We are so fickle and cowardly

[ChrisNG53]

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

Nigel -- I am very confused. What exactly do you disagree with? I have made out a very, very simple case - -that when Cameron took took extra kicks on turning in the breast stroke he was cheating, and most of us are sheep (fickle and/or cowardly) for conveniently going along with not saying it is cheating.
Forget about "my thinking".
Which part of that statement do you disagree with.

[ChrisNG53]

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 !

.

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 !!



In fact some of your comments dont deserve replies.

KevinB - -it is obvious that you are simply looking to take and give offence. In the process you make a fool of yourself by volunteering to tell a High Court Judge (me) what the job of Counsel is in Court. Unless, of course, you are a Supreme Court or Constitutional Court Judge.
Our conversation is now closed. Bye and God bless.

[tec0]

In my opinion I am a layman when it comes to this sport thus I have no say, I cannot judge. And because of that I must accept the ruling. I accept it not because I am a sheep running with other sheep. I accept it firstly because the rules were inadequate to deal with the situation. Secondly I accept it because all of us are human.

Thus I will remain neutral… It is the fair thing to do.

That said the rules are already under revision so in future events this will probably never happen again.

So action was taken, opinions was noted and changes is imminent... That is good enough for me.
Others may not agree and they have their reasons I am sure… I will not judge them as sheep, because justification is hardly a single process.

[Just Gone]

You seem to have a lot of time for a high court judge. ................... and I know this because my daughter is an attorney and spends most of her day in high court. I must ask her if she recognises your profile pic.


yes good bye. ..... this is now the best option.

[adrianh]

@Kevin - Google

Judge Chris N Greenland

You'll see that Chris is for real!

[bjsteyn]

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

Haha, scored a try the other day, where I actually nocked the ball on. I did not occur to me to tell the ref that I knocked it on. I did all the hard yards to get to the ball before someone else did. And I am definitely not a cheater. I play the game hard and clean. Just imagine how your teamates would react if you are 4 points behind and you score the winning try and then go and tell the ref to disallow it. All the spectators would laugh as that is unheard of. Although swimming looks like a solo sport, Cameron is still part of a team, which he trains with daily. Maby Chris should show us a video clip what he is talking about, because the race wen't so quickly I didn't even think to check if they were doing it legally. Then again I always look for the positive. Only if you were looking for fault would you have noticed that.

[adrianh]

Cameron cheated knowingly. Do you consider it ok if you knock the ball on on purpose, what would you do if you got caught?

[bjsteyn]

Cameron cheated knowingly. Do you consider it ok if you knock the ball on on purpose, what would you do if you got caught?

Haha, I wouldn't knock it on on purpouse and luckily it is only a scrum :-) not a olympic medal. I still would like to see what is being referred to, as I didn't see it in the race. In my own sports nature I would not cheat intentionally. I am sure a swimmer at that level has respect for what he does and only wants to do it to the best of his ability. Cheating is not the best of your ability. I would not sell my sole to be a winner and if the ref asked me if I knocked that ball on, I would have told him YES.

[adrianh]

I've seen the footage from the underwater cameras. The footage actually shows him doing the cheating move. He admitted to doing it and said that everybody does it.

I think that what Chris is getting at is that we are happy to overlook "little transgressions" when it suits us. The problem is that where do you draw the line and say that a little transgression is no more little but is now a big transgression. I don't think that the discussion is about Cameron at all, it is about the principle. Why is it ok for some to cheat under certain circumstances? I feel it is ok for me to drive 69kmh in a 60 zone but I feel that the taxi who stops in the middle of the road without warning should be given a fine. You see, we are able to justify almost any action when it suits us and condemn almost any action when it suits us.

[bjsteyn]

My point of view on it is, judge yourself, and let others judge them self. Unless its your job to judge them, like a Judge. :-)

[Blurock]

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.

I agree with your explanation of the duty of counsel, but is that what really happens in court? Is misleading evidence, stalling, obstruction and withholding of facts not more the norm than a straightforward defence? How often do we see the character of a witness being attacked in an attempt to discredit the witness?
Is that cheating or just playing dirty? (Or is that the same thing?)

[Just Gone]

Yep exactly as I said Blurock

[Mike C]

@Adrianh - very good summing up of the issue Adrian.

[Nigel Hamilton]

Nigel -- I am very confused. What exactly do you disagree with? I have made out a very, very simple case - -that when Cameron took took extra kicks on turning in the breast stroke he was cheating, and most of us are sheep (fickle and/or cowardly) for conveniently going along with not saying it is cheating.
Forget about "my thinking".
Which part of that statement do you disagree with.

Chris i am guessing as a judge, you need to stick to the rule book in your daily life, and sort through the grey areas to ensure that the rule of law is enforced. Your hands are tied, and unless a law is changed you cannot deviate. ie your job i guess would be to sort the grey area's into black and white...using the law and your experience to achieve this.

However i cannot judge you in your personal life, and i guess if you have ever speeded, then i guess what you have to look at is the circumstances of that speeding

it could have been intentional
subconscious(ooops went a bit over there)
or an emergency

whatever the reason, the rule of law (in the absence of a judge) will result in the prescribed fine of whatever the calculation might be.

It could be noted that 2 different judges if given the opportunity might come up with 2 different rulings for this transgression, and although there are laws and specific fines, there are extenuating circumstances...this is where the black and white becomes somewhat grey.

So back to the point, if the law stated you cannot do more than 1 dolphin kick, then you are 100% correct, and we all have to agree with you!

Should the law be changed? Well thats not up to us.... and until it is changed, it is against the law...simple

This debate is going array, because we are all acting like judges, we are sifting through the grey! The first question "if" there is an opinion to be had would be (and assuming we have made ourselves as rule makers and judges)

1. should the rule be changed
2. In the absence of previous coinvictions, might be plausable that Cameron has a case
3. Would i have done the same thing?

Chris so you are correct, he cheated, would i have done the same..yes

So lets pose another analogy

there is a stretch of highway of 2km that for some odd reason has a 60km/h speed limit.
You as a law abiding citizen stick to this
There are no speed traps, and there have never been.
Most people then decide over time, to push the boundaries 70km/h, 80km/h, 120km/h they are clearly breaking the law
there are no repercussions
you stick to 60km/h, but even start questioning this limit yourself
eventually you are the only guy slowing up the flow
Today you are late for a very important(life changing meeting) what do you do?....

Cameron went 120km/h...he was wrong, should he give back his gold?

Maybe the reason for no timeous objections was because they have all at some point travelled at 120km/h.

[Blurock]

Maybe the reason for no timeous objections was because they have all at some point travelled at 120km/h.

Maybe the law gets broken because there is no law enforcement? When people think that a rule or law is not important, they will start ignoring that rule, because everyone else does (herd mentality). If enforced, we would think twice about breaking the rule, because of the possible consequences.