A New International Assignment for Dan.

[RICE80SF]

Now that everyone's agreed to dissagree on the G.F. situation Dan, I think you should do the World a favour and try a new assignment. Yes an international assignment, with an Olympic flavour.

Just watching Maurice Greene and Michael Johnson motor round in the preliminaries of their only individual outings at the olympics, I can't help but feel cheated.

The two fastest men at 200m won't be running in the event, due to the idiotic selection method of US track team. They both got injured in the US titles, so they don't get a guernsey in the event. Just as Lewis missed out in '92 (I think), if you miss in the titles, bad luck sunshine. Forget that they're the best in the world they hold world records, it'll be a farse when some chump wins in Sydney, nah stiff s**t, too bad. You think AFL is a bad system, this is the big Daddy of bad systems the ultimate.

If I feel cheated how the hell would they bloody feel? For me it 's the biggest dissapointment of the games. Dan it's time to lobby the US track team, go get 'em Dan, for world sports sake, get on some US Athletic sites too Dan. Come on Dan you can do it.

Cheers.

 

[Grendel]

I second that motion from congresman Ricey.

Dan we turn the floor over to you.

 

[Rooboy 96]

As a delegate for the US track team...

tough s**t... that's life...

 

[Shinboners]

C'mon Dan...you can do it....GLOBALISE!!!!

 

[Please, STOP]

Send Rooboy with him. Can you imagine it? They would hopefully bore each other to tears.

 

[Rooboy 96]

Please STOP... my guess is DEREK the *****

 

[Dan26]

Yeah, youre right. It's ridiculous.

But Rooboy, Shinboners, Westy bouy, etc etc would probably say something like this :

"Michael Johnson didn't win when it counted in the trials, so he doesn't deserve to comptete in the 200 finals. Oh sure he was injured, but injuries arent an excuse. Apparently, they are not an excuse in AFL if the best team loses the GF, so they are not an excuse in athletics either"

That's probably the kind of thing they would be saying, since they LOVE the cuurent system in Aussie Rules.

But as much as I "like" athletics, I just don't care about is as much as AFL. Like most people, I care about atletics once every 4 years. So, I'm not writing any letters

Seriously though, the number 1 and 2 ranked sprinters in a particular event should automatically qualify for that event at the games.

 

[Rooboy 96]

Dan... we were just having some fun... you know sarcasm...

thanks CJ

You are starting to sound more and more like a Yank everyday....

 

[Stealth bomber]

Perhaps the same people are in charge of setting up the vault at the gymnastics?

 

[Dan26]

Sarcasm, or no sarcasm,

I find it ironic that people agree that Michael Johnson shoukd be able to compete in the 200 final even though he stuffed up the trial (by injury admittedly), but when a team loses the Grand Final after being the best, everyone says. "But they didn't perform on the day, so they don't deserve it"

How is that different to being the best, but not performing in a 200 trial ? Everyone is FOR Michael Johnson, bu they are against the beaten Grand Finalists. Hypocrits.

 

[Grendel]

The thing is the rules allow both johnson and Greene to run IF the usa's qualified runners decided to withdraw and allow them their places.

Now that may be well and good for the country and everthing, but how would you feel if you were the person faced with that decision? Do you give up your shot a Olympic glory (which the runners they already have in must have a chance of winning the event anyway) or do you withdraw in favour of two primma donna superstars?
I think if it was me i would keep my place.

Dan basically bugger fairness and equality. The people who won the trials have every right to compete. They would have done exactly the same training and dedication to the event as johnson and greene. If those two were so desperate to be the best that it lead to injurys and whatever that caused them both to break down in the trials, it isnt the fault of the 3rd best 200 mt runner to take full advantage of that result.

 

[Dan26]

Bugger fairness and equity ??????
That just sounds sooooo Australian, Grendel.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it true that only two athletes from each country can compete in a final ?

If so that's wrong.

What if the USA, with all their black athletes who are genetically more athletic and faster (in sprinting) had the best 8 runners in the world. Stupidly, the Mens 100 final would only feature 2 out of those 8, while the 9th-14th best from other country's would occupy the other 6 places.

The best sprinters in the world should be able to compete in the final. It doesn't matter if they are all from the same country.

The are a lot of non-common-senisical things that happen in sport all around the world. Fancy Michael Johnson not being able to be one of the 64 runners (yes 64) who will be running heats in the Mens 200, in order to qualify for the final (there are 8 in the final). It's just plain dumb. Hasn't he done enough to be one of the 64 ? He's ranked number one and he's the reigning gold meddalist & world record holder. But he was injured during the trials (remember he's not injured now), so stupidly, he can't compete.

How dumb is that ?

