SHATTERED OLYMPIC DREAMS

[swarey]

Has "Political Correctness in sport" gone mad????  (Maybe that's not the right way to put it but...)

Should one moment of madness/passion potentially cost a young athlete their career???

Examples...  Our Danny (football/soccer - we all know what happened there) and now Nick D'Arcy.....(swimming - and only time will tell what went on there)

I know that in both instances, they did the wrong thing & they are totally different offences, in Danny's case, there is no doubt that it was a moment of passion!

But should their careers and the opportunity to represent their countries be put on the line because of one moment of madness?

It'll be really interesting to see the outcome in Nick D'Arcy's case.  (How will his offense - punching someones face in at the pub, be treated in comparison to Danny's).  We've already seen the comparisons within our sport, (Bogan Joel & his "sack wack" - virtually no penalty at all - v Danny & his "high five" - potentially career ending penalty)  I think it'll be interesting to see how this latest offense is handled given that they both have their Olympic Careers on the line.

 

[Paolo]

Can we please have a "Swimming Hooligans Thread"

 

[MattSimon]

Nick D'Arcy didn't just punch someone in the face, he broke the other guy's guys nose, fractured his jaw or eye socket or something and sent him to the hospital. He's an arrogant young twat, look at his demeanor whenever interviewed. Someone needs to smash D'Arcy in his face, him missing the Olympics would be a good reality check. He might be a good swimmer but he's not ready to represent Australia with his piss poor attitude.

Edit: Facing ten years jail http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23463767-5001021,00.html (bit over the top, oh wait it's the Terrorgraf!) And the story confirms he was going around King Street wharf bragging. What a prat.

 

[dibo]

there's a trial to be had and all but i can't help but think d'arcy will be gone - there's probably a difference between retaliating to a 'first punch' in a fight (which might well break the other guy's nose), and then subsequently breaking his jaw, fracturing one cheekbone and crushing another. that's not a 'moment' of madness, that's a fit of rage that does another person serious harm.

it's not just arguable, it's demonstrable that he's a danger to other members of the team when he drinks. he's already said (just last week on tuesday) that he's trying to be better behaved and be more like a gentleman and then on sunday night he's putting another fella in hospital.

cowley's having reconstructive surgery later this week to put his jaw and cheekbone back in the right place. d'arcy looks pretty well unharmed, so i reckon he's used a little more force than the other fella.

Danny & his "high five" - potentially career ending penalty

a 9 month ban is not career ending. in 2 years when he's likely to be overseas and doing well he won't even think about it anymore.

 

[Paolo]

cowley's having reconstructive surgery later this week to put his jaw and cheekbone back in the right place.

Its not that bad, they hook you up with some pretty sweet drugs

 

[FFC Mariner]

Hard to compare pushing a refs arm away and (allegedly) punching the living shite out of someone in a bar.

Makes the FFA's actions even more farcical

 

[BrisRecky]

Nick D'Arcy didn't just punch someone in the face, he broke the other guy's guys nose, fractured his jaw or eye socket or something and sent him to the hospital. He's an arrogant young twat, look at his demeanor whenever interviewed.

Hard to compare pushing a refs arm away and (allegedly) punching the living shite out of someone in a bar.

zactly greenpoleffc.....hardly comparable to the most famous piss weak high five ever is it?....I say ban the chlorine breathin little puke from repping for australia ever again

 

[dibo]

Nick D'Arcy didn't just punch someone in the face, he broke the other guy's guys nose, fractured his jaw or eye socket or something and sent him to the hospital. He's an arrogant young twat, look at his demeanor whenever interviewed.

