Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneYoung
There's a difference between swimming to conserve energy and still qualify for the finals and throwing a match.
Throwing a match is not the intent of the game. The teams were using that option in their qualifying strategy and they were warned to play the game as it was intended. They ignored the warnings and they were thrown out.
Swimming conservatively and advancing to the next race is not the same thing.
A lot hinges on that little word, intent.
Jane
|
There is a lot of power in that little word "intent". How does one judge intent? In Freakanomics, they make an interesting discussion about this in the world of Sumo wrestling. Here is a neat little
2 minute video clip. Notice in the video, he states "almost without a doubt". Note that even with murder, "a reasonable doubt" would stop a conviction.
Make no mistake, there are often
"incentives" associated with winning medals, even in the
U.S.A.
In general these payouts are much less than many executive bonuses which is a very interesting thought (with regards to incentive systems possibly corrupting values), but are quite significant sums of money to an athlete likely to have a shelf life of 4-12 years.
*I am not promoting cheating, or the throwing of matches, I am just showing that without good constraints, it is not suprising that even the most pure get corrupted.