If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Hartford Courant)   The 2012 Olympics: The year of the cheater   (courant.com) divider line 62
    More: Sad, cheats, cycling, International Cycling Union, badminton, olympics, British newspapers  
•       •       •

4046 clicks; posted to Sports » on 03 Aug 2012 at 10:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



62 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-03 09:39:10 AM
I saw that fencing debacle and I'm forced to agree.
 
2012-08-03 10:07:11 AM
Seems like a strange thing to admit.
 
2012-08-03 10:09:04 AM

unlikely: I saw that fencing debacle and I'm forced to agree.


The one where the clock didn't start and the fencer stood on the platform for 45 minutes? Or the homoerotic one?
 
2012-08-03 10:15:51 AM
I imagine at the Olympic level there is more cheating than most people realize. They are just pretty good about not getting caught.
 
2012-08-03 10:19:28 AM
And this is different from any other Olympics in modern history how?
 
2012-08-03 10:20:14 AM
Just one more reason (like I need one) to be glad I havn't wasted one second watching coverage of these Games.
 
2012-08-03 10:21:26 AM

John Buck 41: Just one more reason (like I need one) to be glad I havn't wasted one second watching coverage of these Games.


It's probably because you don't own a tv.
 
2012-08-03 10:22:26 AM
When, precisely, do we draw the line between the overall competition and individual performances? It's harder to draw the line between long term strategy and poor sportsmanship than you'd think. When is cheating, precisely, to operate within the rules of the tournament in way people didn't expect, in order to increase your over all chances of winning the tournament?
 
2012-08-03 10:24:35 AM
And we haven't even gotten to the track competition...
 
2012-08-03 10:26:29 AM

Mr Guy: When, precisely, do we draw the line between the overall competition and individual performances? It's harder to draw the line between long term strategy and poor sportsmanship than you'd think. When is cheating, precisely, to operate within the rules of the tournament in way people didn't expect, in order to increase your over all chances of winning the tournament?


many (most?) spots in the Olympics have a clause in the rules requiring you to try your hardest every match. By intentionally not trying your hardest in hopes of getting a better seed you're breaking the rules and cheating. That is how they got the badminton players and why they were disqualified.
 
2012-08-03 10:28:26 AM

Carth: Mr Guy: When, precisely, do we draw the line between the overall competition and individual performances? It's harder to draw the line between long term strategy and poor sportsmanship than you'd think. When is cheating, precisely, to operate within the rules of the tournament in way people didn't expect, in order to increase your over all chances of winning the tournament?

many (most?) spots in the Olympics have a clause in the rules requiring you to try your hardest every match. By intentionally not trying your hardest in hopes of getting a better seed you're breaking the rules and cheating. That is how they got the badminton players and why they were disqualified.


I still think it SHOULD be a valid appeal to say they were trying their hardest to win the entire tournament, not that match.
 
2012-08-03 10:31:47 AM

Mr Guy: When, precisely, do we draw the line between the overall competition and individual performances? It's harder to draw the line between long term strategy and poor sportsmanship than you'd think. When is cheating, precisely, to operate within the rules of the tournament in way people didn't expect, in order to increase your over all chances of winning the tournament?


Cheating has been rampant throughout every competition, not just the Olympics, since the beginning. How often do you hear about auto racing teams being fined or suspended, ffs? And I'm pretty sure every event has a 'dignity of the sport' clause that can get you kicked out for intentionally abusing the rules.

IMO, rather than allowing them to crash and restart we'd be better off just giving them a set number of goes (2 or 3) and their best score is what they can use.
 
2012-08-03 10:34:04 AM

Mr Guy: When, precisely, do we draw the line between the overall competition and individual performances? It's harder to draw the line between long term strategy and poor sportsmanship than you'd think. When is cheating, precisely, to operate within the rules of the tournament in way people didn't expect, in order to increase your over all chances of winning the tournament?


Isn't cheating always cheating? How can you cheat within the rules of the game? It doens't matter what the athlete(s) was trying to achieve, they cheated.
 
2012-08-03 10:36:14 AM

Mr Guy: Carth: Mr Guy: When, precisely, do we draw the line between the overall competition and individual performances? It's harder to draw the line between long term strategy and poor sportsmanship than you'd think. When is cheating, precisely, to operate within the rules of the tournament in way people didn't expect, in order to increase your over all chances of winning the tournament?

many (most?) spots in the Olympics have a clause in the rules requiring you to try your hardest every match. By intentionally not trying your hardest in hopes of getting a better seed you're breaking the rules and cheating. That is how they got the badminton players and why they were disqualified.