Hard to compare pushing a refs arm away and (allegedly) punching the living shite out of someone in a bar.

zactly greenpoleffc.....hardly comparable to the most famous piss weak high five ever is it?....I say ban the chlorine breathin little puke from repping for australia ever again

the actions aren't comparable - one is a serious off-field (out of pool, whatever) indiscretion, the other is an on-field indiscretion involving a match official.

the punishments aren't comparable either - the two are very different incidents. one comes with criminal charges and the likely suspension from swimming for at least the olympics (given the nature of swimming and his career trajectory in particular, that's basically life) and the other comes with a 9 month competition ban which while significant is hardly career threatening.

a touch of perspective perhaps?

 

[Sean]

Nick D'Arcy didn't just punch someone in the face, he broke the other guy's guys nose, fractured his jaw or eye socket or something and sent him to the hospital. He's an arrogant young twat, look at his demeanor whenever interviewed.

Hard to compare pushing a refs arm away and (allegedly) punching the living shite out of someone in a bar.

zactly greenpoleffc.....hardly comparable to the most famous piss weak high five ever is it?....I say ban the chlorine breathin little puke from repping for australia ever again

the actions aren't comparable - one is a serious off-field (out of pool, whatever) indiscretion, the other is an on-field indiscretion involving a match official.

the punishments aren't comparable either - the two are very different incidents. one comes with criminal charges and the likely suspension from swimming for at least the olympics (given the nature of swimming and his career trajectory in particular, that's basically life) and the other comes with a 9 month competition ban which while significant is hardly career threatening.

a touch of perspective perhaps?

Darcy could still be in the Olympics you know. Alot of people including Grant Hackett are stating their support for the pisshead and still want him in the team.
If the rules are bent and he goes to Beijing then so should Danny

 

[skilbeck]

Nick D'Arcy didn't just punch someone in the face, he broke the other guy's guys nose, fractured his jaw or eye socket or something and sent him to the hospital. He's an arrogant young twat, look at his demeanor whenever interviewed.

Hard to compare pushing a refs arm away and (allegedly) punching the living shite out of someone in a bar.

zactly greenpoleffc.....hardly comparable to the most famous piss weak high five ever is it?....I say ban the chlorine breathin little puke from repping for australia ever again

the actions aren't comparable - one is a serious off-field (out of pool, whatever) indiscretion, the other is an on-field indiscretion involving a match official.

the punishments aren't comparable either - the two are very different incidents. one comes with criminal charges and the likely suspension from swimming for at least the olympics (given the nature of swimming and his career trajectory in particular, that's basically life) and the other comes with a 9 month competition ban which while significant is hardly career threatening.

a touch of perspective perhaps?

Darcy could still be in the Olympics you know. Alot of people including Grant Hackett are stating their support for the pisshead and still want him in the team.
If the rules are bent and he goes to Beijing then so should Danny

I agree. is there some appeal by the AOC or IOC that Danny can appeal to for the Olympics that would overrule the FFA? i.e. what is the relationship between the AOC and the FFA when it comes to the olyroos?

 

[Sean]

Well swimming is a part of the Olympics where we stand a chance at a medal or 12, so you can see why they would bend the rules for Darcy.
I dont know if AOC would give a shit about Danny and the Olyroos.

 

[FFC Mariner]

Given the exposure the game would get on FTA if the U23's go ok, you would think that the FFA would do whatever they had to to get the strongest team out there.

Reckon he would be playing if he was from Tards or Lowy FC??? I suspect he might.

 

[dibo]

Darcy could still be in the Olympics you know. Alot of people including Grant Hackett are stating their support for the pisshead and still want him in the team.
If the rules are bent and he goes to Beijing then so should Danny

I agree. is there some appeal by the AOC or IOC that Danny can appeal to for the Olympics that would overrule the FFA? i.e. what is the relationship between the AOC and the FFA when it comes to the olyroos?

Well swimming is a part of the Olympics where we stand a chance at a medal or 12, so you can see why they would bend the rules for Darcy.
I dont know if AOC would give a shit about Danny and the Olyroos.

Given the exposure the game would get on FTA if the U23's go ok, you would think that the FFA would do whatever they had to to get the strongest team out there.

