We are so fickle and cowardly

[ChrisNG53]

[QUOTE=tec0;73620]
Sorry Teco -- I am not at all with you. When you have clear facts, indisputable facts, you are in a position to make a judgement call .. on those facts. That is why you are a member of homo sapiens. You can't just choose to see the facts as unclear because your heart starts dictating this.

On your stance it would be quite impossible to have courts of law as, in so many cases, the facts are actually NOT clear and have to receive very rigorous and trying resolution.
That is simply NOT the case here. The facts are simple enough.

As a human being it gives me NO pleasure to have to point this out. Cameron is a decent human being. He has family and friends. They are all effected by what happens to him and what is said about him.

However, the public interest outweighs his personal interests. It is nearly always the case that someone has to dispassionately say what is wrong. I have spent over 35 years doing this on an entirely dispassionate basis. Only once was I reversed on appeal.

However, I still insist that this one you can judge for yourself. It is really that simple.

[tec0]

ChrisNG53 > No, there is no choice to be made here, if you consider all the facts you will find that the people that lodge the complaint was also guilty of same transgression. I think you are just pushing for this because others are now forced to accept your point of view.

Fact is you made sure that the argument cannot be won when you started this thread “cheating/rigging” the outcome from the start. The scenario and outcome cannot be argued thus deadlocked. So now we must accept that by your argument “that was rigged from the start” we are sheep and have a sheep mentality and you deny anyone an argument.

So who is the real cheater here ?

You demand action where action cannot be taken...

[Dave A]

In jurisprudential terms it is a VERY BIG NO, NO.

Good. We share the same understanding then.

Now consider this rule on the number of dolphin kicks allowed underwater - made with no means put in place to monitor and enforce it at all, let alone consistently across the field.

[ChrisNG53]

Good. We share the same understanding then.

Now consider this rule on the number of dolphin kicks allowed underwater - made with no means put in place to monitor and enforce it at all, let alone consistently across the field.

Lol - -we really have to differentiate between laws in terms of the social contract between the State and its citizens and rules that govern sport. Rules are not law, not in a jurisprudential or any other sense. So no body of learning or principle has evolved to say that, in sport, don't make a rule if you cannot enforce it.

This does not mean, of course, that infringement does not constitute cheating. That much is plain. That is why golfers call breaches on themselves.

Now here is the point. I will take you a bet of a bottle of wine that, at the very next championship event, there will be technology to detect this form of infringement.. Nothing in the rules will change. Detection will be in place. In that way my stance will be vindicated ex post facto --- meaning that it is/ and always was cheating.

[Dave A]

Who's fudging issues of principle now?
Sound jurisprudence simply has to be a cornerstone of sound rule making. And this situation proves it.

Now here is the point. I will take you a bet of a bottle of wine that, at the very next championship event, there will be technology to detect this form of infringement.. Nothing in the rules will change. Detection will be in place.

Perhaps you're right, or perhaps the rules will change yet again*. But I expect we will move closer to a situation that reflects sound jurisprudence either way.
And perhaps what we'll have to thank is Cameron's startling frankness on the issue.

Ultimately right now you're stuck with inadmissable evidence. The rule making is flawed. Case dismissed.
And who's to blame for that?

*As I pointed out earlier, the rules in breast stroke have been in a state of flux in recent times.

ps. Golfers call a breach on themselves and take the stroke penalty because the alternative is disqualification.

[Just Gone]

Its illegal in rugby to jump up in the air with his knees up when catching a high ball! Its also illegal to tackle him whilst he is in the air - both still happen and some get "away" with it! !!!!! So dont gripe about it like the Aussies

[tec0]

Fact is you want people to be inhuman, your argument is opportunistic, flawed and designed give you the upper hand. You ignored my previous post because you yourself became judgemental and dismissed the claim.

That is the point I am trying to make. This athlete work long and hard, yes the laws was not properly enforced at that stage but it is not by his doing.

Will it be fair to bring all he swimmers back and try again…? Remember now how many of them suffered an injury or needs to recover from the previous event? Psychologically how many of them will lose because they lack the faith in themselves and or judgment? "Case and point looked what happened in the woman's fencing?

So are we sheep? Are we cowardly? No… if we where sheep we will still be living in the Stone Age. Innovators, Inventors and philosophers did not follow the statuesque and they broke the rules and discovered the future.

What you demand is a flawless perfection…. Well sorry to say but we learn trough our mistakes that is our most basic human quality…

[ChrisNG53]

Who's fudging issues of principle now?
Sound jurisprudence simply has to be a cornerstone of sound rule making. And this situation proves it.


Perhaps you're right, or perhaps the rules will change yet again*. But I expect we will move closer to a situation that reflects sound jurisprudence either way.
And perhaps what we'll have to thank is Cameron's startling frankness on the issue.

Ultimately right now you're stuck with inadmissable evidence. The rule making is flawed. Case dismissed.
And who's to blame for that?

*As I pointed out earlier, the rules in breast stroke have been in a state of flux in recent times.

ps. Golfers call a breach on themselves and take the stroke penalty because the alternative is disqualification.

1. With respect it is not a fudge. It is actually the law that entities, private bodies, sporting bodies, companies .. etc .. make their own rules and these rules bind their members NOT the general public. There IS no jurisprudence that says that for the reason they must not make rules that they cannot enforce.

2. I am not sure if you accept that they will ensure that their rule is respected/enforced in future.

3. ??? There is no inadmissible evidence with respect. We have admitted facts. Cameron admits he intentionally broke a rule for advantage.

4. True the rule was changed. It was changed, with some tensions involved, to state that only one dolphin kick is permitted.

