London 2012, Olympics — Page 9

Go team GB. Yeah!!!

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

  

What if it gets to the point where normal runners want to cut their legs off so they can use artificial limbs so they have a chance against other runners using bionic limbs.

LOL, thank you for this, I needed it.

just remember some of these guys have been willing to risk taking a drug that might make their testicles shrink, in order to gain an advantage. 

What advantage is there in having smaller...

You may not intend it, but you say some very funny things.

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

I'm very much in agreement with Gaffer on the fencing debacle. And I think way too much is being argued based on assumptions about teh rulez.

I am not assuming anything about the rules.   I  do not know the rules.

The point at which one doesn't know something is when assumptions come into play...

That's why you're arguing with Gaffer.

Mrebo said:

I don't know why the same common sense application of the rules of the sport could not similarly be applied on appeal in fencing. I'm not going to assume they can't be.

nor am I, but I am also not going they can be either.   Boxing has its rules and fencing has its rules.  It is possible the rules could be different.

I don't think you're allowed to punch people in fencing or stab people in boxing.

Mrebo said:

And we're not talking about some subjective "common sense" of judges doing what's "fair." We're talking about abiding the rules of the sport, that all acknowledge were not followed.

I agree the rules were not followed, but that does mean you correct it by not following the rules again.

What rules? How do you know unknown rules would not be followed? Answer: assumptions.

Mrebo said:

Warbler, if you can find the rules of appeal for Olympic fencing and argue why they do not permit remedying the mistake, please do so. I know this isn't a fancy debating forum or anything...but pounding the table (metaphorically) and declaring the importance of rules without knowing what they actually are seems like a waste of time.

1. I don't think I was "pounding the table" metaphorically or otherwise.

  And I don't know that you weren't pounding it literally.

2. I never said that the rules of appeal for Olympic fencing do not permit remedying the mistake.   I only said the rules for appeal for Olympic fencing need to be followed, that they should not be ignored just fix this mistake.   Gaffer seemed to be arguing that if the rules didn't permit remedying the mistake, that we should just ignore the rules and fix the mistake anyway.  That is not how sports work.

I don't know why it "seemed" to you that Gaffer was saying rules should be ignored...when she* was arguing the complete opposite, even stressing:

Gaffer Tape said:

I wasn't arguing that if the rules didn't permit remedying the mistake that we should just ignore the rules.

The argument is that the rules of the sport WERE broken and thus to remedy the situation the erroneous decision should be reversed to conform with the rules of the sport that we DO know.

In order to argue otherwise, you need to assume there might be some other rule that either prevents such an appeal or supersedes the known time rule.

I have no idea where you get that, Frink.  Unintentional cheating to be sure, but it sure as hell fits the definition.  Rules were broken, with no attempt to rectify them, and it gave the other competitor an unfair advantage, one that led her to win when she otherwise would not have.  The time mistake was not cheating.  Refusing to overturn the decision when it was in clear and flagrant violation of the rules was.  It's ridiculous to NOT call it a form of cheating.

RE:  Frink

Yes.  It is an insane argument, one based on a discussion you admitted to doing your best not to read, so why are you even starting it?  If it's so insane to you, why are you even here?

And, again, had you actually bothered to read it, you'd know I already answered that question several posts ago.

Warbler said:

Gaffer Tape said:

Refusing to overturn the decision when it was in clear and flagrant violation of the rules was. 

That wasn't Heidemann's doing.  The IOC refused to overturn the decision.   If you want to say the IOC cheated, maybe.   But to say Heidemann cheated when she did nothing wrong,  is ridiculous. 

If someone is in a classroom taking a math test,  and the person uses a calculator when calculators are not allowed, that person cheated.    But if that person followed all the rules and then the teacher incorrectly graded the paper and gave the person a higher grade than he/she should have gotten,  that is a mistaken.  The person taking the test did nothing wrong, it is not cheating.   

When did I ever say Heidemann was responsible for any of this?  And I DID say the IOC cheated (there's your answer, Frink, you're welcome).  So, yeah, it is ridiculous to say Heidemann cheated when she did nothing wrong.  Who's saying that again?  Because I haven't seen a single person claim or even hint at that.

