HAMM *won't* do the honourable thing...
obai...@work.coms
>
> August 27, 2004
>
> ATHENS, Greece (AP) -- AP [excerpted]
>
> The president of the International Gymnastics Federation asked Hamm
> to give up his all-around gold medal as the ultimate show of good will,
> but the U.S. Olympic Committee told him to take responsibility for the
> problem and *REFUSED* even to deliver the request!
>
> The dispute over scores has mushroomed into a bigger debate about
> sportsmanship, judging and the state of the Olympics themselves.
>
> FIG president Bruno Grandi suggested in a letter to Hamm that giving
> the gold to South Korea's Yang Tae-young "would be recognized as the
> ultimate demonstration of fair play." Judges scored Yang's parallel
> bars routine incorrectly on Aug. 18, failing to give him enough points
> for his level of difficulty.
> [ IOW, the S. Korean performed BETTER than HAMM, and BETTER than all
> other competitors, and he *deserves* the GOLD, while HAMM should
> get the SILVER. But the GOLD was errantly given to HAMM ]
>
> Grandi tried to send the letter Thursday night to Hamm through the USOC,
> but the US committee's leaders DECLINED TO PAASS IT ALONG [to HAMM]
>
> Hamm returned to the United States earlier this week. He declined
> comment Friday through his agent, but he has said in the past that he
> has no intention of giving up his medal unless ORDERED to do so by FIG.
>
> Hamm's coach, Miles Avery, said Hamm is still frustrated about having
> his victory sullied by controversy.
> [ what victory??? he performed 2nd best! ]
>
> ``If I was Bruno Grandi, I would have said my officials
> did a bad job and correct that problem and not ask
> this young man to give back his medal,''
> Avery said in an interview in Columbus, Ohio.
> [ ie. the gold medal which HAMM does not deserve ]
>
> Yang, the bronze medalist, was WRONGLY docked a tenth of a point on
> his second-to-last routine. He finished third, 0.049 points behind
> Hamm. Add the extra 0.100, and Yang would have finished 0.051 points
> AHEAD of Hamm. [ie. he performed BETTER than HAMM! ]
>
> Three judges were SUSPENDED after the error was discovered, but FIG said
> the results would stand because the South Koreans didn't protest the
> error until AFTER the meet.
>
> Although Grandi's letter says,
> "The true winner of the all-around competition is Yang Tae-young,"
> the FIG president insisted he's not pressuring Hamm.
>
> Ueberroth said the USOC considers the case closed, based on the FIG ruling
> that the scores cannot be changed. He also cited a statement from Rogge,
> who said the IOC would stick with the results turned in by the federation
> and wouldn't step in unless there were clear signs of impropriety.
>
> "We are not going to give medals for so-called
> humanitarian or emotional reasons," Rogge said.
> [how about reasons that HAMM *doesn't* deserve the gold??]
>
> USA Gymnastics president Bob Colarossi said the USOC stance reinforced
> the position his federation has held since the beginning.
>
> "Paul Hamm won the all-around competition and he's the
> Olympic medalist and the Olympic champion,'' Colarossi said.
> [but HAMM actually performed 2nd best. Nobody is disputing this]
>
> Updated on Friday, Aug 27, 2004 2:49 pm EDT
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Technically, according to all the various rules I've read, a medal
> awarded in error (for example thru a technical scoring mistake as
> has OBVIOUSLY occurred here) can remain with the UNdeserving athlete
> if he refuses to give it up. He does NOT have to give it up (and
> then accept the SILVER he rightfully earned) because of somebody's
> scoring mistake...He could and SHOULD but he doesn't HAVE TO.
> However, from a SPORTSMANSHIP standpoint, failing to offer to
> return the GOLD MEDAL to the rightful champion who indisputably
> bettered HAMM's performance, well, I can't respect HAMM on this...
> He's not a retard. He KNOWS what's going on.
> If you don't offer it back, SHAME on you, Paul HAMM.
Now watching the laughable bias of a certain sportscaster
on NBC, and his biased guest, as they compare this scenario
to "instant replay" in the NFL, whereby once the game is over
you can't go back and review a play and change it because
the game is over. They are TRYING to argue that the decision
NOT to offer back the gold to the competitior who performed
the BEST and DESERVED the gold, is not only a technical right
by HAMM, but a moral one as well.
But that argument is just plain dumb.
What they both refuse to acknowledge is that they can and
will strip a medal from any athlete found doping - EVEN AFTER
ANY GIVEN COMPETITION IS OVER!! Thus, corrections to the
scoring/standings/medal winners CAN BE CHANGED AFTERWARD
- and it's completely moral to do so!
And there have been other examples of corrections made
AFTER world class competitions have ended!
So the argument that we shouldn't be able to correct an
OBVIOUS WRONG *after* a meetis over - simply doesn't wash.
BUT, in this case, by the rules currently in place,
even though HAMM - the 2nd best performer - was wrongly
awarded the GOLD medal, he can REFUSE to offer it back.
