A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
mump boy wrote:But none of this is even relevant to the discussion of whether you should have the manners to to collect your medals.
Mump, which is more important
Mind you manners or Stick to your principles ?
I hope it's become abundantly clear that many (many!!) people believe the USA was CHEATED out of the gold (you may disagree, feel free). If you believed you were CHEATED out of something, would you just meekly go along with the charade or would you protest in the most effective manner available to you (refuse the medals)?
That is ALL we're saying (and for some reason, you are unwilling to understand).
The 2 are not mutually exclusive, there is no need to be meek or take part in a charade in order to show some respect for everyone who has ever won a silver medal.
Do you believe Yang Tae-Young was meek and hypocriticals by collecting his medal ? which he did with class and dignity
I understand you, i just disagree, i'm still clinging to the olympic ideals of good sportsmanship and taking part
Last edited by mump boy on Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mump boy wrote:i'm still clinging to the olympic ideals of good sportsmanship and taking part
The Olympic Ideals ship sailed when the FIBA boss intervened and the refs misapplied the rules. That ship then sank on the reef of craven authority that did not correct the miscarriage of justice. No one in good conscience can be party to that and consider themselves to have partaken in Baron de Coubertin's vision.
mump boy wrote:i'm still clinging to the olympic ideals of good sportsmanship and taking part
The Olympic Ideals ship sailed when the FIBA boss intervened and the refs misapplied the rules. That ship then sank on the reef of craven authority that did not correct the miscarriage of justice. No one in good conscience can be party to that and consider themselves to have partaken in Baron de Coubertin's vision.
2 wrongs etc
ever heard of taking the moral high ground ? actually it only works if you have any to take !!
mump boy wrote:2 wrongs etc ever heard of taking the moral high ground ? actually it only works if you have any to take !!
??!! So you freely admit that being 'proper' is more important than taking a principled stand against something that is obviously wrong. Then THERE is your answer - we (kuha, I, pego, etc.) don't.
mump boy wrote:2 wrongs etc ever heard of taking the moral high ground ? actually it only works if you have any to take !!
??!! So you freely admit that being 'proper' is more important than taking a principled stand against something that is obviously wrong. Then THERE is your answer - we (kuha, I, pego, etc.) don't.
Tommie Smith and John Carlos took a principles stand, this lot are just sulking
mump boy wrote:2 wrongs etc ever heard of taking the moral high ground ? actually it only works if you have any to take !!
??!! So you freely admit that being 'proper' is more important than taking a principled stand against something that is obviously wrong. Then THERE is your answer - we (kuha, I, pego, etc.) don't.
Tommie Smith and John Carlos took a principles stand, this lot are just sulking
All right mump, some principles are more noble than some others. Let me ask you 3 yes-or-no questions.
1. Is it appropriate for the head of a federation to interfere with administration of the game and order referees what to do?
2. Is such a conduct established in that federation's by-laws?
3. Are you aware of any such interference occurring at any other time?
mump boy wrote:Tommie Smith and John Carlos took a principles stand, this lot are just sulking
I wondered why your responses seemed so ridiculous, but now I think I've figured out why: despite having strong views on the subject, you never bothered to even read the article or fully understand the circumstances and that makes you unqualified to share your opinion. Because, if you had read the article you would clearly understand that the athletes are NOT lobbying for their medals. There's no difference between Smith&Carlos and the '72 team. They took a stand and they suffered the consequences. labelling the '72 team as sulkers proves you're not as enlightened on this as you would have us believe.
mump boy wrote:Tommie Smith and John Carlos took a principles stand, this lot are just sulking
I wondered why your responses seemed so ridiculous, but now I think I've figured out why: despite having strong views on the subject, you never bothered to even read the article or fully understand the circumstances and that makes you unqualified to share your opinion. Because, if you had read the article you would clearly understand that the athletes are NOT lobbying for their medals. There's no difference between Smith&Carlos and the '72 team. They took a stand and they suffered the consequences. labelling the '72 team as sulkers proves you're not as enlightened on this as you would have us believe.
i never said they were lobbying for medals !! i said they were sulking because they didn't get the result they wanted. I believe that when you sign up to play sport the final decisions are not yours to make, if you don't want to leave it to the mercy of officials make sure you're a mile ahead.