And, yes, if a teacher grades a test wrong, that is a mistake.  If the teacher realizes this and knowingly gives the student a higher grade than he/she deserves, that is cheating.

Yeah, one nobody is having.  Again, where did this idea come from?

Gaffer Tape said:

The IOC literally cheated her out of a shot for the gold medal. 

I just don't see how I could have been any clearer in what I meant than that.  How Heidemann got involved in this, I will never know, but you sure seem convinced I said that or intimated that somewhere.  But that quote is the first time I ever mentioned "cheating" in the context of this conversation, and it never strayed from this point.

Warbler said:

If you want to say the IOC cheated, maybe.

So, yeah... where's the issue here, other than Frink coming in to randomly stir up trouble?

Anyway, I am going to go watch the video you linked me to. I'm sorry it took me so long to get around to it.  Like I said, the computer I had been using was not allowing me to use Flash for some reason.

when one is talking about  cheating in a sporting event,  one is usually referring to one of the competitors deliberately committing a violation of the rules.

Which is why I specifically preceded that statement by saying it was the IOC who cheated, and that it wasn't a purposeful form of cheating. So, yeah, I covered that. I'm still not seeing where the confusion is coming from.

Normally, one doesn't call an honest mistake by a timekeeper, cheating.

I didn't.  Again, I've covered this quite thoroughly.  I'm beginning to feel like I should just requote everything I've said on this and put it in a new post rather than put out more words trying to explain what I've already explained.

Yeah you can still IOC cheated Shim out of a metal, it is not exactly the same thing as saying actually cheating had occurred. understand?

No.  That's a completely contradictory statement, so I don't understand.

The only reason I ever decided to use the term "cheating" is because, up until that point, you seemed convinced this was just some nebulous definition of "common sense" debate, and that I was somehow advocating to break the rules, but you didn't seem to be picking up on my assertion that the rules were flagrantly broken.  I was hoping that using such a strong word (one I certainly feel is accurate, and one your 1972 basketball team would and did use to describe their situation) would help you to see what I was really talking about.  Instead, you somehow roped Heidelmann into this when I never even mentioned her.

Sorry, Warb. I'm not trying to press the issue, and you certainly don't have to agree with me, but it is frustrating having to basically just repeat what I've already said.  I'm sure you can relate.

At any rate, I do apologize if I was unclear.  If so, I hope that my point has now been made clear.

Anyway, I find the 1972 issue interesting, and I'm doing further reading right now to make sure I understand it before I really give you my thoughts on it.

(Reason: The silly game of semantics continues...)

Again, then, why did you start this silly game of semantics, and why are you continuing it?  Why is my use of the concept of "cheating" such anathema to you?  I stand by my use of the term.  I truly believe it applies and matches the definition point for point.  But I'd much rather you actually debate my stance on the subject at hand than whether or not you think "cheating" is an appropriate term for it.  Do you think that the outcome of the match did not conclude within its one second of remaining time?  Do you think that point scored was outside of the boundaries of the match?  If so, good, then we're in agreement.  I'll call it unintentional cheating, and you can call it hippopotamus balloons if you want to.  If not, fine, talk to me about your opinions on that, rather than continuing your silly game of semantics.

The rules were violated in such a way that a player gained an unfair advantage.  How is this not simple?  The definition does not specify that it has to be perpetrated by the one receiving the advantage, that the ones perpetrating the cheating have to be doing it on purpose, or that the ones perpetrating it have to directly benefit by it.  Were the rules broken? Yep.  Did it directly lead to someone gaining an unfair advantage?  Yep.  Did those in charge attempt to rectify the situation so that a player did not have an unfair advantage over another? Nope.  Looks like cheating to me.

Ok, yes, I read where you said they cheated her out of a medal, but that's not the same thing as saying they cheated.

And this I totally don't get. You might as well be saying, "They ate breakfast together, but no eating occurred."  At that point this whole argument turns into a Lewis Carroll poem, and I'm apparently going to need some serious mind-altering substances to even begin to understand the logic involved in such a statement.