I thought with all of the contraversy over the Kerrigan attack a debate item 
was on hand.  How do you feel about the attack?  Do you think Harding knew 
about it?  Should she still go to Lillihammer?

231 responses total.

Harding should go to the Olympics. If Harding is taken off the team without
being convicted in the crime, I hope she sues the Olympic committee for
tens of millions and wins. In other words, Harding should go unless she
is convicted. 

Agreed. While she, unfortunately, doesn't really have a chance now because
of all the bad publicity, there is absolutely no evidence that implicates
her, other than media speculation and hearsay. 

I agree with Jemmie on this one.

Uh, This is a test.  This is only a test.  
I however, agree with everyone else.

A test.
I feel that Harding should go unless convicted.  Does anyone think harding
was involved?

Aww, Someone has to believe that she should be canned right here and now...
 
personally I don't, unless there is proof.   And that bodyguard saying that
she had everything to do with it doesn't count...  well, there is enough
dirt already about what kind of person he is for many more to discount
him saying she was involved...  (nevermind that last sentance, I'm tired
and can't figure it out...)  
 
so yeah, she should go to the olympics unless convicted first.  
I don't know what the olympic comittee says about letting people go who
are about to stand trial eventually but aren't yet proved guilty, if she
should stand trial for this.

I will not say she is either guilty or innocent, but I believe she should
resign from the games and admit she is finished in skating.  Doubt she could
get a job as a second stringer with Disney on Ice after this.

Let's get one thing strait here.  She will not get convicted within the next
ten days, which is when the decision will be made.  I would say she should go
unless *indicted*.  To kick her off the team on pure speculation, however,
would not be justafiable.  In that case, it would be catoring hysteria, rather
than to facts.

cheerleaders in texas, skaters in detroit, it's all the same.  They are called
the Olympic GAMES, right?!!!! (sigh). I don't have to like her, but if she can
skate and isn't indicted (I agree with Steve), I guess she has a right to go.

"It's just a game" is generally my attitude about it.  Unfortunately, a lot of
people seem to be missing that point in sports.  One of the memories that
stands out most from the bike road race national championships last year comes
from when I was standing around after the time trail (individual race against
the clock).  There was a very angry guy who was yelling at everybody in the 
area about how horrible it was that he had only gotten 22nd.  It appeared that
this "awful" placing was the worst thing that could possibly happen to him.
Two things came to mind.  First of all, it's just a race.  Secondly, 22nd in
the whole United States is a pretty good placing.  I sure would have been
happy with it.  For those people who think that anything less than first place
is the end of the world, get a grip!

there's an old story about a guy who thinks his life is pretty rough.  When he
asks for advice, the person he asked tells him to do a series of things that
make it much tougher, then gradually get him back to where he started-- if he
can walk, see, ride a bike, and has time to bitch about his placing, 22nd aint
so bad!!

My attitude on it is that I am out there to have fun.  If I do well, that's
all the better, but the only way I could really lose is if I didn't have fun
with it.  If I weren't having fun, what would be the point?  Some people, on
the other hand, seem to have lost site of that aspect.

#7: With all due respect, I don't think you have the slightest idea what
    Harding (and many other athletes) go through to get to the top. 
    Actually, I am positive you don't know what you're talking about. Harding
    has spent 20 years getting to where she is. Her parents have sacrificed
    themselves. Harding has given herself totally and absolutely to the
    pursuit of ice skating perfection. Suddenly, because her competitor
    was unlucky, she is suppose to resign and trash 20 years of sweat
    and tears? Let's put it this way, bap. If she had that mentality, she
    would never have gotten to where she is now. 

#9: There's no such thing as a "game" at the Olympics. When you spend
    8 hours or more training for one activity, you don't view it as a
    game. It is *life*. That's the way it is; That's the way it should be.

The successful do not accept failures. Thise is as true in athletics as
it is in business and life. Go ask the top tennis players if tennis is
a "game" to them. Go ask the top baseball players if baseball is a "game"
to them. When I played competitive sports, each game was life. Losing
was bitter because winning was really the *only* thing that mattered. If
you don't believe that, check out who is honored at the end of each
competition at the Olympics.

