[aguahombre]

 Aberlour10, on 2012-August-01, 10:23, said:

The sprinter from Paraguay comes to London even if he knows it will be only for 10-11 seconds while one run. Why does he do it? Because its Olympic Games.

Explain your recommendation to the Bridge Kids in China.

[phil_20686]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-01, 03:05, said:

The empty seats have been a MASSIVE issue in the UK, not sure how much that's been reported abroad.

This doesn't surprise me at all. I know some people who aren't using their tickets. Sometimes people applied for tones of tickets, but only planned to use them if they didn't get their first choice tickets. Sometimes people bought tickets on weekdays when there was a chance they could get a (part of) a day off work, as they didnt know if work would be busy or not at that time. For lots of professionals their workload goes up and down regularly, and they would not know far enough in advance if they could take time of for a week day session.

Reselling them through non official channels is illegal, and they are supposedly non-transferable, so if the person who has them decides not to go, they cannot even give them away to a friend.

[Aberlour10]

 aguahombre, on 2012-August-01, 10:42, said:

Explain your recommendation to the Bridge Kids in China.

To compare Olymic Games with bridge events where the weak teams have intenionally guaranteed a couple of matches in NON KO phase.....sorry but its......... apples and oranges.

[PassedOut]

 Phil, on 2012-August-01, 10:34, said:

Sorry, there's nothing wrong with dumping a match if it gives you a better chance of winning the event, or improving your chances for a medal. Dump if you need to, and work on changing the format later. Jon Brissman once told me after I asked if dumping was OK, "would you sacrifice an early trick if it meant insuring your contract?".

Shame on the Chinese coach for saying their players were 'conserving energy'. The SOK coach was childish, but at least he didn't lie about the team's strategy.

Agree completely. The objective is to win the whole event, not a specific match. If the organizers set the conditions of contest so that it is advantageous for a team to lose a match, the organizers are to blame for the ugly result, not the competitors.

[cherdano]

I hope Jeff Rubens' doctor is readily available when he gets the Badminton scandal news...

[ArtK78]

 PassedOut, on 2012-August-01, 10:59, said:

Agree completely. The objective is to win the whole event, not a specific match. If the organizers set the conditions of contest so that it is advantageous for a team to lose a match, the organizers are to blame for the ugly result, not the competitors.

Agree completely with this sentiment.

Clearly, this is a minority viewpoint. There was a discussion on Mike and Mike in the Morning on ESPN Radio this morning about this controversy. The apparent conclusion was that, while there was some sympathy for the competitors in dumping a match to better their chances in the overall event, athletes are under a moral and ethical obligation to perform their best at all times. So dumping a match was unethical.

[hrothgar]

 cherdano, on 2012-August-01, 11:02, said:

I hope Jeff Rubens' doctor is readily available when he gets the Badminton scandal news...

My first reaction was to think about the great debate over sportsmanlike dumping...

[aguahombre]

 Aberlour10, on 2012-August-01, 10:48, said:

To compare Olymic Games with bridge events where the weak teams have intenionally guaranteed a couple of matches in NON KO phase.....sorry but its......... apples and oranges.

I agree. In one case you have a pair of competitors who have trained and earned the privelege of representing their country at the highest level ---and people of that country have supported that quest financially and morally. In the other case you have a pair of competitors who....oh, wait

[dwar0123]

 PassedOut, on 2012-August-01, 10:59, said:

Agree completely. The objective is to win the whole event, not a specific match. If the organizers set the conditions of contest so that it is advantageous for a team to lose a match, the organizers are to blame for the ugly result, not the competitors.

Disagree completely.

The bridge analogy is flawed, intentionally losing a trick to insure a contract is done as a percentage increase of your expected average on a board, it is nothing like intentionally losing an entire match.

Sports have ethics and one of the basic ethics is that you play to win.
The Olympics is the pinnacle of sports and should represent the pinnacle of their ethics.

What the badmiditten players did was a disgrace and they should be booted from the competition.

However, I agree this does show a flaw in the competitions format and the format should be revised to address it, but that is no excuse for the players.

[1eyedjack]

My take. Whether it is against the rules to dump a game in a tourney? Well, that is down to the rules of the tourney. Do not get confused with what the rules state and what you think that they should state. Either it was legit or it was not. End of.

That said, a tournament format that provides an incentive to dump is in my view a flawed format. Personally I don't think that the application of skill to duck a trick in order to win a contract is a close analogy.

That said, once it is clear that that there is an incentive to dump but that dumping is illegal, the only logical end result is that players will dump but do it more subtly. How does that further the interests of the sport?

I do wonder where it is all going to end. What about all those team cyclists or middle to long distance runners who hang back during a race to act as pacers with no personal realistic chance of success purely in order to give a compatiriot a psychological boost?

[BunnyGo]

According to the NYTimes what the players did *was* against the rules "Players’ Code of Conduct, Sections 4.5 and 4.6, for “not using one’s best efforts to win a match” and “conducting oneself in a manner that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport.”" and so I must disagree with Phil and the others. One is to do everything to win within the rules--when the rules say (and I looked them up to quote more exactly) "Section 4.5 Failure to use best efforts: Blatantly and deliberately playing below his/her standard of strength." (section 4 is "inappropriate conduct").

So whether we agree with the tactic in theory, when it is specifically banned, it is no longer acceptable. So I find the players wholly at fault for the incident, no matter how badly people think the event is organized.

[BunnyGo]

In a related incident today, the Japanese world champion soccer team played one of the lowest ranked teams to a draw today. After the match the coach publicly admitted he did this to avoid the US and/or France in the next round. I do not know if this is allowed in the soccer rules.

