ArtK78 Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Agree completely. The objective is to win the whole event, not a specific match. If the organizers set the conditions of contest so that it is advantageous for a team to lose a match, the organizers are to blame for the ugly result, not the competitors.Agree completely with this sentiment. Clearly, this is a minority viewpoint. There was a discussion on Mike and Mike in the Morning on ESPN Radio this morning about this controversy. The apparent conclusion was that, while there was some sympathy for the competitors in dumping a match to better their chances in the overall event, athletes are under a moral and ethical obligation to perform their best at all times. So dumping a match was unethical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 I hope Jeff Rubens' doctor is readily available when he gets the Badminton scandal news... My first reaction was to think about the great debate over sportsmanlike dumping... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 To compare Olymic Games with bridge events where the weak teams have intenionally guaranteed a couple of matches in NON KO phase.....sorry but its......... apples and oranges.I agree. In one case you have a pair of competitors who have trained and earned the privelege of representing their country at the highest level ---and people of that country have supported that quest financially and morally. In the other case you have a pair of competitors who....oh, wait :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwar0123 Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Agree completely. The objective is to win the whole event, not a specific match. If the organizers set the conditions of contest so that it is advantageous for a team to lose a match, the organizers are to blame for the ugly result, not the competitors.Disagree completely. The bridge analogy is flawed, intentionally losing a trick to insure a contract is done as a percentage increase of your expected average on a board, it is nothing like intentionally losing an entire match. Sports have ethics and one of the basic ethics is that you play to win.The Olympics is the pinnacle of sports and should represent the pinnacle of their ethics. What the badmiditten players did was a disgrace and they should be booted from the competition. However, I agree this does show a flaw in the competitions format and the format should be revised to address it, but that is no excuse for the players. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 My take. Whether it is against the rules to dump a game in a tourney? Well, that is down to the rules of the tourney. Do not get confused with what the rules state and what you think that they should state. Either it was legit or it was not. End of. That said, a tournament format that provides an incentive to dump is in my view a flawed format. Personally I don't think that the application of skill to duck a trick in order to win a contract is a close analogy. That said, once it is clear that that there is an incentive to dump but that dumping is illegal, the only logical end result is that players will dump but do it more subtly. How does that further the interests of the sport? I do wonder where it is all going to end. What about all those team cyclists or middle to long distance runners who hang back during a race to act as pacers with no personal realistic chance of success purely in order to give a compatiriot a psychological boost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BunnyGo Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 According to the NYTimes what the players did *was* against the rules "Players’ Code of Conduct, Sections 4.5 and 4.6, for “not using one’s best efforts to win a match” and “conducting oneself in a manner that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport.”" and so I must disagree with Phil and the others. One is to do everything to win within the rules--when the rules say (and I looked them up to quote more exactly) "Section 4.5 Failure to use best efforts: Blatantly and deliberately playing below his/her standard of strength." (section 4 is "inappropriate conduct"). So whether we agree with the tactic in theory, when it is specifically banned, it is no longer acceptable. So I find the players wholly at fault for the incident, no matter how badly people think the event is organized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BunnyGo Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 In a related incident today, the Japanese world champion soccer team played one of the lowest ranked teams to a draw today. After the match the coach publicly admitted he did this to avoid the US and/or France in the next round. I do not know if this is allowed in the soccer rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 According to the NYTimes what the players did *was* against the rules "Players' Code of Conduct, Sections 4.5 and 4.6, for "not using one's best efforts to win a match" and "conducting oneself in a manner that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport."" and so I must disagree with Phil and the others. One is to do everything to win within the rules--when the rules say (and I looked them up to quote more exactly) "Section 4.5 Failure to use best efforts: Blatantly and deliberately playing below his/her standard of strength." (section 4 is "inappropriate conduct"). So whether we agree with the tactic in theory, when it is specifically banned, it is no longer acceptable. So I find the players wholly at fault for the incident, no matter how badly people think the event is organized. I think it is open to debate whether "conducting oneself in a manner that is calculated to maximising your chances of a [gold/silver/bronze/any/delete as appropriate] medal" is in fact the