Michelle Smith Olympics 1996

Water John

Craftsman your point has merit. Wouldn't you be really pissed off, pun intended, to stop using drugs and do a slow time and end up being beaten by some one you think is doping.

mansize

The Olympics are essentially politics. Russia is only being hauled over the coals as Putin is public enemy number 1.

Team GB has had far more eyebrow raising results - and that Ogogo decision in 2012 was one of the worst I've seen

Taylor fight was close and she got softer scores than the Russian - the Russian was a bad loser tho

Water John

Agree Mansize on the Taylor fight. She was very lucky.
I would have gone the other way on it.

feargale

Water John wrote: »

Agree Mansize on the Taylor fight. She was very lucky.
I would have gone the other way on it.

She fell twice and was adjudged to have slipped. That puzzled me. When do you slip and when do you get put down?

deandean

Getting back to the OP and the Q on why others (U.S.) complained so quickly after Michelle's wins, I can add the following.

Per previous post, I was in the U.S. during the 1996 Olympics.
I would buy 1 or 2 newspapers every day to try find out how IRL was doing overall.
Every one of the U.S. newspapers, and the TV channels, reported in the same way: Our U.S. athletes won xx medals so far; we came first in ABC today, we came first in XYZ today, and so on.
The U.S. media didn't give a toss about how any other country was doing.
You would never see a straightforward 1-2-3 result of who won. Only what American athletes had won.
I used to have to phone home, or ask an Irish Hack (Des Cahill was great!) how the Irish athletes were doing.
The US in general are fiercely patriotic (in a good way) toward their athletes.

So....when U.S. expected medal winner Jan Evans grabbed the mic in front of the entire US media corps and complained that she had been done out of a medal by an unheard-of athlete from an unheard-of country....outrage followed in the US media.

Rights and wrongs aside, this is why the complaints were broadcast so soon after the event.

walshb

mansize wrote: »

Taylor fight was close and she got softer scores than the Russian - the Russian was a bad loser tho

This makes no sense. What softer scores did she get? Have you some inside information to back up this very odd claim? The 2012 final was a very tight afair that Katie won. No soft scores, and no luck involved.

walshb

feargale wrote: »

She fell twice and was adjudged to have slipped. That puzzled me. When do you slip and when do you get put down?

You do realises that people slip and fall in boxing rings? It's up to the referee to decide what is a slip/fall and what is a legitimate knock down. Either way it meant nothing in London, as even if it's judged as a slip it is up to the judges to press the button for a scoring punch. Back in 2012 the scoring was on the computers

walshb

Water John wrote: »

Agree Mansize on the Taylor fight. She was very lucky.
I would have gone the other way on it.

Very lucky, how?

Had Ochigava been given the decision would she to have been very lucky?

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yeah fair enough. Although if a fighter feels he has been hard done by and victim of a clearly contentious decision, then I'd support his right to go and cry to officials, media or anyone who'll listen. Because in boxing, as we clearly know, the good name and reputations of people are not always what they are cracked up to be!

This is exactly my point. You cannot have a fighter deciding if he /she thinks they were judged unfairly that it's then ok to slate publicly all they like. They have procedures in place for this already. I am speaking about when fighters and coaches and organisations go outside of this and start slating the sport and its people. It's wrong, and should never be let go unchallenged. It's damaging the sport.

AlanG

walshb wrote: »

Lewis implied in an interview shortly after the race that something was not right. Lewis knew well what that was. He was being decimated by a man that was not in his league!

Of course Lewis should not have been at those Olympics as he was caught in the run up but the US team decided to ignore the results.
I believe of the 8 people in the 100m final that year only 1 has a clean record.

AlanG

walshb wrote: »

No, he did not.

Exact point I made a post or two above.