5. There is no rule in golf that makes it a breach not to call a penalty on yourself. Disqualification accrues if you post a wrong score. A wrong score is when the sanction of added stroke(s) for breach has not been applied. Players take it upon themselves to apply the sanction. They don't say, "well since I have not been caught, and others are doing it, it is not longer a breach" even s regards UNINTENTIONAL breaches.

To conclude on this and other posts --- the harsh reality is -

a) the definition of cheating, whatever it is, includes "am intentional breach for advantage"; no question whatsoever. If one thinks about that definition everything falls into place.
b) the fact that you are not caught doing this changes nothing. In fact all cheating is done in the express hope of not being caught.
c) the fact that officials fail to act whether on account of i) they are involved in "match fixing"; (there is an expert who claims that this is actually rampant at the Olympics) ii} incompetence; iii) inattention; iv) or whatever the reason other than a change to, or expressed relaxation of, the rule itself --- does not nullify the breach.
d) the fact that others are also involved in the same breach changes nothing.

It is that simple. Just about nobody on this planet, except Maradona himself, was confused about any of this when Argentina infamously beat England in the 1986 World Cup after Maradona scored a goal using his hand and excused his action as being the "hand of God".
Argentinians, of course, were quite prepared to accept, condone and support Maradona in his stance .. for the same emotive irrationalism that we have as regards Cameron. And that is the point of my thread. Given leadership on a matter we will then act like sheep.

I think is important to realize that in a speed test where milliseconds can determine the outcome what Cameron did was an inherent "game changer", even if it had been just ONE extra kick. Those who oppose my view are simply unable to draw a line in the sand (or is it water) and say at how many extra kicks would THEY SAY cheating was now involved or disqualification accrue.

I think the following minority view on News24 in right on point: -

pws69 - August 11, 2012 at 23:47 Report commentComments Policy
It seems to me most are missing the point Pro is trying to make. It is a commentary on human nature, and not just a specific event.

What I get from it is this:

We villified Hansie because WE felt cheated. We celebrate with Cameron because WE also won.

In essence, both Hansie and Cameron are guilty of the same crime, but the comments have completely supported Pro's position.

Comments like the sour grapes of the Aussies actually reflect how WE felt about Hansie, because WE felt cheated.

The point, to me, being made is that the further we deviate from what we know is right or wrong, the further we will fall, and the longer it will take to rise again. History is littered with examples of allowing that little crack in morality becoming a chasm.

Rome in the first few centuries AD
The middle ages
Hitler
Apartheid

to name but a few.

I also like the fact that some here have "degrees of right and wrong". It's ok to cheat in a school sporting event because it is not like the Olympics is it?" Mmm, except it is MORE important than the Olympics to the ten year old the spent every Saturday and Sunday training while his friends played, so he COULD perhaps win.

Right is right, wrong is wrong. There IS NO MIDDLE GROUND.

[Dave A]

Chris, please note I have not opposed your view - I have pointed to the real source of the problem (which it seems you choose to ignore).

Cameron's defence is "everyone's doing it." My point is when "everyone's doing it", who is really responsible?

Or do you only judge pions and not the kings?

[ChrisNG53]

Chris, please note I have not opposed your view - I have pointed to the real source of the problem (which it seems you choose to ignore).

Cameron's defence is "everyone's doing it." My point is when "everyone's doing it", who is really responsible?

Or do you only judge pions and not the kings?

Dave A -- thank you . I understand. As I stated the post was intended for ALL our contributors. So I was therefore more detailed.

I think is is absolutely appalling that the IOC permitted this state of affairs to accrue. The IOC is primarily to blame. No question!. It is the reality that Cameron was placed in an invidious position. As he explained, honesty on his part would have exposed him to losing.

However the harsh reality is that most of us are faced with this type of situation in our lives. Do we go with the flow .. or do we do whats right?. I have been there so many times .. and the reason why I am not a multi millionaire is because I decided against deviance. In my book I explain that when you have been brainwashed by Roman Catholic nuns from age 4, it is perhaps easier to side against deviance even under extreme pressure. In the end this nearly cost me my life when 2 goons were sent, in 2006, to take me out. Fortunately that swine Ian Douglas Smith had forcibly conscripted me into the Rhodesian army, for national service, where I learnt to shoot first and shoot straight. That is why I am alive to-day.

The good thing is that the nonsense is now out in the open and I we can have no doubt that the IOC and gang will ensure that the rule is policed and enforced in future.

[Just Gone]

Chris I think you are the most "fickle" out of all of us here!

Yes Dave he chooses to ignore a lot of extremely valid comments.

[ChrisNG53]

Chris I think you are the most "fickle" out of all of us here!

Yes Dave he chooses to ignore a lot of extremely valid comments.

If you would be so good as to tabulate the comments (point by point so as the avoid confusion,) that have been ignored I will be more than pleased to deal with them.

[Just Gone]

no thanks not eally interested anymore - he is a gold medal champ in my eyes - good enough for me


plus u could do the tabulating rather

[tec0]

Well as I was ignored yet again it actually proofs the point. People see what they want to see, they judge what they want to judge and will be opinionated. Fact is in this argument you have three factors one being the participant the second being the rules and the third an opinion.

Now I cannot understand why it is so important to nitpick on each and every aspect. It is important to take into consideration the "human factor" and was the action taken "within reason". But most important of all it is worth mentioning we "the public" had no say in anything at all. Thus my conclusion; Why force it?

I am sure that a great deal of revision will be done and the systems and rules will change accordingly thus improving the sport. There is no need to call anyone cowardly… I put this debate to rest now… If others also put the argument to rest it is not a "sheep mentality" It is accepting that the outcome…

[Just Gone]

yep tec. ....... agree. ............................ youre def not a sheep :-)