I would not say that the successful do not accept failures.  On the contrary,
the successful learn from failures and use them to their advantage next time.
Yes, for many people their sport is a life.  However, in most -- but not
all -- cases, the important thing about winning is to have won fairly.  I
would bet that it would be very hard to find a top athlete who would want
their competition to be injured so they would have to compete for the
victory.  Yes, there are some people who might want the competition to
have a bad day, but not a serious injury.  As for the contention that
anything less than an Olympic gold might not be good enough for some
dedicated athletes, if that was all they could accept they would never
have gotten there in the first place.  The preparation requires too many
years of lesser events.

        My view of this may differ from a lot of popular American sports,
since there really isn't a way to "lose" a bike race, but I imagine it
probably would hold true in a sport such as figure skating, since that is
also something that includes many competitors.  When I used to play soccer
we would either win or lose, and if the team was any good, we would win at
least half our games.  Sports that have many people competing in the same
event are a bit different.  In a bike race, no matter what place I come in
I have beaten somebody.  If I come in last, at least I finished.  If I win
then so much the better, but the alternative to winning isn't losing.

I just hope it turns out that Tanya had NOTHING to do with any of the
Kerrigan mess.  Her success in skating seems to be the ONE thing that has
turned out pretty well in her life, and it would be really sad if she
ruined it by being part of an attack on a competitor.  Until/unless there
is serious, credible evidence implicating her, then I agree with others
that she should be allowed to compete in the olympics.  Of course, the USOC
has been hoping that she'd just withdraw - it would make their job easier.
But there (so far) has been no reason to do so, although in many people's
minds I'm sure she has been judged "guilty by association."  In that respect,
at least, she needs to pick an new bunch of friends/associates after this
is over, that's for sure!

 Tanya is simply a hard-working bitch, motivated by $$$.   That's the 
American way.

I would agree with Jemmie on this one. A lot of people are saying that
it's just a game. Well maybe it should be, but it isn't. It's a person's
entire life (at that level) like it or lump it.

I guess I disagree with most of you about Tonya. I don't know whether or
not she participated in this conspiracy to injure Nancy Kerrigan, but
I *believe* she did. I believe that she will be found guilty of this
crime and be sentenced to jail for it. I could be wrong of course.

There doesn't appear to be any way to prevent Tonya from competing,
but if I turn out to be correct, then I believe her actions should
have resulted in her forfeiting her right to represent the USA in
Lillehammer. The timing is such that this will be impossible. I
regret that. 

No I do not think she should lose her chance to compete without
first being convicted. It's one of the things I like about this
country. The Grand Jury indictment is scheduled for early Feb., just
a few days after the USOC decision. Of course it would not be a 
conviction, and so even if it happened first shouldn't matter to the
USOC. Of course the USOC might not see it that way, but this is moot..

Another thing:
The Olympics is *supposed* to be about finding the BEST person in a particular
sport, not the most popular, or the most likable, or the most politically
correct or the most all-american-boy/girl. It's about the best.

Even if Kerrigan had competed and won, Harding would have come in second
and she would still be on the team. Her *ability* put her in place for
the team, and it would be a crock if the USOC kept her off on the suspicion
of wrong doing. With no hard evidence it would a travesty.

I say, put her on the team. If more evidence comes to light before the
actual Olympics, they can always boot her off later.

#14: There's a difference between learning from one's mistakes and accepting
     ("mistakes" should be "failures") them. Winning is the only thing that
     matters, Steve. In the world series, if Toronto had gotten into a bus
     accident and 5 of their most important players were injured, would
     Philadelphia have resigned? Absolutely not.

#16: That's the best way.

#17: Exactly. To declare an activity that someone has dedicated his/her 
     entire life and soul to as a "game" is insulting, degrading and 
     ignorant. Walk up to Troy Aikman or Steve Young this weekend and ask
     them if the football match this weekend is a "game". And they don't
     even train as hard as Harding. Go ask Wayne Gretzky if hockey is a
     "game". Not so unsimilar: Go ask Novell if the network industry is
     a "game". 

In respect to the talent the rest of the world will be bringing
to Norway neither of these women have a chance.  And in my humble
opinion, the only reason this has become such a media circus is
because it's womens figure skaters we're talking about not male luge
runners.  She's tough talking, smokes, is proficient at auto mechanics,
hunts and shoots, and doesn't take it from anyone.  She's guilty by
lifestyle.

re #19:  So, that rules out all sports as "games."  And chess, I
         suppose.  Wait -- people make a living producing "Hollywood
         Squares" -- we wouldn't want to trivialize tic-tac-toe by
         calling it a game, would we....

