Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
So there were 8 badmiten players who were thrown out for not trying to win. So, from stricktly ethical point of view, is this wrong?

If it gives them an easier path to the finals or avoids teammates should they not have that choice?

Dusty
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
So there were 8 badmiten players who were thrown out for not trying to win. So, from stricktly ethical point of view, is this wrong?

If it gives them an easier path to the finals or avoids teammates should they not have that choice?


At the beginning of the Games, the athletes takes the following oath:

In the name of all the competitors I promise that we shall take part in these Olympic Games, respecting and abiding by the rules which govern them, committing ourselves to a sport without doping and without drugs, in the true spirit of sportsmanship, for the glory of sport and the honor of our teams.

The IOC felt that their actions was detrimental to their sport and was not in the true spirit of sportmanship.

So if you agree with the IOC, then violating an oath would be unethical.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I believe that ethics must be tied to motive or they aren't ethics. (If your behavior accidently does a good thing, that isn't because you're ethical.) So to me, this has to be a discussion of motives.

As I said on another thread on the subject, the goal has unfortunately become the gold medal, rather than the proof of skill that the gold medal is intended to honor. If the goal is to earn that medal by defeating everyone else this year, it is unethical to do so by gaming the system in such a way as to avoid playing against stronger competitors. Every competitor knows that the intent of the structure is. But these competitors wanted to win without doing so. So yes, what they did was unethical.



Frydaze1
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Folks,

"...and son, that's why it's not called goodmitten."


All my best,


Sails
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So there were 8 badmiten players who were thrown out for not trying to win. So, from stricktly ethical point of view, is this wrong?


Somewhere in the official Rules of Badminton it says players shall play with best effort.

So I dont think Olympic rules or ethics come into play, it is against the rules of the game.

I also think the Olympic committee will come up with a different type of play off in the future games.

jC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"So there were 8 badmiten players who were thrown out for not trying to win. So, from stricktly ethical point of view, is this wrong?

If it gives them an easier path to the finals or avoids teammates should they not have that choice?

Dusty "

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well, I suspect that folks may have lost sight of what a game is.

Howie52
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
So there were 8 badmiten players who were thrown out for not trying to win. So, from stricktly ethical point of view, is this wrong?

If it gives them an easier path to the finals or avoids teammates should they not have that choice?


In the spirit of the games, everyone is supposed to do their best and play to the best of their ability.

Losing on purpose is unethical. Not only does it effect the next set and possibly give an unfair advantage to other teammates (which I do see as cheating), it cheapens the win for the team that ultimatelytakes the majority of points.

From a spectator standpoint, I would be furious if I paid the price of the ticket to see the match, only to watch 4 people play in a way no better than most elementary schoolers (no offense to elementary aged badminton players everywhere).

In professional sports, taking a fall is considered to be not only against the rules, it can bring about investigations involoving gambling and criminal charges.

I think they were lucky that the worst thing that happened was that they were dismissed from the games.

LWW
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement