At the Olympics? Surely you

At the Olympics? Surely you jest.

There are simply too many compromises, too many rules, and
too many possible circumstances for reforms to eliminate fresh
controversies. But there is one solution that, while not perfect, is
better than all the others. Let's call it "The Goose Gossage Rule."
In 1983, Gossage, pitching in relief for the New York Yankees, gave up
a key home run to Kansas City's George Brett in what would become one
of the most famous rules disputes in baseball history. The "Pine Tar
Incident" erupted when Yankees manager Billy Martin invoked an obscure
rule when he saw that Brett's bat was illegally smeared with pine tar.
(Pine tar is sometimes used to cover incisions in bats that have been
corked, though there was no charge that Brett's bat was corked.) The
league subsequently invalidated Brett's home run and ruled him out on
the play. (In the bizarre aftermath, the two teams later met to finish
the meaningless game in front of a handful of amused spectators.)
Gossage, when interviewed in the postgame locker room, had a more
direct and sensible solution that no one paid any attention to:
"Do-overs. You know, like when you were kids and you argued about some
game you were playing in the street. The best compromise was always
just to do it over. It was the only compromise that everyone would
agree on."
"Do-overs" would not be an entirely satisfactory solution to the
Hamm-Yang controversy but nothing else would either. A do-over, at the
very least, offers the possibility of a solution that wouldn't be made
by lawyers or a rules committee. What athlete worth a medal wouldn't
prefer to settle things on a field, on a court or in a gym? Would the
sponsors and the television network be happy with do-overs? Are you
serious? Ticket sales and ratings would soar to an all-time high.
And finally, what of the fans? Isn't the thrill of meaningful
competition precisely what the Olympics is all about?

My question would be, why should Hamm have to do it over? It wasn't his
fault that the judges goofed with their math. It was, dare I even
suggest it, the judges' fault.
God, I am so freakin' sick and tired of stupid suggestions like this,
not to mention false controversies that arise out of a perceived need
in the media for such controversies, you know, to make things more
interesting. Does anyone actually think the USOC would have involved
itself in trying to negotiate a "resolution" with the Koreans if the
press hadn't jumped all over this story? I don't. Hamm shouldn't have
to "do over" what he didn't goof in the first place. Nor should he have
to hand over his gold medal and "do the right thing." Man, this pisses
me off, and I feel sorry for poor Paul Hamm. He's being cast as the bad
guy because the perception is that he benefited from the error, when
that actually has yet to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But he
won, there were goofs, he's American so obviously
there's something to it. What happened here? It's pretty simple: the
Koreans dropped the proverbial ball. They didn't notice during the
rotation that Yang's routine had had an incorrect starting level
attached to it. Yes the judges goofed, but it was their responsibility
to a. notice it and b. to contest the result within the rotation. They
didn't do this. In fact, we didn't hear anything
about it until a few days after the competition. The Koreans then chose
to whine. Yet, the FIG said they couldn't do anything about it, while
simultaneously having a few choice words with their judges. Nor could
the IOC couldn't do anything about it. This was, in essence, no big
deal and everyone knew it. There's a procedure for dealing with this
sort of thing, the Koreans didn't avail themselves of it and Yang lost
out on the Gold as a result. Who's fault is that? Not Paul Hamm's and
if everyone had stayed on the same page, this would have blown over
eventually.
But not now.
The real brouhaha began when the USOC got involved. They're trying to
"find a resolution" to the problem. Now everyone and their brother
seems to have an opinion on this because the general assumption seems
to be that there must be a problem if the USOC is involved.
Well, far be it from me to point this out, but there is no conflict,
hence no need for a resolution. This is sour grapes writ large. Sour
grapes that could be loaded with the tannin of anti-American fervor.
And God only knows we can't have anyone hating Americans. That would be bad.
So, what does the USOC do? They negotiate with the Koreans to find a
resolution, an act which gives legitimacy to their gripes. Now everyone
has to take it seriously. It appears to me that the USOC would rather
appease other countries than stick up for one of their own. They've
essentially abandoned their own because they have no collective spine.
What's worse is that it wasn't necessary to try and douse the flames.
The fire hadn't even really started up, yet the USOC poured kerosene on
it and revived it. Personally, for all the hype about how anti-American
these games were supposed to be, I haven't seen it. If it was there,
I'm sure NBC would have pointed it out. The commentators for other
worldwide media outlets may say something different, but I prefer to go
by crowd reactions and I simply haven't seen anything close to what the
media was predicting. Case in point: Gary Hall, Jr. On Saturday night,
he walked out to his lane at the pool wearing a Rocky-esque satin robe
and shorts, the entire ensemble emblazoned with the stars and stripes,
and I didn't hear any boos from the crowd. If there was a situation
that was rife with the potential for other people from other countries
to be pissed off, that
was the time for it. But it didn't happen. While I thought it was
tacky, it was obvious the guy was proud that he was representing his
country. Yes, he was a bit belligerent about it, yet no one rose to the
bait. They realized he was a bit of a zealot and waved it off. They
realized he had a right to wear such a tacky ensemble, and from his
interview it was obvious that he didn't have a problem with anyone
thinking it was tacky. It was a classic example of live and let live.
As far as the games as a whole, sure there have been some jeers and
boos, but when haven't there been? Not everyone loves Americans. That's
always been the case when it comes to the Olympics---always. We know
this. It's nothing new. But with the current political climate at hand,
the USOC apparently thinks differently and would appease the least
likely claimant to make sure nothing comes of it. Only, in the process
they poured kerosene on a fire that had yet to spark. And Paul Hamm has
to pay for it. He's right at the center of the fire, being offered up
on a stake for the appeasement of the Koreans, lest anyone think badly
of Americans. It's a crying shame. If Hamm had profited from blatant
favoritsm, it would be one thing, and in that case, yeah, he should
give the medal back. But that isn't the case here: the Koreans goofed
and he's being offered up as a sacrifice to prevent more anti-American
backlash and it's just wrong. What good is it to represent your country
in the Olympics when the representatives from your own country's
Olympic Committee don't want to represent you?

Posted by: Kathy at 02:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1311 words, total size 8 kb.