Lewis himself admitted doping on several occasions - there is no point in you defending him.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/apr/24/athletics.duncanmackay

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-athletics-johnson-smith-idUSBRE98M0PT20130923

walshb

AlanG wrote: »

Lewis himself admitted doping on several occasions - there is no point in you defending him.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/apr/24/athletics.duncanmackay

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-athletics-johnson-smith-idUSBRE98M0PT20130923

Pointless discussing with you when you post articles that don't tell the actual story. Read up and research. Lewis never ever admitted to cheating/doping or using PEDs

When you can point out actual solid evidence to back up the claim that Lewis admitted doping please show it. Lewis never failed PED tests. He was cleared correctly because there was no cheating

I don't need to defend him. There is nothing to defend him against. I only need to point out the inaccuracies in posts like yours.

walshb

AlanG wrote: »

Of course Lewis should not have been at those Olympics as he was caught in the run up but the US team decided to ignore the results.
I believe of the 8 people in the 100m final that year only 1 has a clean record.

Alan, branch out and educate yourself on the issue and you will see that he was legally allowed compete in Seoul. You seem fixated on one or two one sided articles that are not telling the actual story. He should have been at those Olympics because he legally and officially qualified. Nobody ignored the results of the tests. Take a few minutes and read up. The official rules in place at that time cleared Lewis to compete. So both articles are wrong in not disclosing this. He had no case to answer due to the test finding not showing a failed result, as well as other facts.

marienbad

walshb wrote: »

Alan, branch out and educate yourself on the issue and you will see that he was legally allowed compete in Seoul. You seem fixated on one or two one sided articles that are not telling the actual story. He should have been at those Olympics because he legally and officially qualified. Nobody ignored the results of the tests. Take a few minutes and read up. The official rules in place at that time cleared Lewis to compete. So both articles are wrong in not disclosing this. He had no case to answer due to the test finding not showing a failed result, as well as other facts.

would he have failed if the tests were taken today ?

walshb

marienbad wrote: »

would he have failed if the tests were taken today ?

Those tests he took in 1988 would not even register a fail today. In 1988 the results did not give an automatic fail, hence Lewis never being suspended.

Letter issued with the findings. The test results were ridiculously low. I detailed this in a post. 2ppm/4ppm and 6ppm. All below the automatic fail threshold of 10 ppm. A complete non story as regards PEDs. Lewis was always a clean and natural great. His career/times and progressions bear this out.

Why people don't take a little bit of time to read up and get the facts is baffling.

You have to remember that in 1988 the testing was in its infancy, and almost everything was on the banned list. This has all been revised and cleaned up due to advances and education.

marienbad

walshb wrote: »

Those tests he took in 1988 would not even register a fail today. In 1988 the results did not give an automatic fail, hence Lewis never being suspended.

Letter issued with the findings. The test results were ridiculously low. I detailed this in a post. 2ppm/4ppm and 6ppm. All below the automatic fail threshold of 10 ppm. A complete non story as regards PEDs. Lewis was always a clean and natural great. His career/times and progressions bear this out.

Why people don't take a little bit of time to read up and get the facts is baffling.

You have to remember that in 1988 the testing was in its infancy, and almost everything was on the banned list. This has all been revised and cleaned up due to advances and education.

Lighten up - we do read up on these things - endlessly , but in an ever changing landscape where there are new and depressing revelations every day it is impossible to keep up . And particularly so if it is not one of your sports

walshb

marienbad wrote: »

Lighten up - we do read up on these things - endlessly , but in an ever changing landscape where there are new and depressing revelations every day it is impossible to keep up . And particularly so if it is not one of your sports

Sorry, you asked me a question, and I answered it in a civil and polite fashion. I don't need to lighten up. I am just fine. Maybe it's not me who needs to lighten up.

As regards reading up on these things endlessly. In the Lewis case it seems most haven't bothered to read up. Hence the discussion.

walshb

nc6000 wrote: »

The Olympics are a joke. Most people are only interested in the opening ceremony and the 9 odd seconds of the 100M final.

Nonsense. I am interested in a whole lot more, as I am sure any others are. Why are the games a joke?

mansize

walshb wrote: »

This makes no sense. What softer scores did she get? Have you some inside information to back up this very odd claim? The 2012 final was a very tight afair that Katie won. No soft scores, and no luck involved.

Watching it, I felt she did. Its an opinion. I still would have given her the decision.