Reckon he would be playing if he was from Tards or Lowy FC??? I suspect he might.

Im not going to be popular for this, but who cares about being popular

First things first - the D'Arcy incident has more in common with the OGrady matter than the Vukovic matter an out of competition incident that arguably brings the sport into disrepute. It has nothing to do with the laws of the game or the officials, its about reputation and being a role model more than it has anything to do with the sport itself. If DArcy is removed from the team it will be because hes brought his sport into disrepute.

Second sporting bodies have every right to set their own rules and nominate their teams for AOC endorsement. Whether it be Swimming Australia, Cycling Australia, Athletics Australia or the Football Federation Australia, they have their own rules, selection processes and most importantly sanctions for participants who break those rules. The AOC would set certain guidelines, but if say AA bans a sprinter or CA bans a mountain biker for breaches of their rules, the AOC aren't going to overrule them and nor should they.

Swimming Australia will be the body that determines the DArcy matter. FFA will deal with the Vukovic matter. If DArcy goes to Beijing, the FFA has no case to answer, they're completely unrelated.

Third rules are rules. Rules should not be bent on a whim, whether it be for the sake of someone qualifying for the Olympics or because your mates on the board, bending or outright breaking the rules rends the whole structure inoperable and without credibility. We might as well do away with it.

If rules are bent for the sake of Danny making the Olympic team, whats to stop the rules being bent to allow other things like Sydney breaching the salary cap or a Melbourne player getting off a suspension early because the finals are coming?

If we accept that there should be a set of rules to govern conduct within a sport then we should abide by and enforce those rules universally. Once you become a participant in the bending of rules, youre a hostage to it.

If Dannys suspension can be avoided or mitigated legitimately *within the rules*, then Id be very happy to see that happen. It may be argued that the rules are harsh or somewhat indiscriminate, but everyone who signs up to play is subject to them and they should be applied consistently and without fear or favour. Change them by all means, but in any moment they should be respected as written.

 

[Sean]

Darcy could still be in the Olympics you know. Alot of people including Grant Hackett are stating their support for the pisshead and still want him in the team.
If the rules are bent and he goes to Beijing then so should Danny

I agree. is there some appeal by the AOC or IOC that Danny can appeal to for the Olympics that would overrule the FFA? i.e. what is the relationship between the AOC and the FFA when it comes to the olyroos?

Well swimming is a part of the Olympics where we stand a chance at a medal or 12, so you can see why they would bend the rules for Darcy.
I dont know if AOC would give a shit about Danny and the Olyroos.

Given the exposure the game would get on FTA if the U23's go ok, you would think that the FFA would do whatever they had to to get the strongest team out there.

Reckon he would be playing if he was from Tards or Lowy FC??? I suspect he might.

Im not going to be popular for this, but who cares about being popular

First things first - the D'Arcy incident has more in common with the OGrady matter than the Vukovic matter an out of competition incident that arguably brings the sport into disrepute. It has nothing to do with the laws of the game or the officials, its about reputation and being a role model more than it has anything to do with the sport itself. If DArcy is removed from the team it will be because hes brought his sport into disrepute.

Second sporting bodies have every right to set their own rules and nominate their teams for AOC endorsement. Whether it be Swimming Australia, Cycling Australia, Athletics Australia or the Football Federation Australia, they have their own rules, selection processes and most importantly sanctions for participants who break those rules. The AOC would set certain guidelines, but if say AA bans a sprinter or CA bans a mountain biker for breaches of their rules, the AOC aren't going to overrule them and nor should they.

Swimming Australia will be the body that determines the DArcy matter. FFA will deal with the Vukovic matter. If DArcy goes to Beijing, the FFA has no case to answer, they're completely unrelated.

Third rules are rules. Rules should not be bent on a whim, whether it be for the sake of someone qualifying for the Olympics or because your mates on the board, bending or outright breaking the rules rends the whole structure inoperable and without credibility. We might as well do away with it.