         The mere fact that you can make a living, and at times a very
         good living, playing a game doesn't transform the game into
         something more.  And the fact that the word "game" accurately
         describes the underlying contest does not trivialize that
         contest.

re 19:
        If a team or individual wins because an other person got hurt, yes it
is still great to win, but it is not *as* great as if it was won against 
everybody.  In fact there are some top athletes who won't even celebrate
victories like that.  For example, in a recent Tour de France, when the race
leader crashed out of the race and put Greg LeMond in the lead, LeMond refused
to wear the leaders' jersey the next day since he had won it because of a
crash, rather than winning it.  Now, LeMond may be the exception.  He has
been criticized for not being dedicated enough to cycling (among other things,
he has been accused of playing golf too much when he should be resting), but
this does show that not all professional athletes have the winning is
everything mentality.

I don 't have much to add (but since when does that stop a grexer?).
a) I think there is a high probability that Harding was aware of the
plot, but I would be very glad to be wrong. If she isn't, she's an
angel in the den of thieves.
b) If she is indicted, anytime right up to the finals, she should be
disqualified. She could be cleared, in which case she could try again.
If cleared, she'd have a fine professional future (which I suspect would
actually be more important to such a practical woman). 

        I think that Tonya Harding should be allowed ?n the team unless
        indicted
also.  She had to give up leading a normal childhood, and a normal life just to
skate.  I don't think that because her ex-husband, and body are complete 
sociopathic jerks she should lose her life-long dream.  She deserved to at 
least get a chance.  The two, Eckhardt and Gilooly have both been described by
their friends as "having a strange perception of the truth".  And those are
their friends.  Unless there is a money trail or something to Tonya, or if the
evidence gets to great, then she should be kicked of the team, but then and 
only then.
        On the topic of the U.S. olympic team not being as good as many other 
teams, I would like to point out that in 92 Kerrigan got the bronze, losing 
only to Yamaguchi and Ito.  Both have gone pro.  At the World figure skating
contest in 93 Kerrigan got the silver, and Harding got the bronze, losing to
Yamaguchi(who hadn't yet gone pro).  I think that we have a great chance at 
Lillehammer.

Wow.  Throw her off the team based on the "high" indictment standard
of "reasonable suspicion."  (Insert smiley here, for the sarcasm-impaired.)

I think that until proven nothing should happen.

#21: Ask Kasparov, Karpov and other chess champions if chess is a "game". 
     If you read carefully you will note that I a "game" doesn't become
     more because of the money, but because of the devotion, the time,
     the sweat and the tears. Declaring world-class ice skating as a game
     is like calling world-class pianist a hobbyist. 

#22: And when Fignon didn't wear a helmet and caused extra drag because of
     his hair, did LeMond take off his aerodynamic helmet? 

No, but Fignon could have worn a helmet if he wanted to.  In the example I
was talking about, Sorensen (sp?) was too badly hurt to ride.  I don't
remember the specifics of that crash, but most bike crashes in race
situations are not the fault of the person who gets hurt the most.

re #27:  Is chess a game when *you* play it?  You're walking a strange
         semantic line....

#28: #28: If LeMond were as you represented him, he would have *at least*
     wore a non-aerodynamic helmet just to put himself on even grounds
     with his main competitor. Fignon's stubborn refusal to wear a
     helmet is quite irrelevant if LeMond were interested in winning
     on even grounds.

#29: If I play chess a couple of times a year, it could be a game. If
     I play chess for 8-12 hours a day, 7 days a week for 20 years of 
     my life, it is *MUCH* more than a "game". Likewise, if I play 
     baseball a few times a year with some friends, it could be a game.
     If I practice baseball 8 hours a day, 6 days a week for 20 years of
     my life, it's definitely not a game anymore.

There is quite a big difference between breaking a collar bone (I think that
was what Sorensen's injury was) and making the decision not to use aerodynamic
equipment.  Cycling is a very technology oriented sport.  While your arguments
might make sense in the low end of the amateur ranks, how much aerodynamic
stuff people use is a matter of choice (to the extent that it is not dictated
by sponsors, but that's irrelevant considering that nobody was paying Fignon
not to wear a helmet) in professional racing.  Cycling is not a purely
physical sport.  There is a lot of thinking and a lot of guesswork
involved.  Jumping at the wrong time, or choosing the wrong gear before a
sprint can cost somebody a race.  Ditto for the equipment.  One thing that
good cyclists have to learn is how to make that kind of decision.  LeMond
chose the equipment he thought was best, and Fignon chose the equipment he
thought was best.  LeMond chose the better equipment, and he won.  
        If playing chess occasionally, so that it is "just a game", And all 
your opponents important pieces suddenly became stuck to the board, and
therefore unmovable (remember, this is hypothetical), would you continue
to play the very unfair game and then celebrate your victory?  It just
wouldn't be the same, would it?  What about if your opponent made a series
of stupid moves?  Would making better moves than your opponent was making
be the same kind of thing as if your oponent became, for some reason
completely unrelated to the game, unable to move his pieces?  No, of
course not.  One is just a matter of playing better, while the other is
capatalizing on a circumstance beyond your opponents control.  Now, I know
crashes are more common in races than pieces getting stuck to the board
are in chess games, but it is the same sort of situation.