I still think it SHOULD be a valid appeal to say they were trying their hardest to win the entire tournament, not that match.


I agree but think the time to argue for that change is before the tournament starts. Not after you've already agreed to play by the rules and realize they aren't in your best interests.
 
2012-08-03 10:38:12 AM

Lego_Addict: Isn't cheating always cheating? How can you cheat within the rules of the game? It doens't matter what the athlete(s) was trying to achieve, they cheated.


That's what I'm driving at. They are being called cheaters for doing something entirely within the rules of the game, because they are willing to swallow their ego for a small event in order to optimize for a larger event, within the rules of the competition. They are being called cheaters, because that's being labeled as "not trying". Well, they are trying to win the entire thing. So how do we draw the line, if the only rule they broke is not trying, and your rules for the overall competition favor them being restrained in a single match?
 
2012-08-03 10:38:14 AM
2012? Hell, cheating was institutionalized 40 years ago!

www.faniq.com
 
2012-08-03 10:38:41 AM
So, just like every other Olympics, then?

/sending NBA players is the biggest cheat of them all.
 
2012-08-03 10:38:50 AM

Lego_Addict: It doens't matter what the athlete(s) was trying to achieve, they cheated.


If they're not breaking the rules, rather using the poorly-written rules to gain an advantage, it's not really cheating. It's as douchey and it should get you mocked and shamed as things like Hack-A-Shaq, though, which is also technically a valid strategy but is an affront to the sport.
 
2012-08-03 10:40:02 AM

Crewmannumber6: So, just like every other Olympics, then?

/sending NBA players is the biggest cheat of them all.


Yeah, it's only fair when every other country sends their professionals and the US has to send amateurs.
 
2012-08-03 10:41:44 AM

IAmRight: Crewmannumber6: So, just like every other Olympics, then?

/sending NBA players is the biggest cheat of them all.

Yeah, it's only fair when every other country sends their professionals and the US has to send amateurs.


So you're saying because other people cheat, it's ok if we do?

/i thought we were supposed to be better than that
 
2012-08-03 10:48:18 AM

FishyFred: unlikely: I saw that fencing debacle and I'm forced to agree.

The one where the clock didn't start and the fencer stood on the platform for 45 minutes? Or the homoerotic one?


Clock. That was such BS. I have no idea why the bout committee didn't overturn the touch, but there's no good reason for it.
 
2012-08-03 10:51:12 AM

Crewmannumber6: So you're saying because other people cheat, it's ok if we do?


When the world governing body votes to allow professional athletes to play in the Games, as they did in '89, we're supposed to not send our professionals because it's "cheating" to be really good at something. FIBA was the organization that wanted NBA players in the Olympics, not the other way around. The NBA is actively trying to get its players out of it because the Olympics isn't worth it for them. The Olympics want them around because Olympic basketball is irrelevant without NBA players.
 
2012-08-03 10:53:08 AM

Crewmannumber6: IAmRight: Crewmannumber6: So, just like every other Olympics, then?

/sending NBA players is the biggest cheat of them all.

Yeah, it's only fair when every other country sends their professionals and the US has to send amateurs.

So you're saying because other people cheat, it's ok if we do?

/i thought we were supposed to be better than that


Fark that, basketball is ours. We sent our best and proved our point. It will go back to the kids here pretty quick though, don't worry.
 
2012-08-03 10:57:04 AM

Mr Guy: Lego_Addict: Isn't cheating always cheating? How can you cheat within the rules of the game? It doens't matter what the athlete(s) was trying to achieve, they cheated.

That's what I'm driving at. They are being called cheaters for doing something entirely within the rules of the game, because they are willing to swallow their ego for a small event in order to optimize for a larger event, within the rules of the competition. They are being called cheaters, because that's being labeled as "not trying". Well, they are trying to win the entire thing. So how do we draw the line, if the only rule they broke is not trying, and your rules for the overall competition favor them being restrained in a single match?


But they did break the rules and they are cheaters.

Just arguing semantics.
 
2012-08-03 10:57:58 AM

Lego_Addict: But they did break the rules and they are cheaters.


Depends on how you want to read the rules.
 
