Remove this Banner Ad

Olympic Spoilsports

  • Thread starter Thread starter jim boy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Posts
14,786
Reaction score
9,118
Location
Location! Location!
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
pivotonians
No more Eddie the Eagle or Eric the Eel, even less reason to follow this monotonus event.

Olympic Committee aims to bar wild cards

Duncan Mackay
Tuesday May 27, 2003
The Guardian

Eddie "the Eagle" Edwards, Eric the Eel, and Philip Boit, the Kenyan skier unfamiliar with snow, could be a thing of the past if the International Olympic Committee has its way.

Jacques Rogge, the IOC president, is to put an end to such renegade fun because he believes the likes of Edwards - famous for his inept ski jumping at the 1988 Winter Games - are making a mockery of the competition.

The IOC, chastened by the performance of Eric "the Eel" Moussambani, who swam one of the slowest races in Olympic history at Sydney in 2000, will no longer offer wild cards to smaller countries in an effort to eliminate the participation of such larger-than-life characters.

"We want to avoid what happened in swimming in Sydney," he said. "The public loved it, but I did not like it. The Olympic Games are a mixture of pure quality - that is, the best athletes in the world, and at the same time athletes of lesser quality who achieve universality.

"In the past, we made the error to select these athletes at the last moment. A country would say, 'We have no qualified athletes, can we bring in a wild card?' And these athletes were not good enough."

The 22-year-old Moussambani from Equatorial New Guinea was cheered to the rafters after a solo swim over 100 metres in which it appeared at one stage he might drown.

His two fellow competitors had been disqualified in his heat so he had to race alone, a daunting prospect for a man who had learnt to swim only eight months earlier. Though Moussambani was offered sponsorship deals, interviewed by the world's media, and even flown to London to present an award at the television soap opera awards, it appears Mr Rogge disapproved.

Edwards said: "This is the final nail in the coffin of the Olympic ideal, which has been slowly being eroded for a while. The public enjoy watching these people. They make the games more human and interesting.

"It is going against the grain of the Olympics to deprive people who are the best in their country at a particular sport of the opportunity of taking part."

After Edwards' performance at Calgary in Canada, where he came 56th out of 57 (the 57th was disqualified), the British Olympic Association introduced stricter selection criteria. They specified that any competitor sent to the games had to be capable of finishing in the top half of their event.

It did not stop wannabes from other countries travelling to the games to take part in sports they had often not seen before, let alone competed in. At the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano, the former Kenyan runner Philip Boit took part in the cross-country skiing event despite having only recently seen snow for the first time. He finished last, falling down and bumping into the flags lining the course.

Boit's participation in Nagano inspired skiers from Cameroon and Fiji to compete in the games in Salt Lake City four years later. They proved to be equally incompetent but were still loved by the public and media alike. Now the party is over.

Mr Rogge said the IOC would in future ask smaller countries to select their most talented athlete and they would help to prepare them with technical expertise and financial assistance.
 
Originally posted by Jim Boy
The IOC, chastened by the performance of Eric "the Eel" Moussambani, who swam one of the slowest races in Olympic history at Sydney in 2000, will no longer offer wild cards to smaller countries in an effort to eliminate the participation of such larger-than-life characters.

"We want to avoid what happened in swimming in Sydney," he said. "The public loved it, but I did not like it. The Olympic Games are a mixture of pure quality - that is, the best athletes in the world, and at the same time athletes of lesser quality who achieve universality.
Rogge needs to lighten up and see the less serious side of sport. :o
 
Besides, the Olympic Games should be open to anybody, say if I was the only person in Australia that participated in a certain sport, I am 100% entitled to represent Australia at the Olympics, regardless of my skill level.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Sorry, but I don't agree. Sporting events such as this need to have minimum standard requirements otherwise they become farcical.

I'd like to be able to play a round in the British Open too, but I don't think that "30 over" would do the events credibility any good !!

Sorry Eddie, sorry Eric, but either get to the right standard or sit back and watch those that have made it.
 
I agree with crud. The Olympics are for the elite athletes and having competitors who struggle to compete and finish races make a mockery of the Games.