same as "conducting oneself in a manner that ls clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport" I am sort of interested to know whether the players' code of conduct is a general code that applies across all olympic events or whether it is customised according to the particular sport or event. I say "sort of interested" because I am not sufficiently interested to go look it up. But if it is a general rule that spans disciplines then lt opens up the question what is the definition of a "match". Because one interpretation is that it might be a series of transactions that ends in the award of a medal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyman Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Agree completely with this sentiment. Clearly, this is a minority viewpoint. There was a discussion on Mike and Mike in the Morning on ESPN Radio this morning about this controversy. The apparent conclusion was that, while there was some sympathy for the competitors in dumping a match to better their chances in the overall event, athletes are under a moral and ethical obligation to perform their best at all times. So dumping a match was unethical. According to the NYTimes what the players did *was* against the rules "Players' Code of Conduct, Sections 4.5 and 4.6, for "not using one's best efforts to win a match" and "conducting oneself in a manner that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport."" and so I must disagree with Phil and the others. One is to do everything to win within the rules--when the rules say (and I looked them up to quote more exactly) "Section 4.5 Failure to use best efforts: Blatantly and deliberately playing below his/her standard of strength." (section 4 is "inappropriate conduct"). So whether we agree with the tactic in theory, when it is specifically banned, it is no longer acceptable. So I find the players wholly at fault for the incident, no matter how badly people think the event is organized. In a related incident today, the Japanese world champion soccer team played one of the lowest ranked teams to a draw today. After the match the coach publicly admitted he did this to avoid the US and/or France in the next round. I do not know if this is allowed in the soccer rules. Was just jumping in to ask if something like playing your second stringers in a soccer match that doesn't matter violates the (spirit of the?) rules. What if the match matters but you are up 3 goals with 5 minutes to play? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel_k Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Agree completely. The objective is to win the whole event, not a specific match. If the organizers set the conditions of contest so that it is advantageous for a team to lose a match, the organizers are to blame for the ugly result, not the competitors.I don't think this is so, as a general principle. Each sport has its own code of ethics which has developed over the years. In basketball you can even foul intentionally, deliberately breaking the rules, and this can be regarded as good play. Whereas in cricket, there are people who are widely regarded as villains because they found unusual ways to win within the rules (bodyline, underarm etc). I agree that the organizers should take some blame, but whether it is 10% or 90% or something in between, depends on the norms for that particular sport, not on any general principle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffford76 Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 As long as the format is flawed, people will dump matches. The next ones just won't be so obvious about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Everything I have read on the Badminton Federation's website indicates that the "not using one’s best efforts to win a match" appears to be an attempt to avoid throwing a match because people are gambling on it, and because of past bribes and payoffs, not because a team is trying to win a medal in the process. Honestly, I don't think the federation ever considered the ramifications of sportsmanlike dumping. Furthermore, "conducting oneself in a manner that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport" actually mean? There's a significant split in the blogosphere about whether or not what they did was OK, so what is so clear about this offense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 As with all things Olympics, I think it may come down to the money, rather than the medals. The officials do not want to encourage behaviour that leaves paying customers dissatisfied. A cacofony of boos is not good for business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Disagree completely. The bridge analogy is flawed, intentionally losing a trick to insure a contract is done as a percentage increase of your expected average on a board, it is nothing like intentionally losing an entire match. Now, just don't throw this one out there and not support it! A bridge trick is to a bridge hand as a match is to a tournament. The former is a microcosm of the latter. Let me turn this around a little. What if the Laws of Bridge said, "not using one's best efforts to win a match trick". Wouldn't we have a silly little game? No hold-ups, no Bath Coups, no rectifying the count. Just win tricks as quickly as you can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BunnyGo Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 I think it is open to debate whether "conducting oneself in a manner that is calculated to maximising your chances of a [gold/silver/bronze/any/delete as appropriate] medal" is in fact the same as "conducting oneself in a manner that ls clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport" I am sort of interested to know whether the players' code of conduct is a general code that applies across all olympic events