 

[jod23]

I heard on the Olympics today that Matt Shirvington is the fastest white amn in the world heh i didnt know that.

 

[servo]

The womans 100 metre final had 3 runners from the Bahamas so they can run more than two in the finals.

And yes jod, Shirvington's best time is 10.03 seconds. No white man has ever broken 10 seconds.

I remember when Darren Clarke ran 9th in the semis at LA he said straight after the race that he was proud to be the fastest white man in the world.

 

[Grendel]

Dan, your way of base, the Olymipic 'ideal' is to compete. Not win but compete.

Every country is ENTITLED to have representatives if they can meet a qualifying time. If for example Burma could get ONE runner able to make a time to allow them to participate at the games then that athlete should be allowed to do so.

Its not about domination by any one country, but a coming together of all. Under your choice then most of the athletes (in the 100mt's in particular) would just be American runners. That isnt what the spirt of the competion is about.

Due to the sheer size their must be limations on competitors allowed to participate. Unfair perhaps, but the games wouldnt be the same otherwise. Its a world event, not a showcase for any one countrys dominance to be highlighted at the expense of others.

 

[Dan26]

Grendel,

Yes, you're right,. It is about competing, not winning.

BUT...

That desnt mean good athletes should be "shunted" aside for lesser athletes just because those "lesser" athletes come from an underprivilidged country.

The Olympics features the best athletes in the world, and if you are one of the best, you should be able to compete. It's not fair that a lesser country should have an athlete competing, while a country like the USA, for example has a more talented athlete (who may have worked harder) sitting on the sidelines.

If it's JUST about competing, then you and I might as well go in it. Stuff all those athletes who have worked harder than you and me. As long as we get to compete.

 

[servo]

Dan in general I agree with you. But.

Just because an athlete from say Kenya is a lesser athlete than one from say the USA doesnt mean they have not worked harder than the other one. It is easier to become an elite athlete in the USA than any other country in the world.

They have their college system which promotes it. Their culture is partly based on sport, as is Australias. Both these factors should be rewarded with greater chances to compete at the Olympics. The AIS is reaping that reward now. Australia has more athletes competing and more athletes at a higher level than ever before.

And here is the but. Sport in the USA at the top level has the added motivation of money. Not just money to get by, Not just money to do well with. But money to make a successful athlete in almost any field a multimillionaire. The opportunity to make a very good living from sport is available in Australia too. But not to the extent that a USA based athlete could enjoy.

Now in developing countries as Grendel suggested, sport is a secondary lifestyle at best. These athletes do not compete with the goal of making themselves wealthy, they compete for the enjoyment. Quite often they have real jobs with real demands like farming or banking or taxi driving or waiting etc etc.

These people cannot utilise the opportunities that athletes in countries like USA and Australia can. You then have the added problem of the former eastern blok countries who are fed their sport from an early age. They do not generally get rich from it but they know no other life.

If we were to only let the best 64 athletes in each sport compete as you are suggesting in a round about way then we may as well call it the World Cup. Thats what they do.

This is the Olympics and it stands for more than just showcasing the very best elite athletes. If we were to follow the ideals to the letter then anyone who wanted to compete could do so. The Games would go for 3 years and we still wouldn't get through the heats of the 100 metres.

What is done now is the IOC attempt to follow the spirit of the original ideals. They allow every country to submit atheltes to any sport they chose. They limit the number of athletes any one country can have competing simply as a logistical solution. They attempt to have as many countries represented in each event withoput causing too much delay hence qualifying times.

On top of this they have what I think they call the Olympic Equalisation Policy. I don't know exactly what it is but I believe it is supposed to allow a general spread of competitor nations. This policy stops sports like Aussie rules and Gridiron entering the Games because they are not widespread enough. It also allows situations where the Equatorial Guinea swim team were allowed. I'm not sure how that worked but I think it had someting to do with % of nations in Africa entered in swimming events.

I know I have probably bored you with such a long post but the issue is not a simple one. The IOC have got it pretty right I think.

 

[Dan26]

Servo,

It's an interesting situation.

I agree with the Olympic ideals in principle.

But unfortunately it often means more deserving athletes are missing the chance to represent their country.

Whilst we all loved that guy from Equatorial Guinea taking nearly 2 minutes to swin 100 metres, it was a major farce. Yeah, it was great to see the "spirit" alive and well and all that, but this is supposed to be the worlds best athlets and we have a guy taking 2 minutes to swim 100 metres !!! Farcical.

I read in the paper that the IOC are going to review the situation so we don't get farcical situations like that again. They will review it and they will come up with a more logical ruling.

The "Olympic ideal" principle is a bit contradictory. It basically says, "We can have the best athletes in the world competitng against eachother for the love of competing (not winning), but we can't have too many in case some lower country miss out". That's quite hypocritical, really.