And that apparently is what HAMM intends to do...hang on
to a GOLD medal wrongly awarded him which a South Korean
competitor actually deserves when he outperformed HAMM.
He has the chance to have his photo forever associated
with the words "class" and "sportsmanship" - but...
The Saxist
>even though HAMM - the 2nd best performer - was wrongly
>awarded the GOLD medal, he can REFUSE to offer it back.
He was told he had to beat a score. He beat said score. He lowered the
difficulty of his routine because he didn't need to risk a higher difficulty to
win the medal. He did what was asked of him in the competition. You cannot tell
a performer they have to beat a certain score, and when they do, tell them
"Oops. You should have beaten this score. Sorry."
--The Saxist
--2004 King of RSPW
--Three time! Three Time! Three time winner of the PNGC
--"Sax is better than sliced bread." -- Googlism.com
obai...@work.coms
>>BUT, in this case, by the rules currently in place,
>>even though HAMM - the 2nd best performer - was wrongly
>>awarded the GOLD medal, he can REFUSE to offer it back.
>
>
>
> He was told he had to beat a score. He beat said score. He lowered the
> difficulty of his routine because he didn't need to risk a higher difficulty to
> win the medal. He did what was asked of him in the competition. You cannot tell
> a performer they have to beat a certain score, and when they do, tell them
> "Oops. You should have beaten this score. Sorry."
This sounds contrived, probably stemming from the
BIASED sources suggesting it.
(not YOU, but whomever is making it up)
Because that suggestion is NOT congruent with this report:
"When Hamm got ready to close the meet on the high bar
-- his signature event -- indeed anything seemed possible.
He went through the routine without a flaw, flying up and
backward across the bar and grabbing it three straight
times with ease. He needed a 9.825 to tie Kim Dae-eun of
South Korea for the gold, BUT HE DIDN'T KNOW THAT!
His score, another 9.837, flashed on the board. He hugged
Avery, thinking he had secured the bronze, which was all he
was really hoping for after the tumble a half-hour earlier.
...thanks in large part to a decision to scale down a
routine that used to include five release moves -- four in
a row, then another one a few seconds later. Avery and Hamm
changed the routine to MAKE IT *MORE* DEPENDABLE, and the
change didn't diminish the value of the routine.
http://sports.yahoo.com/oly/gymnastics/news?slug=ap-mensall-aroundgym&prov=ap&type=lgns
There's nothing in that description that would suggest
that HAMM - who apparently felt he was way behind - would
LOWERa degree of difficulty on the basis that a higher score
no longer needed! If anything, not knowing what he needed
and believing he was well behind, he would have reason to
to make a change in order to INCREASE THE CHANCES OF A HIGHER
SCORE. Apparently, he did NOT enter that routine believing he
had the GOLD in the bag! FAR FROM IT!!!
If anything, he believed the opposite, and needed the highest
possible score he thought he could achieve...
Of course, given the controversy afterward,
HAMM (and team officials) can "pull a collard special" and
"make up" whatever fits to make it seem all moral and good.
Here in Canada we can watch TWO viewpoints on television
concerning American athletes: the American television
viewpoint and the non-American viewpoint...
Still, what score was HAMM told he had to beat?
WHO told him and what time did this "alleged"
conversation take place? And MOST IMPORTANTLY,
how can it be VERIFIED that said conversation
- with precise wording - ever took place?
What degree of difficulty did he allegedly have before
and what did he lower it too? And MOST IMPORTANTLY
how can we confirm this with VERIFIABLE PROOF which
won't look like it may well be "made up" afterthefact?
Without any VERIFICATION, for all we know,
THAT is merely what they are "making up" NOW
in order to try and grab back some moral high ground
that's been lost due to this lack of sportsmanship.
Disgraceful.
Meanwhile, what CAN BE VERIFIED is the South Korean
did in fact outperfom HAMM. We'll note that virtually
NOBODY is disputing this.
It is interesting to note that proper start values
on the scorecards are supposed to be added correctly
by the judges, and confirmed by the head judge who
overseas the panel of judges - in this case, an American,
George Beckstead was responsible to oversea those judges.
He was suspended. But that he was American raises eyebrows.
Maybe he saw the mistake but did nothing...who really knows.
Do the class THING, Paul, and at least "offer" to swap your
UNdeserved gold for the SILVER you deserve...
The Saxist
>UNdeserved gold for the SILVER you deserve...
>
Granting the premise in your post, which I won't dispute because you
obviously have been following this much more than I, didn't the original
article state the South Korean won the bronze? Even if Hamm agreed to forfeit
his gold, someone has to ask whoever won the silver to accept a bronze.
obai...@work.coms
>>Do the class THING, Paul, and at least "offer" to swap your
>>UNdeserved gold for the SILVER you deserve...
>>
>
>
> Granting the premise in your post, which I won't dispute because you
> obviously have been following this much more than I, didn't the original
> article state the South Korean won the bronze? Even if Hamm agreed to forfeit
> his gold, someone has to ask whoever won the silver to accept a bronze.
Two south Koreans were involved.