Looking forward to see who the IOC elects for the 2010 Winter Olympics in July - it will have a huge impact on who gets the 2012 Olympics.
 
So much for Baron Pierre de Coubitan (sp?)'s ideal that the ultimate glory of the Olympics is not winning but taking part.
Of course some countries are going to dominate the medal tally while others may never be among the elite. But those countries have just as much right to take part as the high-flyers.
 
Nah that's shyte. It's just a bit of a laugh, nobody takes the "real" athletes less seriously because of good blokes like Eric.
 
Originally posted by Bomber Spirit
So much for Baron Pierre de Coubitan (sp?)'s ideal that the ultimate glory of the Olympics is not winning but taking part.
Of course some countries are going to dominate the medal tally while others may never be among the elite. But those countries have just as much right to take part as the high-flyers.

I think it has to do with guaranteeing the safety of those participating, especially with the swimmer from Equatorial New Guinea who nearly drowned, and for all we know, didn't know how to swim.

I personally like those human-interest stories, gives a bit of colour and entertainment to the Games themselves, especially when we know that when it comes down to the medal count, just a handful of nations (USA, Russia, China, Australia, and so forth) are really in contention overall.

Take the Jamaican bobsledders, for example. Yes, we all knew they weren't going to win, place or show-- but seeing their pluck and their drive and their effort, that was fun to watch! And moreover, they actually trained for the event, and they were taking it seriously. They was no intention on their part of making their Olympic event as a part of turning the Games into a circus.

But yes, we do often forget that it is all about the old addage, "it's not the winning, but the taking part", that should be what the Olympics are all about.

Perhaps the IOC President has forgotten this addage as well, up to a point?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Originally posted by crudbucket
Who was that directed at, Pazza ?

Graeme McMahon.... oops he only deals with footy..... he fits though.

You are right though Pazza. It's all about the athletes right?
 
I say f'em off. Waste of time and space. The only people who like Eric, Eddie et all are the theatre goers. You know, those punces who think the highlight of a tennis match is when a player does some wangky prank with a ballboy.

Pffft! I watch sport to watch sport. If I wanted all that drama/showmanship I would go see Riverdance or Hair.
 
Originally posted by GoEagles
I agree with crud. The Olympics are for the elite athletes and having competitors who struggle to compete and finish races make a mockery of the Games.


Actually the Olympic ideal is based up competing, not winning, and its not an sporting event which has a policy where only the best can compete - that is what sets the Olympics apart.

It has both the best, and the sportingly challenged.

RE: THe British Open comment. THat is true, but as I said, what sets the Olympics apart is that we see the best competing with the not-so-good. Nothing will ever come close to the Olympics, and that is why it is held in such high eesteem.
 
Originally posted by Black Thunder
Actually the Olympic ideal is based up competing, not winning, and its not an sporting event which has a policy where only the best can compete - that is what sets the Olympics apart.

It has both the best, and the sportingly challenged.

RE: THe British Open comment. THat is true, but as I said, what sets the Olympics apart is that we see the best competing with the not-so-good. Nothing will ever come close to the Olympics, and that is why it is held in such high eesteem.
This is just simply not true. The Olympics is about winning and gold medals. The best of the best. The Olympics is held in such high esteem by sportspeople because it is essentially a meet where you compete against the best from every country. Not like Euro champs and other geographically challenged events.

The policy that allows pis sants like Eric and Eddie has nothing to do with 'everyone being able to compete'. It is about 2 things:

1) Making the Olympic committee look like they are 'swell guys'
2) To attract those same punces who clap at theatrics at tennis matches (the punce market is very large)

Sorry, but Eric and Eddie are conspired sideshows.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Originally posted by bunsen burner
This is just simply not true. The Olympics is about winning and gold medals. The best of the best.

No its not, the Olympics was founded with an idea of participation. THe thought the winning is the most important comes from the recent trent where winning = big bucks (usually).