I'm not really commenting on the rights or wrongs of this decision as i've said before there are different sides to the story. My point for the last time is whatever the outcome you should collect your medal. Disagree, complain, protest, as much as you like and good luck with it but in UK we are taught that even if you don't like a result you act like a good sportsman.
Once again i ask what is the difference between this episode and that of Roy Jones Jnr or Yang Tae-Young who according to your logic have no principles but in my eyes have a lot of dignity
mump boy wrote:i never said they were lobbying for medals !! i said they were sulking because they didn't get the result they wanted. I believe that when you sign up to play sport the final decisions are not yours to make, if you don't want to leave it to the mercy of officials make sure you're a mile ahead.
I'm not really commenting on the rights or wrongs of this decision as i've said before there are different sides to the story. My point for the last time is whatever the outcome you should collect your medal. Disagree, complain, protest, as much as you like and good luck with it but in UK we are taught that even if you don't like a result you act like a good sportsman.
Once again i ask what is the difference between this episode and that of Roy Jones Jnr or Yang Tae-Young who according to your logic have no principles but in my eyes have a lot of dignity
What you describe as "sulking" could easily be described as a political stance (Don't be naive, the IOC and the federations that make it up are political bodies). A stance that was little different than Smith/Carlos/Norman and probably akin to the korean boxer who was banned for life for sitting in the ring. Even the Cuban Taekwando guy's kick could be a statement. Sport is supposed to be fair, devoid of politics and external manipulation. That's why the rules of sport are so important. It's not like war where anything goes, that's why we have drug testing, lane violations and false starts. The '72 protest of the medal ceremony, to me (and possibly others) is as much a protest of the IOC/FIBA and the "feel good hypocrisy" of the Olympics as Smith/Carlos/Norman was towards injustice in the USA. In fact, '72 Team was more relevant for directly protesting the Olympics medal ceremonies as opposed to a protest on the Olympic podiums - which is what happened in '68.
All that said, unsurprisingly you jumped to conclusions. I never gave logic about Jones, jr or Yang or even Holyfield- who would fit your criteria of accepting the result no matter; I assumed you were asking your questions of other posters.
mump boy wrote:Once again i ask what is the difference between this episode and that of Roy Jones Jnr
I answered this question above. Here is the repeat.
Pego wrote:Referee's errors are part of sports and I would never say a word if that decided the game. If Mr Jones kept his ass in his seat and his mouth shut as he should, there would be no "controversy". I cannot comprehend how can anybody with knowledge of sports justify his actions.
I am awaiting your reply to my 3 yes-or-no questions a few posts above.
mump boy wrote:My point for the last time is whatever the outcome you should collect your medal.
I sure hope that in LIFE, when you are cheated, unfairly treated, or discriminated against, you just bite your tongue and take it, cuz I wouldn't want you to be a hypocrite. Sports is SUPPOSED to be fair, life isn't; so when life isn't fair, we should definitely shut up and accept it, right?
mump boy wrote:My point for the last time is whatever the outcome you should collect your medal.
I sure hope that in LIFE, when you are cheated, unfairly treated, or discriminated against, you just bite your tongue and take it, cuz I wouldn't want you to be a hypocrite. Sports is SUPPOSED to be fair, life isn't; so when life isn't fair, we should definitely shut up and accept it, right?
That's only "logical," yes! It's best to be polite to the mugger who takes your wallet--"Have a good day, kind sir"--or to the drunk driver who smashes into you on the highway--"I'm dreadfully sorry I got in your way."
bekayne wrote:But can you refuse medals because of the ineptitude of the refs?
Look at my posts above. The key here is not the refs but an outside interference by FIBA's Secretary-General.
Parting shot. Of course you can refuse a medal for any reason. Pego is absolutely right. Had there been no illegal repeat of the last three seconds, the ref could not have made the illegal restriction on the throw in. You can discuss the facts and exchange opinions but you cannot change the facts and rarely do facts change a pre-disposed opinon. As in all things, some opt for submission, some for principal. So be it.
after again reading mumps belief on what he believes should happen, I read through one of the athletes comments regarding the medal 20 years after the incident (and 20 years ago). This man doesn't sound like a whiner (whinger? for mump).
