>Interesting story. I was only 10 years old at the time but I still remember >reading about it. I remember seeing Jim Ryun get tripped in a preliminary >round and then not allowed to advance even though he finished, a practice >that I hope has come to an end. I remember Bob Seagran not being allowed to >use his poles. I remember the imposter who showed up to steal glory from >Shorter. Do you think there was any anti-American sentiment involved? It >sure looks that way.
If you're taking these together as evidence, perhaps it might look that way. You forgot one- the American basketball loss to the Russians when the clock was re-set what, three times? The question is, were there other controversies in '72 where rulings were a lot more flexible than rulings toward the Americans? Or are we ignoring those and 'cherry-picking' examples to make a case? I'm not sure. But as for the examples it might help to look at each individual case. Ryun falling. Ryun himself has said that he tripped 'on a beam of light'. He himself doesn't blame the African runner- Billy something I think was his name. Ryun wasn't even sure they made contact. The film & videotape record is inconclusive. Ryun basically blames himself. In any case, the international standard then as now for 'allowable level of contact' in a race is a lot more conducive in allowing bumping and touching than comparable American standards. So, IF the IOC found that no other runner 'fouled' Ryun (subjecting them to a DQ), what would be the basis for them advancing Ryun to the next round? * Felt sorry for him? People fall down all the time in big meets. You couldn't advance people based on feeling sorry for them because subjectivity comes into play- if somebody falls down that you basically detest you could then rationalize that 'he had it coming to him anyway'. * World Record holder? So what's the point of having qualifying rounds? If you're a world record holder you automatically get a bye into the finals. That's basically what this basis would be saying. It would then mean if a WR holder fell behind in a qualifying race and knew he couldn't move up enough to make the cut, he could just fall down, knowing he'd likely get an automatic advancement. Horrible precedent. * IOC should be more friendly to athletes coming from countries where the officiating standards are a little different? So what's the point of having a single international rulebook? *Bob Seagren's poles. I'm trying to remember the particulars. Of all the rulings in '72 this was the one I had the most problem with. It had to do with the pole Seagren was using being on the "approved list". There was something about the pole having to have been available worldwide at least 12 months prior to the Games (so as to theoretically ensure an equal playing field). There was a big on-the-field argument about whether the 12 month requirement had been met- something that probably needed some analysis about just HOW widely it had been available in those 12 prior months. But my problem was with how it was enforced. There was every indication that with Seagren being the 'hottest vaulter in the world', the Games officials decided beforehand that they were gonna go after Seagren on the pole rule, but they kept it a secret. Then when all the vaulters were out on the field warming up with their poles, they made a big live-on-TV to-do about declaring Seagren a 'cheater' and demanded that he surrender the poles right there. Obviously had the concern been communicated to him months earlier, he could have trained on other poles and brought them with him. After a big argument he surrended the poles to IAAF head Adrian Paulen, borrowed an unfamiliar one from another vaulter, and still got the silver after being a huge gold medal favorite beforehand. So my problem may not be so much with the basis for the ruling, but the procedure which the officials chose to follow. It was an obvious case of intentionally holding back a ruling until the worst possible time, in order to embarass an athlete and make it almost impossible for the athlete to to find a way to comply and compete. They intended to force Seagren to drop out by taking away his poles and leaving him 'pole-less' with no time left for Seagren to find an alternative means of competing. That another vaulter came to his help is something they didn't figure on.. It was obviously 'targeting Seagren' in my book- but it might be more because he was 'on top' rather than just because he was an American. Fortunately, SOME lessons were learned- many of the implement approval procedures we have today seem exceedingly bureaucratic and complicated, but they're a direct result of the Seagren fiasco. I think until after '72, while the rule said something about 12-month prior availability, the IAAF was not in the business of publishing an "official approved list", making possible on-the-field dirty dealing like happened to Seagren. Now we have approved lists up the kazoo. The Shorter imposter. This was just a single guy jumping in to get the applause of the main stadium crowd. All indications are that he would have done this no matter who was leading- it had nothing to do with Shorter or Americans. Anybody who has seen a televised police car chase or a streaker at the Super Bowl knows the routine. It's not the only time it's happened in an Olympic Final. Anybody remember the '84 Steeple final at the L.A. Coliseum? I was sitting right in front of the water jump and couldn't believe my eyes- the guy jumped the wall right in front of me and went sprinting out there after the front group. If you the think the Munich stadium security should have KNOWN that it was an imposter and not allowed him to enter, you probably have a point. If you say that their motivation for NOT taking such action is because they wanted to subject Shorter to confusion and take away his 'winner applause' once he entered; well, I guess you also believe all the grassy knoll theories. No, it was just incompetence by stadium security and nothing more. And no serious damage was done. [That the East German marathon winner was doped in '76 and rooked Shorter out of a second gold is a totally different subject....] U.S. 100m sprinters- They missed their heat due to their coach not bothering to check the latest heat schedule even though the schedule he was looking at clearly showed a date on it that was a year and a half old. Total incompetence by the coach. Those are the facts. Do the sprinters deserve special advancement as a result of incompetence by their coach? See my Ryun commentary regarding sympathy rulings. See also more recent rulings about athletes being responsible for everything in their body even though they claim they have no idea how a drug got into their sytem. The ultimate responsibility, if there is a lesson learned, is that NO athlete should rely totally on a coach- especially a 'team manager'- for critical information about heat times, transportation details, etc. It's YOUR medal that is at stake, not the coach's. Again this may be partly a result of the U.S. system- in '72 most American athletes were college athletes, and in the U.S. young immature athletes like that often depend TOTALLY on their coaches to figure everything out. So the U.S. sprinters may have been at risk simply because they couldn't figure out how to take care of themselves. Did the IOC do anything to switch schedules and INTENTIONALLY conceal it from American coaches? No evidence of that. There is no evidence at all of the Olympic authorities doing anything at all to sabotage American sprint efforts or confuse them. Did they provide different information to Borzov and his coaches than they provided to the Americans? I've never heard any evidence of that. See also the Ryun commentary regarding special rulings for World Record holders or Top-Ten ranked athletes. The Olympics just doesn't work that way. So I have a lot of sympathy for Seagren, but I can't see any basis for advancing Ryun or the sprinters as much as they may be 'likeble' and as much as I like to see head-to-head competition in finals between the very best of the World. If I'm wrong and Ryun got fouled (and the other runner was DQ'd for it), then something could and should have been done to advance Ryun. And Shorter was a non-issue. RT I was sixteen at the time.
