We are so fickle and cowardly

[tec0]

ChrisNG53 > As a writer you will know as well as I do that to put emotion into words is challenging. But imagine the absolute moment where you are so close in winning you can taste it. You know others will take more than one "dolphin kick" others may not but still the possibility exists…

In his mind a billion reasons mounts to one moment "Do I win or do I lose" It is intoxicating as the body produces all kinds of chemicals and the brain must handle it all. Soon one can only think of two things "breath and don’t lose" Thanks to the chemicals a decision was rationalized! He does what needs to be done.

He wins not only because of his actions but because the rule makers couldn’t be bothered to review there own shortcomings. He wins because fate and a moment in time permitted it!

So are we sheep? Or are we human? Right now you are demanding that this athlete must go against his own desire "and it is a very powerful chemical, more powerful than any drug this is also fact" and lose?

No this is not about sheep you expect this person to behave like a robot programmed with rules not a human with feelings passion and will!

This is not about having a sheep mentality or anything like that. You want people to deny themselves their own will to win! If that is the case then why have sporting events?

[adrianh]

Chris its very simple, it works like this; our heros don't cheat, they just tweak the rules a bit, those other bastards are the ones that cheat and they should be burned at the stake for doing so...

[vieome]

@Tec0 on reading Chris's article, what I got from it, is that Cameroon is not a sheep, but that we who blinding accept even the smallest cheat are the sheep, because in allowing a small cheat, be it for glory of the nation, we are in a sense programmed humans(sheep), blinding ourselves from the truth. And in doing so we open the way for larger cheats to play the same game on us.

If you argue that this man deserved to win because he did the normal thing and followed his desire and the chemicals in his body, where do you draw the line with something like that, is it okay to for a man to rape, if that is what he desires, I think the facts are that the line must be drawn where the line is, that they are only allowed one butterfly kick. The only question to ask is DID HE CHEAT YES OR NO? The buts or the reasons why he cheated dont matter, the fact that the medal stands dont matter. What matters is why as humans we behave sheepishly and accept a small cheat, and worse yet, do we accept it blindly because glory is ours? And it is this part of our human nature, that blindly accepts fiction as truth that makes one a sheep.

The farm is a system of control, and in trying to free the sheep from that system of control, we find sheep that are so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect the system. If an Aussie had won and you heard that he took a few illeagal kicks and hence robbed Cameron of the GOLD, would your view be the same, that is the system of control that the article is trying to show us.

[ChrisNG53]

ChrisNG53 > As a writer you will know as well as I do that to put emotion into words is challenging. But imagine the absolute moment where you are so close in winning you can taste it. You know others will take more than one "dolphin kick" others may not but still the possibility exists…

In his mind a billion reasons mounts to one moment "Do I win or do I lose" It is intoxicating as the body produces all kinds of chemicals and the brain must handle it all. Soon one can only think of two things "breath and don’t lose" Thanks to the chemicals a decision was rationalized! He does what needs to be done.

He wins not only because of his actions but because the rule makers couldn’t be bothered to review there own shortcomings. He wins because fate and a moment in time permitted it!

So are we sheep? Or are we human? Right now you are demanding that this athlete must go against his own desire "and it is a very powerful chemical, more powerful than any drug this is also fact" and lose?

No this is not about sheep you expect this person to behave like a robot programmed with rules not a human with feelings passion and will!

This is not about having a sheep mentality or anything like that. You want people to deny themselves their own will to win! If that is the case then why have sporting events?

tec0 -- brilliant analyses as to the real life dynamics of what actually happened. All true. No question!. I have already said that Cameron found himself in "an invidious position", and as he said, plainly and simply, was he supposed to sacrifice 4 years of training and risk losing because others would also use the illegal extra kick?
So Yes, Cameron acted like many, if not most, other human beings would also have acted. No question whatsoever!.

But, and it is a very BIG BUT, .. that is the problem ... the inability to act with principle and integrity under situational pressure. At some time or other, we all find ourselves in this situation ... peer pressure ... political pressure .... pressure at work .... the list is quite endless .. TO DO THE WRONG THING.

At that point we are under test. Sometimes it is a very tuff test. The film "The Firm" brings this out brilliantly. In my book I set out how I was faced with the same situation as Tom Cruise was .... and it nearly cost me my life. It certainly cost me wealth, power and privilege.