2012-08-03 11:02:18 AM
How on earth is sending NBA players to the Olympics cheating? If I recall correctly, I believe a few of the other countries also have NBA talent on their rosters. I didn't know the US was required to handicap itself because its players are better.
 
2012-08-03 11:05:43 AM

bborchar: How on earth is sending NBA players to the Olympics cheating? If I recall correctly, I believe a few of the other countries also have NBA talent on their rosters. I didn't know the US was required to handicap itself because its players are better.


People are trying to cling to some long-dead notion of amateurism.
 
2012-08-03 11:10:22 AM

Lego_Addict: Mr Guy: Lego_Addict: Isn't cheating always cheating? How can you cheat within the rules of the game? It doens't matter what the athlete(s) was trying to achieve, they cheated.

That's what I'm driving at. They are being called cheaters for doing something entirely within the rules of the game, because they are willing to swallow their ego for a small event in order to optimize for a larger event, within the rules of the competition. They are being called cheaters, because that's being labeled as "not trying". Well, they are trying to win the entire thing. So how do we draw the line, if the only rule they broke is not trying, and your rules for the overall competition favor them being restrained in a single match?

But they did break the rules and they are cheaters.

Just arguing semantics.


That's a pretty big semantic argument, when it's how you interpret the ONLY RULE they potentially broke, and in their minds, they were acting in the best interests of winning a gold.
 
2012-08-03 11:12:49 AM

IAmRight: Lego_Addict: But they did break the rules and they are cheaters.

Depends on how you want to read the rules.


BWF's Players' Code of Conduct section 4.5 says it is against the rules to ""not using one's best efforts to win a match" (emphasis mine). I don't think you can read that as saying throwing a match is ok.

I do think it is a dumb rule that requires players go go against their best interest and shouldn't be there.
 
2012-08-03 11:16:50 AM

TheLopper: John Buck 41: Just one more reason (like I need one) to be glad I havn't wasted one second watching coverage of these Games.

It's probably because you don't own a tv.


Hey, I'm no hipster-doofus/snob.
 
2012-08-03 11:17:58 AM

UNC_Samurai: People are trying to cling to some long-dead notion of amateurism.


Even though the Olympics/FIBA were the ones that lobbied the NBA to send their players, not the other way around.
 
2012-08-03 11:18:06 AM

bborchar: How on earth is sending NBA players to the Olympics cheating? If I recall correctly, I believe a few of the other countries also have NBA talent on their rosters. I didn't know the US was required to handicap itself because its players are better.


But this isn't college, this is the Olympics. If the rules of the Olympics don't call for amateurs to play, then it's not cheating to send professionals.
 
2012-08-03 11:26:00 AM

UNC_Samurai: People are trying to cling to some long-dead notion of amateurism.


Yes I am clinging desperately to that. I need my illusions
 
2012-08-03 11:29:39 AM

Mr Guy: Lego_Addict: Isn't cheating always cheating? How can you cheat within the rules of the game? It doens't matter what the athlete(s) was trying to achieve, they cheated.

That's what I'm driving at. They are being called cheaters for doing something entirely within the rules of the game, because they are willing to swallow their ego for a small event in order to optimize for a larger event, within the rules of the competition. They are being called cheaters, because that's being labeled as "not trying". Well, they are trying to win the entire thing. So how do we draw the line, if the only rule they broke is not trying, and your rules for the overall competition favor them being restrained in a single match?


You sound like someone that would cheat at board games.
 
2012-08-03 11:33:29 AM

IAmRight: Lego_Addict: But they did break the rules and they are cheaters.

Depends on how you want to read the rules.


Well the IOC wrote the rules, and the IOC said they cheated. Therefore, they cheated.

/There's no gray area here.
 
2012-08-03 11:46:15 AM

chuggernaught: Well the IOC wrote the rules, and the IOC said they cheated. Therefore, they cheated.


Well, the Badminton World Federation said they broke the rules.

So those people "cheated" and got disqualified. I love that they're forced to win even if it's against their best interest.

The other people (mentioned in the article) "cheated" in a far more offensive way, but since it's within the rules, hey, no problem!
 
2012-08-03 11:54:50 AM

UNC_Samurai: 2012? Hell, cheating was institutionalized 40 years ago!

[www.faniq.com image 512x288]


Oh good gravy... I just read the wiki on this one (1972 men's olympic basketball) and it doesn't sound like cheating it sounds like 100% cluster fark incompetence. The US was losing the game before the free throws and they lost the game after the free throws. If your whole game depends on 3 seconds of play in basketball, it means it was a REALLY close game...

