I wholeheartedly agree with the point about personal responsibility. Thorpe readily admitted that he messed up and wouldn't be swimming in the 400 at the olympics. Pressure was then mounted on Stevens to give up his spot so the "golden boy" could do the 400. Stevens earned his spot in the 400 fair and square. What if Stevens really wanted to do the 400? Is it fair to mount pressure on him to bow out to let someone who didn't qualify into the event?

Sure Thorpe has an excellent chance of winning the gold...but that's not the point. He got DQ'd...had a bad day at the office....you live by the rules, and die by the rules...

Trial by media!

I'm Aussie

So far I have not met one other aussie who doesn't think Craig Stevens should not swim & allow Thorpie to swim.

The media are the ones that were crusifying Stevens, by saying he was the one who was stopping Thorpie from swimming the 400m. Which of course he was not doing, it's not as if he pushed Thorpie in the pool.

The only person to blame was Thorpie himself. Stevens won his spot fair and square.

The media are so stupid.



The qualfying process was the top 2 finishers (provided they were within the 'A' qualifying time) are selected into the Aust. swim squad. If any of those 2 decide to pull out of an event then the selection committee can then replace them with another swimmer who has already been selected into the team.

I don't know the technical mumbo jumbo but thats the basics of it.

Stevens is the one who attracked all the media attention and the media pressure & questions of pulling out & allowing Thorpie to swim, First off it's not Stevens decission who would replace him anyway.

Second, it was never mentioned once about the other swimmer who made the 400m, Grant Hackett was that other swimmer. The media never even suggested that he pull out to consentrate on his main event the 1500m which is also Stevens main event. Of course the media were never going to suggest that Hackett withdraw because he stands equally high in Australian swimming as Thorpe.

I feel sorry for Craig Stevens because he became the media scape goat for something that he had nothing to do with

Alot of Aussies feel the same way.

So don't think it's all public opinion thats says Thorpie should swim, thats what the media are telling us.

I found that it is only the arm chair sportsman that says Thorpie must swim. Unfortunately as we all know the arm chair sportsman doesn't give a hoot about rules & regs etc.

---

http://www.velokyniska.com

Another point worth mentioning. If Stevens didn't want to swim the 400 in the olympics then why was he swimming the qualifying event? For the heck of it?

Thorpedo should not swim the 400 at Athens. Yes, he is the fastest 400 swimmer in the world and will probably win gold, but the simple fact is that he didn't qualify. Remember the Dan vs. Dave Reebok decathalon ads? Dan O'Brien (sp) was the defending world champ and world record holder. He no-highted the hi jump and didn't make the olympics. Sucks for him. Maybe the US ranked 1 thru 134,495 athletes will elect not to race athens and I can go over and throw down a mean 2:30 on em.

only arm chairs? hmmm...I think I am training bloody hard for an arm chain dude...

obviously those who don't want Thorpe to swim haven't read the post of ? (I forgot who it was) who said that it was actually the starter's fault...

If you checked the Fina rules, when someone moves, then, either they call everyone off the block, or the one who moved (and it wasn't Thorpe) is DQed, but the starter shouldn't have waited as he did (FINA rules...)

the rules were not followed by the starter in the first place...

now correct me if I am wrong, but there are 3 attemps in high jump...you decide when you start jumping? So Dan could have gone at 5in, score some points and go on.

In Thorpe's case, it is quite different. The starter failed in the first place...

although it's funny that noone answers anything about Lance being DQed at last year's tour...heck he cut the course...even unintentionally, according to the UCI rules he should be DQed...

So if Thorpe is not allowed to swim, I want Ulrich to get his second Tour :-)

That wasn't the ruling though, Francois. The starter was not cited for any wrongdoing and Thorpe was DQ'd. That was the official outcome.

In Armstrong's case, correct me if I'm wrong, but if the officials determined that his detour caused him to gain an advantage over the field, then he would've been penalized or DQ'd. The officials determined that this wasn't the case so he was not penalized.

FINA rule:

"SW 4.1 The start in Freestyle, Breaststroke, Butterfly and Individual Medley races shall be with a dive. On the long whistle (SW 2.1.5) from the referee the swimmers shall step onto the starting platform and remain there. On the starter's command "take your marks", they shall immediately take up a starting position with at least one foot at the front of the starting platforms. The position of the hands is not relevant. When all swimmers are stationary, the starter shall give the starting signal."



Reality- there's statue-like stationary, and there's stationary-looking but actually starting to lean forward a bit to anticipate the gun. A good starter will vary the hold time a second or two to make sure the swimmers really are statue-like stationary, and the starter also does not want to be predictable. Predictable leads to swimmers knowing what official tends to do what, and leads to the swimmers starting the lean when they should be holding. As for hold time, I've never seen a rule book that dictated hold time on the blocks.



Go Grant Hackett. He earned his way into the event.

He was more than likely swimming it as a warm-up for the 1500 later in the week.

The reason nobody responded to your lance analogy is that you are apparently the only one who thinks a 400m pool swim is analogous in any way to a 2000+ mile mass start bike race.

In '01 or '02 one of the big names, I think it was Ulrich, had GI problems and had to have one teammate push him along while he took a shit in a plastic bag held by another teammate. This was a violation of several rules but the officials said "shit happens (no pun intended) in a 25 day stage race" and (properly, I think) turned a blind eye to the rules and let him continue. Should Thorpe should have been allowed to compete at the olympics if he had stopped in the middle of his 400, in full view of the crowd, taken a shit in a plastic bag, tossed it onto the pool deck and then continued with his race? My thought would be no.

Sometimes selection criteria can be cruel (ask Kristine Quance) but when a country gets to the point where it has a very deep, very competitive field of world class talent the only fair way (and indeed the only practical way) to decide who goes and who doesn't is to have "win and in" trials. The U.S. got to this point and came to this realization a while ago. Australia is getting to the point where it will have to realize it soon too or else public opinion, litigation, corruption and scandal are going to be the deciding factors in who represents them in the olympics rather than hard work and talent. That may not be what happened here but next time it will.

---

________________________________________________

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.

but I am not the one who said: the rules are the rules...

The simple fact now is he didn't need to qualify. Craig did but decided not to swim. Australian swimming can then take its pick from the rest of the team to fill a vacant spot. If Thorpe gets hit by a bus the week before the Olympics then the officials will make another decision as to who will take 100, 200 and 400 swims.

Having a look at a poll done by the SMH the Australian public does look split on whether Stevens should have relinquished the spot (for 48%, against 43%, NFI 7% 11950 votes). I would be tempted to say this result contains an element of backlash for the media's involvement (cash for the exclusive, Leckie's wildcard request). Steven's is quoted in the SMH that he is disappointed in the publics reaction to his decision.My view sending the best team is more important than the selection process.