The fact that you fail the test, is undoubtedly MITIGATORY .... but it does not change that fact that you FAILED ... YOU CHEATED!

When we, in full knowledge of the facts, that Cameron cheated, choose to ignore this, simply on account of the convenience of "going with the popular flow", not wanting to be out of step with others, wanting to remain within the common herd ... we are acting like sheep. That is my point!

[ChrisNG53]

Chris its very simple, it works like this; our heros don't cheat, they just tweak the rules a bit, those other bastards are the ones that cheat and they should be burned at the stake for doing so...

Lol ... lol .... I hear you.

[ChrisNG53]

@Tec0 on reading Chris's article, what I got from it, is that Cameroon is not a sheep, but that we who blinding accept even the smallest cheat are the sheep, because in allowing a small cheat, be it for glory of the nation, we are in a sense programmed humans(sheep), blinding ourselves from the truth. And in doing so we open the way for larger cheats to play the same game on us.

If you argue that this man deserved to win because he did the normal thing and followed his desire and the chemicals in his body, where do you draw the line with something like that, is it okay to for a man to rape, if that is what he desires, I think the facts are that the line must be drawn where the line is, that they are only allowed one butterfly kick. The only question to ask is DID HE CHEAT YES OR NO? The buts or the reasons why he cheated dont matter, the fact that the medal stands dont matter. What matters is why as humans we behave sheepishly and accept a small cheat, and worse yet, do we accept it blindly because glory is ours? And it is this part of our human nature, that blindly accepts fiction as truth that makes one a sheep.

The farm is a system of control, and in trying to free the sheep from that system of control, we find sheep that are so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect the system. If an Aussie had won and you heard that he took a few illeagal kicks and hence robbed Cameron of the GOLD, would your view be the same, that is the system of control that the article is trying to show us.

@vieome -- you have hit the nail firmly and squarely right on its fat head!!! .. Eloquently put, eminent Counsel. it is an
inconvenient truth ... but truth all the same.

[ChrisNG53]

Don't get me wrong Chris, I also think he cheated, you're right he took advantage of it not being aggressively policed but I think you missed my point. What I was saying is that given the culture of the Olympic Games he wouldn't have competed to the best of his ability if he hadn't cheated. I was pointing out that it's not about sportsmanship or camaraderie between different athletes or cultures it's only about winning, being recognised as the worlds best and making money so if there's an opportunity to cheat you should do so if you can get away with it. I don't look at what he did as any kind of negative, I see it as a great judgement call or a gambol that paid off, he did everything in his power to win (including cheating) and he now has the gold medal in his cabinet as justification that he was the best competitor.

Maybe they should remove the word 'games' from the Olympics name, it would eliminate the confusion that causes threads like this on forums because nothing in the ethos of the tournament comes even close to the definition of the word 'game'.

@AndyD - -I hear you.. i was intrigued when an international expert of the subject of cheating in sports was interviewed on Al Jazeera, I think. He has researched the thing for about 15 years and written an authoritative book on this, especially of Sep Blatter's FIFA.
He gave the blood chilling opinion that. as sure as the sun is rising, the was/is cheating and 'fixing" going on at the Olympics.
So we might be able to conclude that Cameron was just "going with the flow".

[ChrisNG53]

Interestingly, had the Aussies not complained, no one would have been the wiser to the facts of that heat.
The other question, had the winner been an Aussie, would the Aussies have raised the objection?

It really is irrelevant who complained and who did not complain. The issue is simple - -did Cameron cheat?

[ChrisNG53]

Blurock;73714]I think we may all be making much to much about a matter that did not even make the news, but was first raised in a blog. I agree with Chris that cheating and dishonesty can never be allowed, however we should see the incident in context.

Consider the following; In the era of the full body suit, Cameron or any other swimmer could have been asked whether it gave them an unfair advantage. To be honest, he had to say yes, it did give him an unfair advantage over the swimmer without the full body suit. Did he cheat? No, the rules allowed this kind of "cheating". Many world records were recorded.

The rules have since been adapted and full body suits have been banned. I am sure that the rules regarding under water footage and the number of kicks will be changed in future, but for now, the rules still stand. We can not blame the swimmer for that.

