International Olympic Committee News

[Olympian1010 8,230]

4 minutes ago, Monzanator said:

You NEVER tamper with history or else something bad always comes from it. 

Except that history is 100% subjective to views of those recording it. 
 

5 minutes ago, Monzanator said:

On the base IOC rules were inappriopriate "at the time". 

But is that what’s happening here? They violated their own rules at the time. The rules around amateurism were awful, but this case is more complex than that.

[Grassmarket 4,030]

Incidentally, there was actually a separate pro tour for athletics at the time, like the old pre-war NFL or Rugby League.  It wasn’t very respectable….

[Monzanator 4,768]

37 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

Except that history is 100% subjective to views of those recording it. 
 

But is that what’s happening here? They violated their own rules at the time. The rules around amateurism were awful, but this case is more complex than that.

 

Schranz & Stenmark were banned on the same reasoning - they were deemed not amateurs. If IOC can change results from 110 years ago I won't be surprised if they change some of those 1970s or 1980s Olympic Games either and award Schranz and Stenmark honorary medals too. It's only a matter of time. The door for tampering with history has been kicked wide open with this decision. I wonder how many past results will be changed in the future now?

 

If the history is only subjective then was Yezhov on that canal bridge or was he not?

[JoshMartini007 2,765]

44 minutes ago, Monzanator said:

 

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.

 

I don't understand, we "tamper with history" when we strip medals from dopers years later. This is no different, the IOC broke the rules they had at the time. This isn't some retrospective rule trying to be enforced.

 

[Monzanator 4,768]

Just now, JoshMartini007 said:

 

I don't understand, we "tamper with history" when we strip medals from dopers years later. This is no different, the IOC broke the rules they had at the time. This isn't some retrospective rule trying to be enforced.

 

I'm not gonna argue a case from 1912. If you want to retroactively change the results then go ahead. It won't make my life any harder. I see people only want to win the argument for the sake of it. Good job. You win the argument. You get a cookie or something

 

Who knows, maybe in 2178 people will wake up in a world when Ben Johnson is the 1988 Olympic gold medallist again

[JoshMartini007 2,765]

5 minutes ago, Monzanator said:

I'm not gonna argue a case from 1912. If you want to retroactively change the results then go ahead. It won't make my life any harder. I see people only want to win the argument for the sake of it. Good job. You win the argument. You get a cookie or something

 

Who knows, maybe in 2178 people will wake up in a world when Ben Johnson is the 1988 Olympic gold medallist again

 

I just wanted you to understand that this was not a case of being punished for a crime that people think today is unjust, but rather the rules/laws at the time were not followed. You see it in court cases where the police/lawyers didn't follow the process correctly.

[Monzanator 4,768]

1 minute ago, JoshMartini007 said:

 

I just wanted you to understand that this was not a case of being punished for a crime that people think today is unjust, but rather the rules/laws at the time were not followed. You see it in court cases where the police/lawyers didn't follow the process correctly.

 

I'm not interested in sports where lawyers decide what the final result is. Sorry to disappoint you.

[Olympian1010 8,230]

1 hour ago, Monzanator said:

I'm not gonna argue a case from 1912,” said the user while arguing a case from 1912. 

 

[hckošice 15,520]

2 hours ago, Monzanator said:

maybe in 2178

Already looking forward for that year, maybe this will be the year Slovakia will win a basketball match

[dcro 10,210]

2 hours ago, JoshMartini007 said:

 

I don't understand, we "tamper with history" when we strip medals from dopers years later. This is no different, the IOC broke the rules they had at the time. This isn't some retrospective rule trying to be enforced.

 

Yeah, but in this case other medalists are getting downgraded based on the IOC not following the rules. IOC not knowing/not applying their own rules is not the other athletes' fault. Downgrades should not happen period.

And actually, if we went one rule further, then there is clear ground to DQ Thorpe again for being a professional athlete. Why should a rule about results being final 30 days after the event be applied and not the rule about professional athletes being barred from competing?