HAMM's performance edged out S.Korean, Kim Dae-eun,
who was the awarded the SILVER.
The gymnast who was cheated out of his rightful
GOLD medal was, Yang Tae-young, also a S. Korean.
Thus, since they were both S. Koreans, I doubt
there would be any problem swapping the medals...
To be sure, there should be no doubt that Paul Hamm's
effort in that competition - was exceptional - AFTER
he faltered badly in the vault event. He fought back
and performed VERY well - worthy of a top 3 finish!
However Yang Tae-young also performed extremely well,
and HE did not make a blunder in an event like HAMM.
In fact, his overall score - when CORRECTLY SCORED -
was better than HAMM's - and that is why he deserves
the GOLD medal.
Mind you, had HAMM not blundered in the vault,
he may well have won the GOLD without dispute.
Then again, several competitors unexpectedly faltered
like HAMM, which is what, it can be argued, opened the door
for him to make the big comeback into a medal position in
the first place.
Meanwhile, scanning the archives, I still recall the Olympic
scandal not long ago when Canadian Figure skating pairs
where scammed out of a rightful GOLD medal by a judge who later
admitted she cheated so the Russians would win.
The decision to award a second gold medal during the Games is
unprecedented and overturning any medal award is extremely
unusual. The IOC said it had only intervened twice before to
overturn a result taken on the field of play that did not
involve a doping offence.
Canadian synchronised swimmer Sylvie Frechette received her gold
18 months after competing in the 1992 Barcelona Olympics when the
IOC ruled she had been the victim of a judging error relating to
the electronic scoring system. [ the Brazilian judge at the time
pleaded with the referee of scoring, Judith McGowan of the USA,
that she meant to punch in a score of 9.7 but errantly hit 8.7.
However, the American referee refused to allow changing the score.
Frechette was arguably the top synchro in the world then and had
performed exceptionally, tying American Kristen Babb-Sprague for
the lead with one event to follow...but the blunder in scoring meant
that the American swimmer, would gain an insurmountable edge over
the 2nd place Frechette...]
The only other time the IOC has stepped in to correct a result
occurred at the 1924 Winter Games in Chamonix.
American Anders Haugen was awarded the bronze medal in the ski
jumping 50 years after the competition after a Norwegian historian
discovered an error in the computation of the scores.
Source: Reuters
Date published: Feb 16, 2002
Gary Collard
>
> >BUT, in this case, by the rules currently in place,
> >even though HAMM - the 2nd best performer - was wrongly
> >awarded the GOLD medal, he can REFUSE to offer it back.
Well, if all of the rules are followed, Hamm wins. But if you follow soem
and ignore others you can find a way to screw the American out of gold,
which is the obvious motive of the whole controversy.
> He was told he had to beat a score. He beat said score. He lowered the
> difficulty of his routine because he didn't need to risk a higher difficulty to
> win the medal. He did what was asked of him in the competition. You cannot tell
> a performer they have to beat a certain score, and when they do, tell them
> "Oops. You should have beaten this score. Sorry."
The Korean should also do the honorable thing and ask the judges to assign
the mandatory 0.2 deduction that he was supposed to receive on the same
routine and did not due to a judging error.
Yang Tae-Young performed a parallel bar routine that incorporated four
holds when only three are allowed. This should have been a mandatory
two-tenths of a point deduction, countering the one-tenths error against
him. If the routine had been scored correctly, Yang's score would have
actually been lower, but still enough for the bronze that he ended up
getting.
IOW in a fair scoring Hamm wins, but it is pretty obvious that the whole
controversy is about anti-Americanism and not fair play. If it was about
fair play there would never have been any controversy, Hamm was the true
winner.
What they ask for is that the scoring error that helped the American be
corrected, but the larger scoring error that hurt him not be. That's
pretty shameless America hate, an embarrassment to the IOC.
--
Gary Collard
SABR-L Moderator
gmco...@yahoo.com
"The truth, which is what elections are all about, is that the tax
burden of the middle class has gone up while the tax burden of the
middle class has gone down." -- John Kerry
Gary Collard
>
> >Do the class THING, Paul, and at least "offer" to swap your
> >UNdeserved gold for the SILVER you deserve...
> >
>
> Granting the premise in your post, which I won't dispute because you
> obviously have been following this much more than I, didn't the original
> article state the South Korean won the bronze? Even if Hamm agreed to forfeit
> his gold, someone has to ask whoever won the silver to accept a bronze.
Yes, in the "fix some errors while ignoring others" scenario Hamm would get
the silver and Kim Dae Eun the bronze. Fortunately, this sham was not
allowed to proceed.
D-Chance.
"Gary Collard" wrote
> IOW in a fair scoring Hamm wins, but it is pretty obvious that the whole
> controversy is about anti-Americanism and not fair play. If it was about
> fair play there would never have been any controversy, Hamm was the true
> winner.
> What they ask for is that the scoring error that helped the American be
> corrected, but the larger scoring error that hurt him not be. That's
> pretty shameless America hate, an embarrassment to the IOC.
It's Florida 2000 all over again...
;)