Incompetence is NOT cheating. Too bad for the US; they were on the wrong side of the incompetence this time. But they've been on the right side of incompetence, too.
 
2012-08-03 12:00:35 PM

Mr Guy: They are being called cheaters for doing something entirely within the rules of the game,


Except it's not within the rules of the game. The referee warned them during the match.
 
rka
2012-08-03 12:11:45 PM
You always get the yearly "tank for a draft pick" talk in US sports. That always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Not quite the same thing but still against "the spirit of competition".

There's also the whole NFL "sit out your starters when you have a playoff spot locked up", but that's usually a bit different in that the playoff spot is already locked up. If winning or losing doesn't affect the playoff spot (of you, or anyone else) then it's just a bit of letdown to fans.

If a NFL team was sitting their starters and that did affect positioning..and they were doing it to duck a stronger 1st round opponent...that's just sad.
 
2012-08-03 12:18:09 PM

ds394: The US was losing the game before the free throws and they lost the game after the free throws.


The US was up 50-49. And really, you read the whole thing and you think the problem was just related to the free throws? Even if they had called the timeout between the free throws, the clock would've been running after Collins made his FT and the game would've been over. You don't get to run at the scorer's table after a play and get the clock stopped.

You're also not allowed to substitute without the timeout (which hadn't been called), then get an extra two seconds as though no time elapsed, then have 50 seconds put on the clock, etc., have the refs order you to back off the inbounds passer despite no rule saying you have to.

Nah, that's totally legit and normal to have buzzers randomly go off, allow one team to violate every rule, make the other team adhere to rules that don't even exist, and give them as many chances as they need to get it right, thanks to a FIBA executive coming in and conferring with the refs...a FIBA exec who was quoted as saying "The Americans have to learn to lose."

Nah, that sounds legit.
 
2012-08-03 12:19:03 PM
I guess nobody saw the boxing debacle with the Japanese and Azerbaijani bantamweights? They're claiming that the fix was in after the Japanese guy knocked the other one down six times in one round - and then lost the match. He protested and it was overturned - the ref should've given the other guy at least three standing counts, which would've ended the match. Of course, this all happened after Azerbaijan "loaned" $10M to the Amateur International Boxing Association, which oversaw the competition - and were supposedly promised two golds in boxing in return.
 
2012-08-03 12:20:05 PM

rka: There's also the whole NFL "sit out your starters when you have a playoff spot locked up", but that's usually a bit different in that the playoff spot is already locked up. If winning or losing doesn't affect the playoff spot (of you, or anyone else) then it's just a bit of letdown to fans.


In the NBA and NHL, sometimes teams will tank for favorable playoff matchups as well. For example, the Heat definitely didn't try to overtake the Bulls late in the season when Indiana locked up the third seed and Boston was locked in the fourth.

Why not try to avoid Boston if you can, and take on a much easier to beat Pacers team?
 
2012-08-03 12:29:37 PM
I don't understand this Badminton one.. If they set up the tournament in such a way that it would be desirable to throw matches in order to get into a favorable group, what did they expect would happen? Sounds like the people who set up the tournament format should expel themselves instead of the competitors.
 
2012-08-03 12:41:36 PM

CanuckInCA: Sounds like the people who set up the tournament format should expel themselves instead of the competitors.


HAHAHA as though Olympic organizers would ever say they've made a mistake.

See, the Olympics come from Olympus, home of the gods. Therefore, the people in charge of the Olympics are gods. Therefore, they are infallible. Therefore, anyone trying to subvert their divine will shall be punished. Therefore, disqualification.
 
2012-08-03 12:47:33 PM

Mr Guy: Lego_Addict: Mr Guy: Lego_Addict: Isn't cheating always cheating? How can you cheat within the rules of the game? It doens't matter what the athlete(s) was trying to achieve, they cheated.

That's what I'm driving at. They are being called cheaters for doing something entirely within the rules of the game, because they are willing to swallow their ego for a small event in order to optimize for a larger event, within the rules of the competition. They are being called cheaters, because that's being labeled as "not trying". Well, they are trying to win the entire thing. So how do we draw the line, if the only rule they broke is not trying, and your rules for the overall competition favor them being restrained in a single match?

But they did break the rules and they are cheaters.

Just arguing semantics.