In my opinion, all the examples cited - chess, baseball, cycle racing, etc -
are games. The distinctions that many are making are not observable
during the course of each "game". Some people use fancier equipment, or
are obviously much better at it, etc., but all I see are chess pieces
being moved, or bicycles being raced, or little white balls being batted
around an ecological wasteland in an inefficient manner by ostensible
adults. One dictionary definition of _game_ is 
. A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other
according to a set of rules.
That's all it takes to be a game. 

I think some may have lost sight of the point of that debate Rane.
Your definition of a game sounds right to me.

It is a different matter to tell one of these dedicated people
to chill out because what they are doing is only a game.

Yes it is a game, but much more than only a game, for some.

OTOH, it's not unreasonable for someone to question the priorities of
someone who puts many hours a day into perfecting a game (or if you prefer,
a sport).  Or, more to the point, to question the priorities of people who
are willing to pay so much money to see (say) which team can move the ball
down the field most often in a limited time period.  IMNAAHO this
is not a burning issue, but the rest of the world acts as though it were
one of the most important issues there is.

I think that all games or sports were made for the purpose of fun, not 
competition.  When baseball and basketball and other games were first invented,
people played and watched them for fun.  Now I think that people are overdoing
sports, and making games (or sports) more a desire to win, and less for the 
purpose of fun.

#31: Surely not. Someone like LeMond has more money to research
     aerodynamic equipment than some mountain boy from S. America. The 
     whole concept of doing high tech research on aerodynamic equipment is
     to get an *EDGE* on the competition, not to put yourself on equal
     ground with the competition. I still maintain that if Lemond were the
     benevolent sportsman you make him out to be, he would have *at least*
     wore a non-aerodynamic helmet. 

#32: Clearly there are connotations to "game" which might not be in the
     dictionary. One connotation is that a game's result is of no 
     significant consequence. This is clearly not true in those examples
     I listed, especially to the participants. In your definition of a 
     game, a legal trial qualifies, as well as stock market speculation, etc.
     Pretty much every activity is a game because every activity is
     competitive (almost every) and has rules.

     In other words, the definition you gave is less than adequate. Some
     

I disagree. Your examples do not qualify as games. They are not
reciprocal. In trials, someone is guilty and someone is not. Stock
market speculation is not a contention between two persons (its a
game of solitaire, perhaps - I would accept that - its a game). All
of the games mentioned previously *have no significant consequences*
of themselves. The significant consequences are things going on outside
and apart from the game. 

Ummm.. You just added two more conditions to your defition: 1) A "game"
cannot involve someone who could be guilty; 2) A "game" must be a
contention between two persons. Any more conditions before I bring up
50 more examples which contradict your definition?

I do remember that Chinese checkers involves three players. Poker, hearts
and bridge involve more than two players. You're slipping, Rane.

The games mentioned have no significant consequences of themselves? A
first place award of seven digits in a golf turnament (more than most
people make in their entire lifetime) is not significant? If an award for
achievement is not a significant consequence, I do not know what is. A
few hundred thousand award and a seven or eight digit promotional contract
for a tennis victory at Wimbledon is not significant? Winning the World
Cup soccer turnament is not significant? (Tell that to Europeans and
S. Americans.) 

I am amazed that some people can't see the difference between a volleyball
game at a once-a-year company picnic and figure skating at the Olympics 
(once every four years). The volleyball game is a game because the
results are clearly of consequence to no one. The same is not true for
figure skating. 

I will back down on the number of players, etc, as you are quite right.
The "seven digits in a gold tournament" are, however outside the game.
The game is *just* to bat that ball around, and the one doing it in
the fewest swings wins. Same applies to tennis. So, I'm contending
that poker is a game regardless of the stakes being beans or billions.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss