At the Olympics? Surely you jest.
There are simply too many compromises, too many rules, and too many possible circumstances for reforms to eliminate fresh controversies. But there is one solution that, while not perfect, is better than all the others. Let's call it "The Goose Gossage Rule." In 1983, Gossage, pitching in relief for the New York Yankees, gave up a key home run to Kansas City's George Brett in what would become one of the most famous rules disputes in baseball history. The "Pine Tar Incident" erupted when Yankees manager Billy Martin invoked an obscure rule when he saw that Brett's bat was illegally smeared with pine tar. (Pine tar is sometimes used to cover incisions in bats that have been corked, though there was no charge that Brett's bat was corked.) The league subsequently invalidated Brett's home run and ruled him out on the play. (In the bizarre aftermath, the two teams later met to finish the meaningless game in front of a handful of amused spectators.) Gossage, when interviewed in the postgame locker room, had a more direct and sensible solution that no one paid any attention to: "Do-overs. You know, like when you were kids and you argued about some game you were playing in the street. The best compromise was always just to do it over. It was the only compromise that everyone would agree on." "Do-overs" would not be an entirely satisfactory solution to the Hamm-Yang controversy but nothing else would either. A do-over, at the very least, offers the possibility of a solution that wouldn't be made by lawyers or a rules committee. What athlete worth a medal wouldn't prefer to settle things on a field, on a court or in a gym? Would the sponsors and the television network be happy with do-overs? Are you serious? Ticket sales and ratings would soar to an all-time high. And finally, what of the fans? Isn't the thrill of meaningful competition precisely what the Olympics is all about?My question would be, why should Hamm have to do it over? It wasn't his fault that the judges goofed with their math. It was, dare I even suggest it, the judges' fault. God, I am so freakin' sick and tired of stupid suggestions like this, not to mention false controversies that arise out of a perceived need in the media for such controversies, you know, to make things more interesting. Does anyone actually think the USOC would have involved itself in trying to negotiate a "resolution" with the Koreans if the press hadn't jumped all over this story? I don't. Hamm shouldn't have to "do over" what he didn't goof in the first place. Nor should he have to hand over his gold medal and "do the right thing." Man, this pisses me off, and I feel sorry for poor Paul Hamm. He's being cast as the bad guy because the perception is that he benefited from the error, when that actually has yet to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But he won, there were goofs, he's American so obviously there's something to it. What happened here? It's pretty simple: the Koreans dropped the proverbial ball. They didn't notice during the rotation that Yang's routine had had an incorrect starting level attached to it. Yes the judges goofed, but it was their responsibility to a. notice it and b. to contest the result within the rotation. They didn't do this. In fact, we didn't hear anything about it until a few days after the competition. The Koreans then chose to whine. Yet, the FIG said they couldn't do anything about it, while simultaneously having a few choice words with their judges. Nor could the IOC couldn't do anything about it. This was, in essence, no big deal and everyone knew it. There's a procedure for dealing with this sort of thing, the Koreans didn't avail themselves of it and Yang lost out on the Gold as a result. Who's fault is that? Not Paul Hamm's and if everyone had stayed on the same page, this would have blown over eventually. But not now. The real brouhaha began when the USOC got involved. They're trying to "find a resolution" to the problem. Now everyone and their brother seems to have an opinion on this because the general assumption seems to be that there must be a problem if the USOC is involved. Well, far be it from me to point this out, but there is no conflict, hence no need for a resolution. This is sour grapes writ large. Sour grapes that could be loaded with the tannin of anti-American fervor. And God only knows we can't have anyone hating Americans. That would be bad. So, what does the USOC do? They negotiate with the Koreans to find a resolution, an act which gives legitimacy to their gripes. Now everyone has to take it seriously. It appears to me that the USOC would rather appease other countries than stick up for one of their own. They've essentially abandoned their own because they have no collective spine. What's worse is that it wasn't necessary to try and douse the flames. The fire hadn't even really started up, yet the USOC poured kerosene on it and revived it. Personally, for all the hype about how anti-American these games were supposed to be, I haven't seen it. If it was there, I'm sure NBC would have pointed it out. The commentators for other worldwide media outlets may say something different, but I prefer to go by crowd reactions and I simply haven't seen anything close to what the media was predicting. Case in point: Gary Hall, Jr. On Saturday night, he walked out to his lane at the pool wearing a Rocky-esque satin robe and shorts, the entire ensemble emblazoned with the stars and stripes, and I didn't hear any boos from the crowd. If there was a situation that was rife with the potential for other people from other countries to be pissed off, that was the time for it. But it didn't happen. While I thought it was tacky, it was obvious the guy was proud that he was representing his country. Yes, he was a bit belligerent about it, yet no one rose to the bait. They realized he was a bit of a zealot and waved it off. They realized he had a right to wear such a tacky ensemble, and from his interview it was obvious that he didn't have a problem with anyone thinking it was tacky. It was a classic example of live and let live. As far as the games as a whole, sure there have been some jeers and boos, but when haven't there been? Not everyone loves Americans. That's always been the case when it comes to the Olympics---always. We know this. It's nothing new. But with the current political climate at hand, the USOC apparently thinks differently and would appease the least likely claimant to make sure nothing comes of it. Only, in the process they poured kerosene on a fire that had yet to spark. And Paul Hamm has to pay for it. He's right at the center of the fire, being offered up on a stake for the appeasement of the Koreans, lest anyone think badly of Americans. It's a crying shame. If Hamm had profited from blatant favoritsm, it would be one thing, and in that case, yeah, he should give the medal back. But that isn't the case here: the Koreans goofed and he's being offered up as a sacrifice to prevent more anti-American backlash and it's just wrong. What good is it to represent your country in the Olympics when the representatives from your own country's Olympic Committee don't want to represent you? Posted by Kathy at August 1, 2004 02:02 PM | TrackBack