CHN/KOR/INA WD pair disqualified from the Olympics

**thunder.tw** · 08-06-2012, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by hcyong

Oh, let me just clarify that I don't mean "the ends justify the means". Fairplay is also important.

The reason I say it's not really a moral issue is because as we see, people have different morals. Also, you get people trying to make arguments based on moral relativism. By that I mean people attempting to excuse their actions by pointing out the actions of some jackass in another circumstance such as cycling or women's soccer.

Fair play (actually I mean something broader here) is more than important in this case, it is actually a concept that is codified in the rules regarding players conduct. Yes such rules can be applied with some flexibility but the actions of the WDs went way beyond the tolerance levels. Furthermore they were warned that their actions were unacceptable and they were warned so in no uncertain terms. So yet another reason why morality doesn't factor here is because despite what some people seem to believe, there is actually very clear language in the rules pertaining to the actions the women took.

However, I would say trying to get a better draw is fair game; everyone wants it and can attain it (depends on how hard they try to lose)

Well I disagree with you because not every team enjoyed that option so by definition the playing field wasn't level. The reality is that the format they decided on, while stupid was fair the Chinese teams could have avoided meeting each other early by winning their matches. The 2nd ranked team failed to do that and lost to the Danes in a legitimate match. Why should the other Chinese team be given the power to nullify the consequences of that legitimate result? Ultimately though this concept is a mere philosophical discussion. The hard reality is that the women broke the rules as determined by the relevant governing bodies.

**thunder.tw** · 08-06-2012, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by kinetics

There is a very clear clause in the BWF code of conduct that can be used as a catch all for this type of behaviour. There really isn't any ambiguity in the wording or the spirit of that clause. There has been a great deal of ambiguity in how the BWF has enforced it. But, expecting them not to enforce this rule under the circumstances and the venue is insane.

Could you point out which clause you are talking about? Perhaps quote it?

I'm just curious...

But not curious enough to do a simple search. Very well here's the relevant link;

http://bwfbadminton.org/file_downloa...d=364321&tid=1

Pay specific attention to points 4.1.1 and 4.5. The women's actions made them vulnerable to either one or both of those clauses. For good measure throw in the last sentence or so of 5.1.

**pcll99** · 08-06-2012, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by thunder.tw

But not curious enough to do a simple search. Very well here's the relevant link;

http://bwfbadminton.org/file_downloa...d=364321&tid=1

Pay specific attention to points 4.1.1 and 4.5. The women's actions made them vulnerable to either one or both of those clauses. For good measure throw in the last sentence or so of 5.1.

i think they were charged under 4.5 and 4.16.

4.5 Failure to use best efforts
Not using one’s best efforts to win a match.

4.16 Unsportsmanlike conduct
Conducting oneself in a manner that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport

**Shifty** · 08-06-2012, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by hcyong

Interesting

The Algerian's intention in the 800m event is really not to progress any further in the event (though admittedly, his intention is actually to rest and do better for 1500m).
The WD's intention in the WD event is really to progress further in the event.
There's a difference.

Of course, that is true. It is still interesting that he is charged with essentially breaking the same rules as the women did. He had basically the same mind set (lose deliberately to have a better chance at a medal, all be at at a different event).

I just wonder if badminton has set a precedence for Olympics in terms of sportsmanship or maybe IOC are just trying not to be blatantly hypocritical

**Wildstone** · 08-06-2012, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by Avenger

so KOR VS CHN:
KOR (by losing) wants to setup CHN VS CHN quarterfinal (CWIIW) (avoiding CHN get gold and silver) and also if possible, maybe all KOR eight finals (so one of them would qualify in semifinal and got a chance to grab a medal, wheter go to final or bronze)

CHN (by losing) wants to avoid their teammates to setup all CHN final

and then, KOR VS INA:
these pairs, will fight against the 2 pairs above (KOR and CHN)
winner of this group will fight against the loser of the other group (which is CHN pair, WZL / YY world number 1 WD)
and the loser will fight against the winner of the other group (the KOR pair)
no one wants to fight against world number 1, so everyone wants to lose too

Hi Avenger, yes I get it. But the news and articles make me confused. In the news the Korea coach said to the tournament referee that the reason they want to lose is because they do not want to face their own teammates. BUT, if they lose, they will face their own teammates isn't it? Also, it does not really make sense to face their own teammates rather than facing CHN pair, even if they are world number 1.