 

[Dan26]

Servo,

I know there may be an athlete from an underprivlidged country who may have worked just as hard as a USA athlete, but the reverse also may be true. Athletes from Russia, USA, Germany etc etc may be missing out, even if they are training harder than a competitor from, say, Equatorial Guinea or Chad.

 

[WCE2000]

Dan, the reason for that race was to promote swimming in countries which aren't recognised as swimming countries, such as Equitorial Guinea.
I think it is great, probably about 1% of the population knew there was a country called Equatorial Guinea before he hopped in the pool, now i'd say it would be close to 75 - 80%, so it has 'put them on the map'.
If Swimmings isn't promoted in these countries, they'll just get worse and worse, and that is the last thing they want.
BTW, the IOC has nothing to do with what events/athletes are chosen. They only choose what sports are in the Olympics, then that sports governing body, in Swimming's case - FINA, decide the way their mete will be run.
Anyway, why would the IOC want to get to rid of him, hes proven to be one of the biggest stars of the game.
If FINA refuse to kick him out of the 2004 Olympics, i really doubt the IOC will decide that they will kick Swimming out of the Olympics, because they won't get ride of one "faricle" event.
I bet you the 2 guys in his heat the got Disqualified would be spewing. They came so close to being total superstars, like Modambissi, instead got disqualified.

------------------
For all your footballing needs be sure to visit my AFL web-site at http://www.geocities.com/eastsydney5/index.html

 

[WCE2000]

Also, Dan in the 200 metres, yes, the injury to Michael Johnson did 'screw' him out of a 'near-certain' medal, as he has the fastest time this year, however, he's time of 19.71 was wind-assited. Without any wind he's only ranked number 3 for the US, so he wasn't favoured to make the team. The only reason everyone thought he was is because the media hyped up the race between World no 1 and World no 2 (Greene).
However, with Maurice Greene, he only has the 5th fastest time from an American this year.
The Fastest US 200m Times this year:
1. Johnson - 19.71 (wind-assisted) fastest time this year is 19.89 (3rd)
2. John Capel - 19.85
3. Floyd Heard - 19.88
4. Coby Miller - 19.96
5. Greene - 20.02

 

[Dan26]

Sorry, it was FINA (not the IOC) who said they will review the policy that allows athletes who take 2 minutes to swim 100 metres to compete.

I'm not against them swimming. Just against them taking a spot of a more deserving athlete.

Equatorial Guinea only has about 100,000 people. It will hardly affect the world of swimming if that country isn't interested in swimming. A better way to promote the sport in that country woild be build a f*cking swimming pool in the country . First things first.

Then, they will be able to get some athletes who have the opportunity to swim !

Get the country a pool first. The IOC could fund it. Then, after that, we can have them competing in the Olympics. I still think it was a bit of a farce. Inspirational, yes. And I was happy for the guy. But it was a farce. Sam Riley didn't make the swimming team for Australia, yet that guy from Equatorial Guineae was able to compete.

How do you think that makes Sam Riley feel ?

 

[WCE2000]

There was only 1, maybe 3 (i dunno, the other 2 got DQed) competitors in the 100 metres that couldn't swim. They were in there to promote swimming as i said.
In the other heats, they were all very good swimmers who deserved to be there, Riley just didn't qualify in her event square and fair.
I really think it is very little inconvience to watch a guy take 2 minutes to swim 100 metres one time, just to promote swimming in he's country.

------------------
For all your footballing needs be sure to visit my AFL web-site at http://www.geocities.com/eastsydney5/index.html

 

[Dan26]

WCE 2000

Regarding Michael Johnson, whether he was 3rd in the world or first, is beside the point.

if there are 64 runners in heats in the mens 200 metres, why isn't Johnson, who has the world record, the fastest time of the year, etc etc not in the event ? He should be.

I think in the 12 months prior to the Olympics, the best, say 10 runners in rankings, or performances should UTOMATICALLY qualify. The others can compete amongst themselves to qualify for the games.

Someone like Michael Johnson shouldn't have to win a one-off race at a trial to make the team, when his form obviously warrants that of a start in the mens 200 metres.

 

[WCE2000]

I do agree that Johnson and Greene should be in the 200.
I was just making a point that neither of them are in the top 2 for the US.

Anyway i regards to the swimming:
Think of it this way:
In the 100m Heat 2 - 10, were the proper athletes.
While Heat 1 was just 3 guys swimming to show that their country was improving in the pool.

------------------
For all your footballing needs be sure to visit my AFL web-site at http://www.geocities.com/eastsydney5/index.html

[This message has been edited by WCE2000 (edited 24 September 2000).]