding steady (and it was not Thorpe), but instead of standing everybody up and trying again...he/she held them in that position. Thorpe unfortunately lost his balance for whatever reason...and fell in. That's why the picture shows the other competitiors still on the blocks. If it was a true false-start, I believe Australian swimming operates under the type of rules as USA Swimming does...it's "no recall"...meaning if there was a confirmed false-start (by at least 2 officials), the swimmers still swim their event, but find out when they finish.

Thorpe was placed in a tough situation...bent over in a pretzel like position waiting for a beep to go...then not hearing the beep, and not hearing anybody telling him to relax. He had a mental lapse, and he paid for it. The particulars of how he's getting to swim the 400m now seem kinda fishy to me (no pun intended), but if it's within the (Australian) rules...then so be it. In this particular case though...it seems to me that the starter *ucked up, and the officials circled wagons.

I'm taking a couple swimmers to JEI this summer...the Australian Olympic team (and others) will be there...should be pretty cool to see Thorpe swim.

Dave "swim coach with $.02 to his name"

SGM layed out the best reasons for me with with #s 1&2

Have to disagree with your comment about bending the rules for the "greats" however. With that reasoning it would be OK for a DeBoom to draft if he was feeling a little off. Alhtough Jordan did change the way we look at traveling and carrying though didn't he?

All said and done it will be nice to see Thorpe race - despite my comments I am a fan and hated to see him get knocked out by a mistake

I meant bend the rules in these types of nonsense situations...
not, when you are deliberatly cheating (drafting for instance)...thorpe didn't cheat, he fell.

Last year in the Tour, did anyone say that Lance should be disqualified for cutting the course?
Because according to the rules, he did cut the course.

Last year we had many posts on why JM Leblanch is an idiot and favors french teams and why Cipollini should be in because he is world champion, but the Tour organizers has stated clearly what races would be used to select the teams for the tour and cippo's team decided not to do any of these...

Yeah, Lance should have been given a 1:05 time penalty. That would have showed him ;)

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

1:05 sounds good... :-)

Go Jan! :-)

Whoever said that swimming in Australia is different than in the US was exactly right. Australia can pick their olympic team however they want but I'm glad we don't do things that way here (at least not anymore).

---

________________________________________________

Anyone who tells you they're as fast now as they were when they were 18...
sure wasn't very fast when they were 18.

I dunno. I'm still mixed. And maybe it's back to my original post and throughts where a very dominant Michael Johnson pulled up his 200m qualifier because of hamstring problems. At the time, he was just as dominant in his races as Thorpe was in his. But no special rules were made to accomodate him.

I still would have loved to have seen him run, but how do you explain it to the folks that beat him that it's too bad and they're not going to be able to go to the Olympics because we're just going to give Michael a gimme.

But if if indeed nobody else qualified as was stated before, I can see that he gets to go... kind of. :)

Can't say that I agree with the decision. Thorpe was disqualified and didn't earn his spot. I have no doubt about his ability to win the event at the Olympics but rules are rules. I worry about the precedent it sets going forward. In fact, this "bending" of the rules has put alot of pressure on Stevens. His ability to concentrate on the events has been compromised because of this decision. If the rules were followed, no one would have to think of anything or being pushed...the rules would govern and make the decision for them....

What rule has been broken or "bent"?

A guy who was selected in one event (after making the team in 2 other events) has decided not to race that event. The next placed qualifier had previously stated that he would not accept the position if Stevens was to withdraw.

The selectors now need to fill the "empty" slot - It must come from someone already on the team - Thorpe is already on the team.

At no stage, as far as I can see, has any selection rule been broken.

No rule has been broken per se, but the whole thing stinks.

An inordinate amount of pressure was put on Stevens to relinquish his place from the beginning. So much so, that on the deck, after having just finished the 1500 & on live TV he was asked if he would now withdraw from the 400. The crowd at the pool actually booed that question.

The facts are simple: Thorpe f*cked up and should not be on the team for the 400. Stevens should have been allowed to swim it without all the pressure being heaped on him.

The rules are there for a reason, and they apply to everyone from a 10yr-old kid at a small meet, to the final at the Olympics. If you don't like them, you can make a case for getting them adjusted, or changed, but you shouldn't start heaping pressure on someone else just because your golden boy f*cked up.

He was paid $60,000 & given a job for his story, and as a columnist in one of the weekend papers here pointed out, there is now a price on a berth in the Olympic team and Thorpe's media friends have just paid the asking price.

following your reasoning check

http://www.uci.ch/...boutUCI/A12dis04.pdf

page 15 of 34, Table 13.2, point 15.

Unintentional detour of a circuit constituting an advantage: rider eliminated.

You see my point? if you follow the rule exactly as stated, Lance Armstrong should have been eliminated from the Tour last year.

Now, you will argue (rightfully so) that "consituting an advantage" is subject to interpretation...Exactly as was the false start of Ian Thorpe (see one of the posts previously, forgot who wrote it, but it stated that the way the false start was handled was strange as the first who moved was NOT Thorpe and they should have been called off the blocks)...

Thorpe DQ'd when he left the block early. My take on the circumstances based on having started thousands of heats, what probably happened is another swimmer took his sweet time getting set, the starter waited for the swimmer to get set, this took too long, Thorpe started leaning and fell in. I've seen it happen too many times to count. The fault is really with the starter - when it took too long he should have had them stand down and start the process over. technically he could have DQ'd the other swimmer for delaying the meet.

All of this is moot - Thorpe will swim and I hope he does well because he is a great swimmer and a credit to the sporting world. I just hope this doesn't taint any success he has in the 400

Francois,
As I'm an ex-swimmer I feel I can comment on Thorpe's situation. He false-started, therefore he's out. He's one of the best, if not the best, swimmer in the world, and he should be able stand on a block indefinitely. If it had been any swimmer other than Thorpe, no-one would have cared and we wouldn't be having this discussion. The rules were introduced for a reason and are the same all over the world (at least any country standardised on FINA's rules). AFAIK, they'll also apply to Phelps at the US trials and if he false-starts, he'll be out too.

There have been many instances of current champions, or world record holders, not going to the Olympics for various reasons: DQ's, didn't swim well on the day (Pablo Morales) etc. etc. and it has been accepted. Now you can make the case, which I would agree with, that current World & Olympic champs are automatically in, but that rule is not yet in place, so we live by the ones that are. Utlimately Thorpe had to accept responsiblity for his own failings, which he did quite gracefully. However, there were a lot of people willing (and trying to coerce) Stevens to give up his place.

There's often mention on this board about how people today refuse to take any personal responsibility for their actions. This is one instance where it applies to an elite sportsperson. In fairness to him, Thorpe stood up and said "Mea culpa", but most people wouldn't accept it.

As for Armstrong, well I know nothing of cycling's rules, but I did see that stage on TV and it didn't look like he had a choice. Obviously if he just decided to skip the corner for no reason he'd have been penalised.