I've hardly got a scrap of evidence that I played in those Games, except for a letter from Richard Nixon on my basement wall, saying, "You're still champs in my eyes." Oh, yeah, and one other thing. When I got back to America, my mother had something for me. It was a gold charm that looks like a gold medal, and when I came home she put it around my neck. I've kept it on ever since—it's the only jewelry I wear. My mom's gold medal, that's good enough for me. The guys on the team who want the silver will never get it. I'll always vote no.
-Kevin Joyce
Article IX I devise and bequeath at my death that my wife Rita and children Jill and Bryan and their descendants never accept a silver medal from the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, West Germany. —KENNY DAVIS, 1991
But no, I'll never take that medal. By being adamant, I believe we can stop this kind of thing from ever happening again. Every Olympic official will have to think twice before he ever does something like that to anyone else. That's why I vote no.
Then I have to sit and watch them take it from us. My wife says, "Why don't you go get that medal? So your son can have it." Hell, no. He can wear my Olympic ring. I want my medal. Not no silver. I want my gold. It's probably sitting around some Russian's neck right now. That thing should be in my trophy case in my game room, dead center. I vote no.
-Dwight Jones
I'm still pissed at Dwight Jones for getting thrown out of the game. Know what he said to me one time? He said he doesn't want the silver for himself, but he wants it to show his kids. Man, just use a book or a film to show your kids you were in it—you don't need no medal. I told my son, "You do not accept that silver medal when I'm dead and gone. Your dad deserved the gold, don't you ever take no silver." Some of the guys on that team are punking out on me, they're punking out. But it's got to be unanimous, and they won't get me. I'll always vote no.
-Tom Henderson
Anyway, some of these guys sound as principled as the first day and some are wavering with one outright saying yes.
By the way, duplicate gold medals have been awarded after judges or officials nobbled the results... Canucks Sylvie Frechette in synchro swimming and Pelletier and Sale in figure skating.
Article IX I devise and bequeath at my death that my wife Rita and children Jill and Bryan and their descendants never accept a silver medal from the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, West Germany. —KENNY DAVIS, 1991
But no, I'll never take that medal. By being adamant, I believe we can stop this kind of thing from ever happening again. Every Olympic official will have to think twice before he ever does something like that to anyone else. That's why I vote no.
Newsflash, Kenny Davis...that didn't stop them then and won't stop them anytime soon. The 2012 Olympics had the normal amount of crap officiating by the usual suspects.
It's interesting reading the different views on the game but I think the situation also needs to be looked back upon as it occurred and that includes the fact that this was a sport the US had never lost before. So there is/was the element of entitlement to the game. Plus it was vs. the hated Russians. Maybe if it were Canada there wouldn't have been such a ruckus...or we would have sent troops into Montreal...one of the two.
While the refs gummed things up for sure, I don't feel any conspiracy was involved although as a 15 year old vs. the hated Russians I surely felt differently. I'm still not clear on the timeout rule as to whether it could be called after the free throws and it certainly appears that the correct procedure was not used by the Russian coach. However, once the timeout was allowed by the referees, there should have been 3 seconds on the clock and the timer made an error which can always be corrected by the referee and would happen in any NBA game currently. Why McMillan wasn't permitted to defend I'm not sure and I'm also not clear that there weren't language issues involved which might have had McMillan misunderstand the instructions given by the referee.
As to whether they should have or should currently accept their medals....I'm not a big fan of carrying the cross over something like this. Accept it and move on.
Feature articlel about this in this mornings Daily Oklahoman sport page..first hand account from one Jack Herron, Iba's assistant and consultant during team selection...Don Haskins, retired UTEP coach, was asst Oly coach. He wanted to keep the team off the floor until the language snafu was sorted out.. Iba overruled him..Herron says the FIBA official, Mr. Jones, threatened to forfeit the game on the spot.. (I don't know if the had that authority).. Iba reportedly said he would rather lose the game on the court than in the locker room. Herron supports Iba's decision... without condemning the teams decision.. Largely forgotten is that US was not a world basketball power at the time and the makeshift team was not the best possible team the US could have put together..the mandate was to include one service member, one from the largely defunct AAU and Iba had one personal pick..UCLA's Bill Walton and Swen Nater were not on the team, reportedly the result of John Woodens ruff for never having been named Olympic coach..
but in my eyes have a lot of dignity