International Olympic Committee News

[Olympian1010 8,230]

 

[Grassmarket 4,030]

30 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

 

For those that don’t know, he lost the medals because at some time prior to 1912 he had also been a pro baseball player, which was interpreted (by some, not all) as a violation of the Olympic rules.

[dcro 10,210]

What a wonderful precedent to set. I guess at some point in the future they will start re-awarding gold medals to caught dopers and downgrading to silver those who played fair (at the time).

[Monzanator 4,768]

Yeah, re-writing history is never good. Never.

[Dragon 2,026]

Interestingly Thorpe was only reinstated as joint champion in 1982 when it was discovered that the IOC broke their own rules when they disqualified him.

[dcro 10,210]

6 minutes ago, Dragon said:

Interestingly Thorpe was only reinstated as joint champion in 1982 when it was discovered that the IOC broke their own rules when they disqualified him.

Did they though? Or was it a new interpretation?

 

At any rate, keeping two gold medals is the only fair way of working around this. It's not the original gold medalists' fault that they read the rules wrong, interpreted it differently later, or whatever combination of the two things.

[Dragon 2,026]

7 minutes ago, dcro said:

Did they though? Or was it a new interpretation?

 

At any rate, keeping two gold medals is the only fair way of working around this. It's not the original gold medalists' fault that they read the rules wrong, interpreted it differently later, or whatever combination of the two things.

In 1982 the original doucuments from 1912 were found in the IOC archives. The rules stated that 30 days after the Games ended, if no appeal was made, then the results could not be changed. Thorpe was not stripped of his medal until 1913.

 

Also I'm told that today's decision would not have taken place if any of the relatives of the Swede and Norwegian who were upgraded to gold in 1913 would have objected.

[Dunadan 1,103]

New rule for Olympic medallists: be sure to write in your testament to your descendants that they should object and protest in case someone tries to get your medal 100 years later.

[Olympian1010 8,230]

1 hour ago, Monzanator said:

Yeah, re-writing history is never good. Never.

Is it re-writing or correcting though? According to @Dragon, the IOC broke their own rules originally. 
 

 

I think it’s important to consider this as well. “They confirmed that Wieslander himself had never accepted the Olympic gold medal allocated to him, and had always been of the opinion that Jim Thorpe was the sole legitimate Olympic gold medallist. ”

I’d have to defer to @Dragon, but I believe there’s also some uncertainty about other athlete’s amateur credentials as well. Unless I’m mixing this up with something else or hearsay.

 

Its an incredibly unfortunate situation all the way around.

[Monzanator 4,768]

1 minute ago, Olympian1010 said:

Is it re-writing or correcting though? According to @Dragon, the IOC broke their own rules originally. 
 

 

I think it’s important to consider this as well. “They confirmed that Wieslander himself had never accepted the Olympic gold medal allocated to him, and had always been of the opinion that Jim Thorpe was the sole legitimate Olympic gold medallist. ”

I’d have to defer to @Dragon, but I believe there’s also some uncertainty about other athlete’s amateur credentials as well. Unless I’m mixing this up with something else or hearsay.

 

Its an incredibly unfortunate situation all the way around.

 

Will they give honorary gold OG medals to Karl Schranz or Ingemar Stenmark next? In like 70 years time? On the base IOC rules were inappriopriate "at the time". Or will a new scientific research in 2145 claim some of these dopers didn't actually profit from doping and people living in early XXI century didn't have enough knowledge to come to a fair conclusion? You NEVER tamper with history or else something bad always comes from it. Always. Like that Nikolai Yezhov photo with Stalin. Now you see him and now you don't.