[1eyedjack]

 BunnyGo, on 2012-August-01, 14:10, said:

According to the NYTimes what the players did *was* against the rules "Players' Code of Conduct, Sections 4.5 and 4.6, for "not using one's best efforts to win a match" and "conducting oneself in a manner that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport."" and so I must disagree with Phil and the others. One is to do everything to win within the rules--when the rules say (and I looked them up to quote more exactly) "Section 4.5 Failure to use best efforts: Blatantly and deliberately playing below his/her standard of strength." (section 4 is "inappropriate conduct").

So whether we agree with the tactic in theory, when it is specifically banned, it is no longer acceptable. So I find the players wholly at fault for the incident, no matter how badly people think the event is organized.

I think it is open to debate whether "conducting oneself in a manner that is calculated to maximising your chances of a [gold/silver/bronze/any/delete as appropriate] medal" is in fact the same as "conducting oneself in a manner that ls clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport"

I am sort of interested to know whether the players' code of conduct is a general code that applies across all olympic events or whether it is customised according to the particular sport or event. I say "sort of interested" because I am not sufficiently interested to go look it up. But if it is a general rule that spans disciplines then lt opens up the question what is the definition of a "match". Because one interpretation is that it might be a series of transactions that ends in the award of a medal.

[wyman]

 ArtK78, on 2012-August-01, 11:04, said:

Agree completely with this sentiment.

Clearly, this is a minority viewpoint. There was a discussion on Mike and Mike in the Morning on ESPN Radio this morning about this controversy. The apparent conclusion was that, while there was some sympathy for the competitors in dumping a match to better their chances in the overall event, athletes are under a moral and ethical obligation to perform their best at all times. So dumping a match was unethical.

 BunnyGo, on 2012-August-01, 14:10, said:

According to the NYTimes what the players did *was* against the rules "Players' Code of Conduct, Sections 4.5 and 4.6, for "not using one's best efforts to win a match" and "conducting oneself in a manner that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport."" and so I must disagree with Phil and the others. One is to do everything to win within the rules--when the rules say (and I looked them up to quote more exactly) "Section 4.5 Failure to use best efforts: Blatantly and deliberately playing below his/her standard of strength." (section 4 is "inappropriate conduct").

So whether we agree with the tactic in theory, when it is specifically banned, it is no longer acceptable. So I find the players wholly at fault for the incident, no matter how badly people think the event is organized.

 BunnyGo, on 2012-August-01, 14:12, said:

In a related incident today, the Japanese world champion soccer team played one of the lowest ranked teams to a draw today. After the match the coach publicly admitted he did this to avoid the US and/or France in the next round. I do not know if this is allowed in the soccer rules.

Was just jumping in to ask if something like playing your second stringers in a soccer match that doesn't matter violates the (spirit of the?) rules. What if the match matters but you are up 3 goals with 5 minutes to play?

[nigel_k]

 PassedOut, on 2012-August-01, 10:59, said:

Agree completely. The objective is to win the whole event, not a specific match. If the organizers set the conditions of contest so that it is advantageous for a team to lose a match, the organizers are to blame for the ugly result, not the competitors.

I don't think this is so, as a general principle. Each sport has its own code of ethics which has developed over the years. In basketball you can even foul intentionally, deliberately breaking the rules, and this can be regarded as good play. Whereas in cricket, there are people who are widely regarded as villains because they found unusual ways to win within the rules (bodyline, underarm etc).

I agree that the organizers should take some blame, but whether it is 10% or 90% or something in between, depends on the norms for that particular sport, not on any general principle.

[jeffford76]

As long as the format is flawed, people will dump matches. The next ones just won't be so obvious about it.

[Phil]

Everything I have read on the Badminton Federation's website indicates that the "not using one’s best efforts to win a match" appears to be an attempt to avoid throwing a match because people are gambling on it, and because of past bribes and payoffs, not because a team is trying to win a medal in the process. Honestly, I don't think the federation ever considered the ramifications of sportsmanlike dumping.

Furthermore, "conducting oneself in a manner that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport" actually mean? There's a significant split in the blogosphere about whether or not what they did was OK, so what is so clear about this offense?

[1eyedjack]

As with all things Olympics, I think it may come down to the money, rather than the medals. The officials do not want to encourage behaviour that leaves paying customers dissatisfied. A cacofony of boos is not good for business.

[Phil]

 dwar0123, on 2012-August-01, 13:45, said:

Disagree completely.

The bridge analogy is flawed, intentionally losing a trick to insure a contract is done as a percentage increase of your expected average on a board, it is nothing like intentionally losing an entire match.

Now, just don't throw this one out there and not support it!

A bridge trick is to a bridge hand as a match is to a tournament. The former is a microcosm of the latter.

Let me turn this around a little. What if the Laws of Bridge said, "not using one's best efforts to win a match trick". Wouldn't we have a silly little game? No hold-ups, no Bath Coups, no rectifying the count.

Just win tricks as quickly as you can.

[BunnyGo]

 1eyedjack, on 2012-August-01, 14:19, said:

I think it is open to debate whether "conducting oneself in a manner that is calculated to maximising your chances of a [gold/silver/bronze/any/delete as appropriate] medal" is in fact the same as "conducting oneself in a manner that ls clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport"

I am sort of interested to know whether the players' code of conduct is a general code that applies across all olympic events or whether it is customised according to the particular sport or event. I say "sort of interested" because I am not sufficiently interested to go look it up. But if it is a general rule that spans disciplines then lt opens up the question what is the definition of a "match". Because one interpretation is that it might be a series of transactions that ends in the award of a medal.

The one I found was badminton specific, but I do not know if there is a general one too. And I do not think there is a debate as to whether they violated 4.5 as the admitted they played below their best game on purpose.