Fortunately the rules of any%2

No, no, no my friend. That is all obfuscation, with respect. The rule here was set at just ONE kick on the turn. So 3, or 5, or 10 must result in disqualification. Had Cameron taken, say 10 kick, we would not be having this conversation.

[vieome]

@vieome -- you have hit the nail firmly and squarely right on its fat head!!! .. Eloquently put, eminent Counsel. it is an
inconvenient truth ... but truth all the same.

Thank you Sir, however I must point out that there are three sides to the coin(heads, tails, and the side in between), and if we are indeed to awake from our sheepish nature, we must ask another pertinent question? When is it alright for a sheep to break the rules?
If we say never, then forever we are sheep. In order for a sheep to know it is a sheep it must break the rules. So I think in any revolution the sheep dressed in their red wool, will and must agree, that it is okay to break the rules, if they are set by the PIG, as long as breaking that rule, does not harm any other sheep.

[ChrisNG53]

Thank you Sir, however I must point out that there are three sides to the coin(heads, tails, and the side in between), and if we are indeed to awake from our sheepish nature, we must ask another pertinent question? When is it alright for a sheep to break the rules?
If we say never, then forever we are sheep. In order for a sheep to know it is a sheep it must break the rules. So I think in any revolution the sheep dressed in their red wool, will and must agree, that it is okay to break the rules, if they are set by the PIG, as long as breaking that rule, does not harm any other sheep.

Fascinating comment. Those who break the rules can never be sheep. When Socrates said that the World was round and NOT flat, "he was breaking the rules". So the pigs executed him.
Cameron was not being a sheep, even though he was acting "sheepishly". he thought it out for himself .. and decided to cheat.
I think it is more correct to say, that unless there is disagreement, there will be no change, and if theere is no change, there will be no progress.
But that is quite a different conversation than the one we are having here.

[Blurock]

If a lawyer defends a murderer, is it his duty to see that his client gets a fair trial, or is it his duty to get him off the hook, no matter what.

We see this so often in our legal system that a loophole will be found to get the murderer off on a technicality. Can this be considered cheating, or are lawyers above the law? What about the rights of the victim?

[ChrisNG53]

If a lawyer defends a murderer, is it his duty to see that his client gets a fair trial, or is it his duty to get him off the hook, no matter what.

We see this so often in our legal system that a loophole will be found to get the murderer off on a technicality. Can this be considered cheating, or are lawyers above the law? What about the rights of the victim?

Blurock - -you have got it just about 100% wrong! The duty of Counsel is to 1. make sure his client gets a fair trial; 2. ensure that he is convicted ONLY on reliable evidence, if at all;. 3. put his clients case to the very best of his ability.
In particular, he his NOT permitted to manufacturer a defence for his client. Neither is he allowed to mislead the Court in any way.
If he goes outside these rules he IS CHEATING!
The phrase "getting someone off on a technicality" is a misleading, almost an oxymoron. You can only get a person off in accordance with the law. ... That is not a "technicality".. It is the law!!!
Hope that helps.

[Nigel Hamilton]

Chris i disagree with your thinking , but I also disagree with many of the religions that are out there. However i respect that we have differing views. It all depends wether you are trying to change the others religion to yours or not?

In this case i feel that you are "bible bashing" an athiest. And although quite fun, is absolutely going nowhere. Lets just agree to disagree

[Just Gone]

he his NOT permitted to manufacturer a defence for his client

Of course he is - he HAS to manufacture a defence for his client with the facts at hand and using the prosecutors lack of possible evidence and information to his benefit !! It is his duty to defend his client and yes make sure his client gets a fair trial and 2. to ensure that he is not convicted based on his defence and the lack of evidence or proper proceedings from the prosecutor !

Neither is he allowed to mislead the Court in any way

.

If an attorney is not "misleading" the court ........ then what exactly is he doing if he is defending a guilty person - yes he is trying to prove that the prosecutor does not have enough evidence, but he is also trying to instill doubt and trying to make sure they do not have enough evidence to convict his client.

You are playing on words and you are wrong !

And do me a favour - dont tell me that I shouldnt be "participating" in a forum - you do not know it all !!

Look, if you cannot back up accusations with sentient reasoning you definitely should not be participating in a social network site

In fact some of your comments dont deserve replies.