or whether it is customised according to the particular sport or event. I say "sort of interested" because I am not sufficiently interested to go look it up. But if it is a general rule that spans disciplines then lt opens up the question what is the definition of a "match". Because one interpretation is that it might be a series of transactions that ends in the award of a medal. The one I found was badminton specific, but I do not know if there is a general one too. And I do not think there is a debate as to whether they violated 4.5 as the admitted they played below their best game on purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BunnyGo Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Now, just don't throw this one out there and not support it! A bridge trick is to a bridge hand as a match is to a tournament. The former is a microcosm of the latter. Let me turn this around a little. What if the Laws of Bridge said, "not using one's best efforts to win a match trick". Wouldn't we have a silly little game? No hold-ups, no Bath Coups, no rectifying the count. Just win tricks as quickly as you can. I think your analogy is flawed. There are no bridge competitions I know of that are one hand long. We compete over matches too, and I'm happy to debate whether throwing one intentionally in a round robin for seeding rights is ethical (because I do not know what the answer should be, so debating would be interesting). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 I think your analogy is flawed. There are no bridge competitions I know of that are one hand long. Perhaps, but this does not invalidate the premise, it supports it. Put it this way, over the course of a match, there are hundreds of opportunities to lose tricks. We compete over matches too, and I'm happy to debate whether throwing one intentionally in a round robin for seeding rights is ethical (because I do not know what the answer should be, so debating would be interesting). Here's a real life bridge example and this is why they did away with three way matches in major team events. In a three way, you will frequently have two pretty good teams (1 and 2) and one weak team (3) with two survivors. To make matters worse, sometimes the two survivors would play each other in the next round without a carryover. At halftime (say each match is 32 boards), here are the scores: 1 v 2: 100 to 101 v 3: 30 to 252 v 3: 50 to 40 If a team loses both matches, it automatically loses. If a team wins both matches it automatically advances. If each team is 1-1, then the two teams with the highest IMP differential advance. Clearly, 1 would prefer 3 as its 2nd round opponent, or just put 2 out of the tournament altogether. By intentionally losing to 3 by more than a margin that 2 beats 3, 3 gets in, as long as 1 continues to beat up 2. Solutions? - Don't have teams compare at halftime. Just play through 32 boards. - Have a significant carry-over for the next round. This also disincentivizes dumping. - Don't have 3 ways :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BunnyGo Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 On a related note, the 4 teams that qualified through this (these teams had a combined 2 wins in the qualifying stages) were then seeded against each other in the quarter-finals (I don't know why). Thus guaranteeing a medal to a team that won at most 1 match in the round-robin phase, and only had to beat 2 teams that did the same to win the medal (1 in the QF, and one in the bronze medal match). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwar0123 Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Perhaps, but this does not invalidate the premise, it supports it. Put it this way, over the course of a match, there are hundreds of opportunities to lose tricks. No, not even close. Badminton and bridge are competitive games centered around winning their respective games. Bridge is not a game centered around winning tricks as they become available, nonsensical example. A tournament is a series of competitive games with the goal of finding the best players of that game during the tournament. Losing a trick to insure a contract is totally inline with the competitive spirit of doing your best to win your game.Losing a match to improve your chances in the overall tournament is fundamentally different. You are violating the goal of game(to win the game) to further your goal in the tournament. The tournament is a structure that serves the game, not the other way around. Your analogy is flawed, period. Maybe you can come up with a better one, whatever, don't care, I personally feel it violates the spirit of the Olympics. As it has been pointed out, it indeed violates the rules as well, punishment was handed out and I approve. Maybe you feel that its the fault of the tournament setup(I certainty agree that the setup leaves something to be desired), your welcome to feel that, to some extent our opinions are subjective and while I strongly disagree with you, I am not going to be able to construct a mathematical proof demonstrating your error with respect to the idea that you should do what ever you can to win a tournament. I can, to my satisfaction, prove that your analogy is flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted August 2, 2012 Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 Everything I have read on the Badminton Federation's website indicates that the "not using one's best efforts to win a match" appears to be an attempt to avoid throwing a match because people are gambling on it, and because of past bribes and payoffs, not because a team is trying to win a medal in the process. Honestly, I don't think the federation ever considered the ramifications of sportsmanlike dumping. Furthermore, "conducting oneself in a manner that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport" actually