Originally posted by bunsen burner
The Olympics is held in such high esteem by sportspeople because it is essentially a meet where you compete against the best from every country.

every country?? exactly. Every country is given a right to participate at the Olypmics.
 
you'll find this on a lot of web-sites throughout the internet:

Baron de Coubertin felt that five ideals showed the true spirit of the Olympics. These ideals seek to:

- Help develop better citizens through the building of character that comes from participating in amateur sports

- Demonstrate the principles of fair play and good sportsmanship

- Stimulate interest in fine arts through exhibitions, concerts and demonstrations during the games, and in so doing contribute to a well-rounded life

- Teach that sports are played for fun and enjoyment

- Create international friendship and goodwill that would lead to a happier and a more peaceful world


in there it basically says that the enjoyment of participation is more than the enjoyment of winning.

Of course it wouldn't be such an event with the glory of the winner, but it wouldn't be such an event without the chance of participation from EVERYONE.

What would set it apart from the World Championships?? Nothing would.
 
And this from the Official Olympic site:

http://www.olympicspirit.org/mission.php

Olympic Spirit Mission Statement

Olympic Spirit Centers are designed to embody the heart, soul and global achievements of the Olympic Games, bringing the Olympic ideals directly to the people of the world in an inspiring and participatory entertainment and educational attraction.

Invoking the essence of the Olympic experience, Olympic Spirit Centers have universal appeal, and enable people of all colours and creeds, whether young or old, to celebrate, to be enriched and to be inspired by the spirit of Olympism.

Olympic Spirit communicates the Olympic values and ethos, inspires its visitors, promotes its partners and showcases its sponsors in an innovative and successful world-class leisure business.
 
Originally posted by Black Thunder
No its not, the Olympics was founded with an idea of participation. THe thought the winning is the most important comes from the recent trent where winning = big bucks (usually).
What the Olympics was founded for is irrelevent. What is relevent is what they are used for today.


every country?? exactly. Every country is given a right to participate at the Olypmics.
Participate yes, compete without qualifying with an acceptable time?

2 different things entirely.
 
Originally posted by Black Thunder
And this from the Official Olympic site:

http://www.olympicspirit.org/mission.php

Olympic Spirit Mission Statement

Olympic Spirit Centers are designed to embody the heart, soul and global achievements of the Olympic Games, bringing the Olympic ideals directly to the people of the world in an inspiring and participatory entertainment and educational attraction.

Invoking the essence of the Olympic experience, Olympic Spirit Centers have universal appeal, and enable people of all colours and creeds, whether young or old, to celebrate, to be enriched and to be inspired by the spirit of Olympism.

Olympic Spirit communicates the Olympic values and ethos, inspires its visitors, promotes its partners and showcases its sponsors in an innovative and successful world-class leisure business.
Oh please, get your hand off it.

Age, race, color, etc doesn't matter - as long as they can qualify with decent results.

You seem to be inferring that the Olympics is for everyone - well it's not. It's for the World's elite athletes as well as 1 (ONE - yes that's right O.N.E) token person who is nowhere near the mark.

Do you really think that it is coincidence that there is only 1 Eric or Eddie per olympics? There are 1000s of them out there and the IOC (or whoever it is) choose only 1.

The reason why they choose only 1 every olympics is a contradiction to the Loympic Spirit Mission Statement. Unless of course you are stupid and believe they are being equitable when they talk about there mission statement.
 
Originally posted by bunsen burner
Oh please, get your hand off it.

Age, race, color, etc doesn't matter - as long as they can qualify with decent results.

You seem to be inferring that the Olympics is for everyone - well it's not. It's for the World's elite athletes as well as 1 (ONE - yes that's right O.N.E) token person who is nowhere near the mark.

Do you really think that it is coincidence that there is only 1 Eric or Eddie per olympics? There are 1000s of them out there and the IOC (or whoever it is) choose only 1.

The reason why they choose only 1 every olympics is a contradiction to the Loympic Spirit Mission Statement. Unless of course you are stupid and believe they are being equitable when they talk about there mission statement.

Example, say I was the ONLY PERSON in my country that played polo.

I take my polo seriously, I love it, I practice night and day, but I am by no chance the best in the world, in fact, I am pretty bloody awful. I am the worst SERIOUS polo player, but even so, I still have the right to represent MY COUNTRY at polo! I will come dead last, but my country has a right to enter me in the polo event.

Please explain why I can't play polo for my country.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom