We are so fickle and cowardly

[vieome]

There is a danger with the idea of calling those who dont follow a certain truth sheep. On the one hand we have the sheep that accept Cameroons win blinded by the bling of the gold, on the other hand if we are not to be sheep we have to accept Chris argument and in a sense become his sheep. So either way we become sheep. SO I think the real question is what kind of sheep are we going to be? Chris you have to see that by people dis-agreeing with your argument they are infact refusing to be sheep to your well put truth. So one thing I see from this argument, is what bling could you put into your argument to make them see your light. I found your argument pretty clear, in that if we allow these small cheats through it is easier for us to see how we as nation allow larger cheaters to control the mob mentality to accept greater cheats. In a sense here you have said the emporer has no clothes. So why does the wool cover the sheeps eyes on that truth? Could it be because you were light handed on the previous emporer Hanse.

Why are certain facts or truths not accepted by a society? Corpernicous stated 200 years before Galileo that the Earth went round the sun, his truth was accepted because of his aligment with the church, Galileo was killed because he was not.

I think the problem is deeper down, we all know that human society progresses by breaking rules, that is why we accept it when certain rules are broken. I see the sheep all in the field following orders obeying rules, but then one sheep breaks the rules and says hey when you remove the wool from your eyes you can see differently.

[Justloadit]

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?

[Just Gone]

The question is ............ why did the Aussies not complain in the stipulated laid down period ??? ......... But thats aussie for you .........

[AndyD]

I don't see it as a sheep or ethics problem, as long as there's a culture of competition and there's only winners or losers and nothing inbetween it's a culture of 'whatever it takes'. This includes constantly pushing the gray areas of the rules and exploiting any lax enforcement, if you don't you're not competing to the best of your ability.

[Blurock]

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 game evolve and is adapted to the progress made in the sport. It changes all the time in an attempt to make it fair to the competitors. It now also considers the spectacle of an event in view of mega sponsorships and televised broadcasts.

It is expected of a competitor to find the limits. A racing driver that has not gone off the track at least once has not explored that limit yet. (See Vieome's post). Someone will always find a new way to go further, higher, faster. Imagine if the Fosbury flop had to be banned, or carbon tennis rackets or running shoes or ....

[Nigel Hamilton]

I play golf, and have won a club championship. So has my son recently and he hopes to turn pro soon. I golf it is the norm that a player will call even an unintended breach on himself.

Chris..... ever played rugby? Just actually trying to visualise this

Bakkies: "ref, ref,...i just gave a guy a snot klap in the ruck that you didn't see, please award a penalty against me, and give me a yellow card...I have been a naughty boy!"

Hougaard: "ref that pass i received, just before i scored that impressive try was slightly forward, please disallow it, and lets have a scrum down against us"

ROTFLMAO

[Just Gone]

lol .... nice one Nigel.

Or Butch saying that he did have a slight knock on before he scored that try ............ so ref dont award it - lets go for an opposition drop out rather ............

[ChrisNG53]

Chris..... ever played rugby? Just actually trying to visualise this

Bakkies: "ref, ref,...i just gave a guy a snot klap in the ruck that you didn't see, please award a penalty against me, and give me a yellow card...I have been a naughty boy!"

Hougaard: "ref that pass i received, just before i scored that impressive try was slightly forward, please disallow it, and lets have a scrum down against us"

ROTFLMAO

Not sure what point you are seeking to make.
I am pointing to the culture in golf to call a penalty on oneself ... instead of cheating.
A snot klap in the ruck does not lead to disqualification. It is an infringement that attracts a sanction imposed by the ref.

[ChrisNG53]

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

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

[ChrisNG53]

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…

I don't think that it is a question of "nit-picking at all.
Can I ask you and everyone else having problems in this respect these 2 questions===
1. If Cameron had been caught, do you say he would not have been disqualified?
2. How many dolphin kicks would you say Cameron should have taken before YOU agree that he should be disqualified?, 4, 5. 6, 7 .... at what point DO YOU DRAW THE LINE IN THE SAND (WATER) and say "this is disqualification/cheating?"

This exercise demonstrates that the are no degrees in cheating . . whether it is one extra kick or 10 -- it is cheating!

There will be no revision about extra kicks not being allowed. They are NOT allowed, All that is going to happen is that they will not be policed and the rule enforced.

[ChrisNG53]

I don't see it as a sheep or ethics problem, as long as there's a culture of competition and there's only winners or losers and nothing inbetween it's a culture of 'whatever it takes'. This includes constantly pushing the gray areas of the rules and exploiting any lax enforcement, if you don't you're not competing to the best of your ability.

There is NO "GREY AREA". Only ONE dolphin kick is allowed in a turn. That is the rule. It is not grey! All that happened is that Cameron took advantage of the fact that it was not being policed in order to cheat.

[ChrisNG53]

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...

@Teco --- I did not demand action. I am pointing out that, provided there is leadership, people tend to "go with the flow', stop thinking for themselves and behave like sheep.
All that happened is that Cameron took advantage of the fact of bad/lax monitoring in order to cheat. It is really that simple.

It really does not matter who is moaning, whining, bitching .. etc ... even if they have red eyes, cloven hooves for feet and a tail.
It does not alter the facts of the matter.

[ChrisNG53]

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

@Kevin --- lol -- you are referring to "infringements" for which there are designated penalties prescribes and which the referee imposes. None of these will induce disqualification.
The sanction for using extra dolphin kicks in breast stroke is disqualification. Cameron just took advantage of the fact that monitoring was bad in order to get away with it. That is cheating.

[ChrisNG53]

There is a danger with the idea of calling those who dont follow a certain truth sheep. On the one hand we have the sheep that accept Cameroons win blinded by the bling of the gold, on the other hand if we are not to be sheep we have to accept Chris argument and in a sense become his sheep. So either way we become sheep. SO I think the real question is what kind of sheep are we going to be? Chris you have to see that by people dis-agreeing with your argument they are infact refusing to be sheep to your well put truth. So one thing I see from this argument, is what bling could you put into your argument to make them see your light. I found your argument pretty clear, in that if we allow these small cheats through it is easier for us to see how we as nation allow larger cheaters to control the mob mentality to accept greater cheats. In a sense here you have said the emporer has no clothes. So why does the wool cover the sheeps eyes on that truth? Could it be because you were light handed on the previous emporer Hanse.

Why are certain facts or truths not accepted by a society? Corpernicous stated 200 years before Galileo that the Earth went round the sun, his truth was accepted because of his aligment with the church, Galileo was killed because he was not.

I think the problem is deeper down, we all know that human society progresses by breaking rules, that is why we accept it when certain rules are broken. I see the sheep all in the field following orders obeying rules, but then one sheep breaks the rules and says hey when you remove the wool from your eyes you can see differently.

aah - -at last a sentient, well thought our point of view.
The simple answer is that you are definitely NOT a sheep if you have come to a stance after sound reasoning. So if you end up siding with Chris because of sound reasoning you cannot be a sheep. Sheep do not think for themselves. They just go with the flow .. let others do the thinking for them.
Of course, if your thinking is badly affected by the "herd mentality" you are still a sheep or, at the very least, "very sheepish" ... lol.

[AndyD]

There is NO "GREY AREA". Only ONE dolphin kick is allowed in a turn. That is the rule. It is not grey! All that happened is that Cameron took advantage of the fact that it was not being policed in order to cheat.

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'.