If rules are bent for the sake of Danny making the Olympic team, whats to stop the rules being bent to allow other things like Sydney breaching the salary cap or a Melbourne player getting off a suspension early because the finals are coming?

If we accept that there should be a set of rules to govern conduct within a sport then we should abide by and enforce those rules universally. Once you become a participant in the bending of rules, youre a hostage to it.

If Dannys suspension can be avoided or mitigated legitimately *within the rules*, then Id be very happy to see that happen. It may be argued that the rules are harsh or somewhat indiscriminate, but everyone who signs up to play is subject to them and they should be applied consistently and without fear or favour. Change them by all means, but in any moment they should be respected as written.

I completely agree with you there Dibo and thanks for clearing that up.
I meant by rules being bent as in Darcy selected to go to Beijing despite this idiotic event due to pressuring of the Swimming Australia from reputable sources such as the media, Hackett and co (Wait for Dawn to get on board).
IF that happened, which I think would be likely, then why shouldn't the support for Danny such as opposing players Griffo and Bridge voicing their support, be taken into account. I know they are separate governing bodies, but there should be a consistency. This is if Darcy goes btw, im launching my rant early.

Also, this Darcy case could end up at the Court of Arbitration for Sport just like Danny's

 

[dibo]

CAS is where both will wind up i'll guess.

 

[BrisRecky]

well.......yes they are different governing bodies, swimming aust & the FFA I mean....BUT.....if they let a d'arcy go to china who has literally smashed a fellow team members face in with a king hit and who has charges pending, then why shouldnt danny show up to keep for the olyroos......geez what ever happened to copping consequences of your actions sweet.....

 

[dibo]

well.......yes they are different governing bodies, swimming aust & the FFA I mean....BUT.....if they let a d'arcy go to china who has literally smashed a fellow team members face in with a king hit and who has charges pending, then why shouldnt danny show up to keep for the olyroos......geez what ever happened to copping consequences of your actions sweet.....

because danny broke the rules and will have to cop the consequences.

if one process is obviously a farce, why should we want to copy it?

should danny claim 'swimming australia were dickheads, therefore you should let me go to beijing'?

 

[BrisRecky]

well aparently D'arcy broke the rules , of society, true danny broke the rules, but that chlorine breathin little bastard committed a felonios assault....why should he be rewarded with a swimming team spot

 

[FFC Mariner]

well.......yes they are different governing bodies, swimming aust & the FFA I mean....BUT.....if they let a d'arcy go to china who has literally smashed a fellow team members face in with a king hit and who has charges pending, then why shouldnt danny show up to keep for the olyroos......geez what ever happened to copping consequences of your actions sweet.....

because danny broke the rules and will have to cop the consequences.

if one process is obviously a farce, why should we want to copy it?

should danny claim 'swimming australia were dickheads, therefore you should let me go to beijing'?

Not too shabby a defence IMHO.

Stands up alongside the "it was dealt with on the pitch" type logic that the FFa have come up with.

A good defence is one that gets you off. You might be confusing justice with the law

 

[dibo]

well.......yes they are different governing bodies, swimming aust & the FFA I mean....BUT.....if they let a d'arcy go to china who has literally smashed a fellow team members face in with a king hit and who has charges pending, then why shouldnt danny show up to keep for the olyroos......geez what ever happened to copping consequences of your actions sweet.....

because danny broke the rules and will have to cop the consequences.

if one process is obviously a farce, why should we want to copy it?

should danny claim 'swimming australia were dickheads, therefore you should let me go to beijing'?

Not too shabby a defence IMHO.

Stands up alongside the "it was dealt with on the pitch" type logic that the FFa have come up with.

A good defence is one that gets you off. You might be confusing justice with the law

The 'dealt with on the pitch' thing is practically indefensible, but that in itself doesn't really help. There's no applicable precedent there - all they're really saying is that if they *could* have acted (as if they couldnt) then Griffiths wouldve been through a row of shithouses as well