mean? There's a significant split in the blogosphere about whether or not what they did was OK, so what is so clear about this offense? I wonder if there were people betting on these matches. Sports betting is legal in the UK, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BunnyGo Posted August 2, 2012 Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 I wonder if there were people betting on these matches. Sports betting is legal in the UK, isn't it? I'd be surprised if there weren't betting in vegas too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted August 2, 2012 Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 To me (but I guess not to everyone) its a simple hierarchy. Winning the tournament is more important than winning a match, which is more important than winning a set, which is turn is more important than winning a point. This model is translatable to bridge, badminton, bowling, tennis, volleyball. It might not be applicable to certain team sports like bicycling, although the road race brings forth some interesting dynamics. Frankly I don't know where 'doing your best' fits in, but it sounds like a well-meaning bromide we like to tell our kids and then tell ourselves we are good parents. I think everyone agrees that the rules are poorly constructed to spawn irrational behavior. Its what people do after this realization that makes them different. If anyone wants to construct a mathematical model that is based on platitudes then they are welcome to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted August 2, 2012 Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 I think that issues surrounding gambling are irrelevant. The punters are presumably no less aware than the players if it is in the interests of the players to throw a match. If it is in their interests to throw a match and the punters gamble on their winning it, then that just makes them unsophisticated punters, deserving of their fate. If a system could be devised in which I could gamble on the result of an individual trick in a bridge game, and I saw Granovetter about to play to a trick where ducking rectifies the count, I would count myself stupid to gamble on his winning the trick, however I rate him as a player. The gambling fraternity get upset, and with more justification, if rules are broken and not enforced, or if there is relevant information affecting the odds that is available to some gamblers but not to others, or in the extreme where participants collude with punters If rules are broken and not enforced, then there is all sorts of fall-out, of which certain gamblers losing their shirts is just one effect, and frankly to my mind (personal opinion, I know), one of the least significant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted August 2, 2012 Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 Dwar, Phil's point is that Olympic badminton is a sport centered around winning a medal, not around winning matches. Therefore, in his anaolgy a bridge match relates to a badminton tournament and a bridge trick relates to a badminton match. There are certainly better examples but the anaolgy is not false just because you are unable to change the scale in your mind. As another example, in the last London Olympics, 1948, a British rower deliberately lost one of his heats in order to maximise the chance of winning gold. When he did in fact win the gold medal, his tactics were widely praised. This is in an era of "fair play" and "British sportsmanship". One thing seems clear so far - the Olympics are not going to plan and almost every day mired in controversy. Not only the badminton, also the fencing (this was worse than the famous 1 second basketball final), the gymnastics (0.7 difference, what is that?) and the swimming (how difficult is it to make a starting device that works?). Plus the question-marks about empty seats and security. Maybe there is more too; I have only managed to see a tiny amount of sport and almost every time there seems to be a problem! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwar0123 Posted August 2, 2012 Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 Dwar, Phil's point is that Olympic badminton is a sport centered around winning a medal, not around winning matches. Therefore, in his anaolgy a bridge match relates to a badminton tournament and a bridge trick relates to a badminton match. There are certainly better examples but the anaolgy is not false just because you are unable to change the scale in your mind. As another example, in the last London Olympics, 1948, a British rower deliberately lost one of his heats in order to maximise the chance of winning gold. When he did in fact win the gold medal, his tactics were widely praised. This is in an era of "fair play" and "British sportsmanship". Hogwash, my mind has no problem changing the scale. Scale isn't the problem here, the problem is that it is just a flawed analogy. For one, you are trying to compare playing bridge well with playing badminton really really badly. If am honestly floored that intelligent people can not see how these two things are fundamentally different. No one would ever accuse someone taking a safety play as "not using one’s best efforts to win a match"No one would ever accuse someone taking a safety play of "conducting oneself in a manner that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport" That I can't convince you of this difference after so many attempts speaks volumes about my failure to communicate and your inability to get over your cognitive dissonance. Whatever you may think of doing such things to further advance your chances at winning, shrug. But that analogy is stupid and does nothing to clarify the different opinions surrounding the controversy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.