That's a pretty big semantic argument, when it's how you interpret the ONLY RULE they potentially broke, and in their minds, they were acting in the best interests of winning a gold.


Not potentially, they did break it!

I see where your coming from and yes, maybe the rule is stupid, but they are cheaters in this case.
 
2012-08-03 12:50:58 PM

IAmRight: CanuckInCA: Sounds like the people who set up the tournament format should expel themselves instead of the competitors.

HAHAHA as though Olympic organizers would ever say they've made a mistake.

See, the Olympics come from Olympus, home of the gods. Therefore, the people in charge of the Olympics are gods. Therefore, they are infallible. Therefore, anyone trying to subvert their divine will shall be punished. Therefore, disqualification.


The IOC are assholes, there is no shortage of evidence for that.
 
2012-08-03 01:00:57 PM

IAmRight: ds394: The US was losing the game before the free throws and they lost the game after the free throws.

The US was up 50-49. And really, you read the whole thing and you think the problem was just related to the free throws? Even if they had called the timeout between the free throws, the clock would've been running after Collins made his FT and the game would've been over. You don't get to run at the scorer's table after a play and get the clock stopped.

You're also not allowed to substitute without the timeout (which hadn't been called), then get an extra two seconds as though no time elapsed, then have 50 seconds put on the clock, etc., have the refs order you to back off the inbounds passer despite no rule saying you have to.

Nah, that's totally legit and normal to have buzzers randomly go off, allow one team to violate every rule, make the other team adhere to rules that don't even exist, and give them as many chances as they need to get it right, thanks to a FIBA executive coming in and conferring with the refs...a FIBA exec who was quoted as saying "The Americans have to learn to lose."

Nah, that sounds legit.


Okay... it's not like the Americans were creaming the Russians and there was blatant cheating. Like I said, it was a huge cluster fark... There were officials making calls when they weren't supposed to, there were miscommunication problems with judges, there were mistakes by time keepers.

BEFORE the free throws:
With the U.S. team trailing 49-48 in the waning seconds

In fact the US was never in the lead the whole game until AFTER those 2 free throws.

So like I said, the US didn't play a game that showed they were clearly the gold-medal team; it wasn't even a close game for most of the game. The Russians benefited from mistakes by judges at the last second... and that's how the ball rolls. Even with all this, it isn't like there was suspicion that the judges were paid off or anything, it was just mistake on mistake on mistake. That's NOT cheating... that's just life. So the US can quit biatching and take off the tinfoil hats.

(In reality, this seems more akin to the fencer that wouldn't leave the floor because there were mistakes with the clock.)
 
2012-08-03 01:24:26 PM
You Play to Win the Game.
 
2012-08-03 01:25:59 PM

ds394: Okay... it's not like the Americans were creaming the Russians and there was blatant cheating.


If they were creaming them, then the opportunity to hand the game to the other team wouldn't have been there.

ds394: BEFORE the free throws:
With the U.S. team trailing 49-48 in the waning seconds


No part of it is a controversy until the game is 49-49 with three seconds left. That's when there's a buzzer in the middle of a FT (doesn't throw him off though, fortunately, and he makes the shot). Then the clock continues to run. Then the Soviet coach runs onto the floor (should be a technical, at minimum, and the game should continue playing if he's not assessed with one) and yells at the timekeeper. So far that's two seconds and another point for the US at minimum that should be gone and added to their total, which would make it a 2-point game (where there are no threes) with one second left.

Then they decide, thanks to a FIBA exec rushing in and ordering it despite having no authority to do so, to give the Soviets two more seconds and not call any technical foul, and allow them to start again with a stopped clock, while performing an illegal substitution, while not having to use a timeout.

Then the Soviets fail on the next attempt, so they get a third attempt, where the referee orders the American defender to not play inbounds defense despite him playing a legal defense, and thanks to this, the Russian inbounder gets an easy open pass to a teammate, who scores.

Yeah, that doesn't seem like anyone was paid off or conspiring to help one team win, especially when the head of the organization comes down to ensure that one team gets as many chances as they need to win.

When the buzzer goes off when the Americans have the ball? Oh, hey, nothing wrong with that. When it goes off when the Soviets have the ball? HEY WHOA EVERYONE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO THIS AGAIN.
 
2012-08-03 01:46:07 PM
does resting your starters because you have a playoff spot locked up count as cheating??
 
Displayed 50 of 62 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report