After the Michelle Kwan debate, I'm curious what people would think about this situation:
Athelete A works hard to make the Olympic team his or her whole life. They qualify for the team by placing third in the Olympic trials, then--between the trials and the Games--suffers an injury that will slow them down in the Olympics but not keep them from competing. The rules allow athlete A to compete or to drop out and be replaced by Athlete B, the fourth-place trials finisher.
Athlete A wishes to compete despite the injury. This is clearly permitted by the rules. Is it right for her to compete? Does it matter if the chances of B medalling are poor?
--Harold Buck
"Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."
"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote in message news:no_one_knows-07007A.11550914022006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...> After the Michelle Kwan debate, I'm curious what people would think> about this situation:>
Athelete A works hard to make the Olympic team his or her whole life.> They qualify for the team by placing third in the Olympic trials,> then--between the trials and the Games--suffers an injury that will slow> them down in the Olympics but not keep them from competing. The rules> allow athlete A to compete or to drop out and be replaced by Athlete B,> the fourth-place trials finisher.>
Athlete A wishes to compete despite the injury. This is clearly> permitted by the rules. Is it right for her to compete? Does it matter> if the chances of B medalling are poor?>
--Harold Buck
If the athlete is competing in some individual sport, like figure skating, I would have to go with letting A make the decision. She won the right to compete and as we saw last night with the Chinese girl, sometimes the adrenaline and mental state can overcome the injury long enough to yield a great performance. Trying your best in the presence of adversity would be a better reflection of the Olympian Spirit than being concerned with how a country's medal tally compares with another's at the end of the day. However, if the sport is a team sport, like hockey, where your reduced performance has a direct detrimental effect on the efforts of others who have worked hard to get there, one would hope that something a bit more serious, like multiple compound fractures of the femur, might convince A to yield in favor of letting B compete.
"Nancy2" <nancy-dooley@uiowa.edu> wrote in message news:1192452706.703634.286330@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I saw a rerun of the last lap at Talladega about 5 or 6 times over the
weekend.
It was plain when it was live, and even plainer when they showed
reruns, that JJ had his entire car below the yellow line trying to
pass JG, and then thought better of it and moved in behind him.
IF JJ had passed him below the yellow, which is illegal, and then gone
on to win the race, what would have been the consequences?
Would he still be the winner?
If I understand the rule correctly, JJ would have broken the rules by advancing his position under the yellow line and it would be required to automatically black flag him. That being the rule... yes, he likely would have been declared the winner.
Nancy2 <nancy-dooley@uiowa.edu> wrote in news:1192452706.703634.286330 @i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
I saw a rerun of the last lap at Talladega about 5 or 6 times over the
weekend.
It was plain when it was live, and even plainer when they showed
reruns, that JJ had his entire car below the yellow line trying to
pass JG, and then thought better of it and moved in behind him.
IF JJ had passed him below the yellow, which is illegal, and then gone
on to win the race, what would have been the consequences?
Would he still be the winner?
I think this question has been asked before, and I think the "official" NASCAR answer was he would scored last car on the lead lap.
But with today's NASCAR, you never know. They might make up some sort of baloney about "being forced by conditions", or they might arbitrarily put him somewhere in the pack where "he would have been scored had he not passed".
"Nancy2" <nancy-dooley@uiowa.edu> wrote in message news:1192482265.321437.257710@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Another question - why is below the line a real boundary at some
tracks, and not others?
Historically, the apron was part of the racing surface on all tracks. It was during the renewed focus on new areas of safety recently, that they determined that they would not allow passing on the apron on RP tracks - part of their safety focus. There was not a particular event that brought this rule about, although many make reference to a pass by Gordon years before that in which Rusty Wallace (I believe) was dragging butt around the apron (damaged, and should have been completely off the damned track). It was a fairly close shave for Gordon to get around the car he was passing, and back up in the inside groove before clocking Wallace.
There have always been issues with getting on the apron in areas around Dega and Daytona - hell, even Bristol for that matter. The transition angle is steep in the corners and plenty of cars have taken a shortcut through the infield after getting down on the apron in the corners. It upsets the car quite a bit. Earnhardt did it, Gordon did it at Bristol, lots have done it. Makes for an unplanned event for the driver. Less severely banked tracks don't suffer the same issues with getting down on the apron, so it's not regulated on those tracks.
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please . Если Вы хотите пожаловаться на содержимое этой страницы, пожалуйста .