So are you saying the news are wrong? That's what really get me confused...

**bakulaw** · 08-06-2012, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by Wildstone

Hi Avenger, yes I get it. But the news and articles make me confused. In the news the Korea coach said to the tournament referee that the reason they want to lose is because they do not want to face their own teammates. BUT, if they lose, they will face their own teammates isn't it? Also, it does not really make sense to face their own teammates rather than facing CHN pair, even if they are world number 1.

So are you saying the news are wrong? That's what really get me confused...

I agree that it's a bit confusing. Here's my GUESS:

KOR was hiding their true intention of setting up both WYL/YY together with TQ/ZYL in the top half of the draw.

If JKE/KHN lost against WZL/YY, I reckon, HJE/KMJ would have won against INA's PG/JM.
An automatic SF for KOR in a relatively weak group. Sure, they would have to sacrifice JKE/KHN but the KOR WD2 pair's chances weren't very good anyway.

When WZL/YY were 'successful' in losing against JKE/KHN, HJE/KMJ wanted to lose against INA in order to avoid WZL/YY in the QF.

Bottomline, both of them don't want to be in the same half as CHN.

In the surface, KOR wanted to lose BOTH matches in order to avoid meeting each other in the QF (as what they ave released to the press); quite similar to YY's 'injury excuse'. Sly sly girls... shame on them for speaking in forked tongue. hehehe.

I can't fully blame em though. I believe 80% of the blame is on the organizer. Stupid format.

**Wildstone** · 08-07-2012, 05:04 AM

Originally Posted by bakulaw

I agree that it's a bit confusing. Here's my GUESS:

KOR was hiding their true intention of setting up both WYL/YY together with TQ/ZYL in the top half of the draw.

If JKE/KHN lost against WZL/YY, I reckon, HJE/KMJ would have won against INA's PG/JM.
An automatic SF for KOR in a relatively weak group. Sure, they would have to sacrifice JKE/KHN but the KOR WD2 pair's chances weren't very good anyway.

When WZL/YY were 'successful' in losing against JKE/KHN, HJE/KMJ wanted to lose against INA in order to avoid WZL/YY in the QF.

Bottomline, both of them don't want to be in the same half as CHN.

In the surface, KOR wanted to lose BOTH matches in order to avoid meeting each other in the QF (as what they ave released to the press); quite similar to YY's 'injury excuse'. Sly sly girls... shame on them for speaking in forked tongue. hehehe.

I can't fully blame em though. I believe 80% of the blame is on the organizer. Stupid format.

Good point, clear my doubts. Strange no one realized what the Korean coach said was contradicting...

**hcyong** · 08-07-2012, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by pcll99

i think they were charged under 4.5 and 4.16.

4.1.2 Second sentence. LD DQ'ed. LCW takes gold

Of course, I wouldn't have enforced this rule. But if you are dead set on the regulations ...

**pwimsey** · 08-10-2012, 10:04 AM

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8396

funny it makes chessbase.
while chess players typically do not throw games, but has been done in past, they do tend to play safe for draws

this is not appealing to the audience as the draws are short or just home-based computer preparation.

**thunder.tw** · 08-10-2012, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by hcyong

4.1.2 Second sentence. LD DQ'ed. LCW takes gold

Of course, I wouldn't have enforced this rule. But if you are dead set on the regulations ...

Do you have any concept of the meaning of perspective? Your attempted point is idiotic. I actually would like to see this rule enforced. Does enforcing it mean a DQ for LD? Only if you are a simpleton, what makes you think that violation of that rule isn't punishable by a fine or some other sanction? Your argument is the equivalent of trying to say if the justice system executes a murderer then someone who litters should also face death.

**Loh** · 08-14-2012, 09:56 PM

TODAY

(Another view from a reader)

From Dudley Au
04:45 AM Aug 15, 2012

I refer to the commentary "Playing to lose is smart, not an Olympic scandal" (Aug 13) on the ejected women's badminton doubles players.

They had qualified for the next round, which opened the door for the teams to find the best route for their country. This would have only protected the players from unnecessary fatigue.

Every athlete has to use judgment in pacing to achieve the best chance for ultimate victory. It is akin to chess, where one would sacrifice a piece or pieces to win. A long-distance runner would also hold back before making a final spurt.

It is not cheating nor dishonesty but a strategy to conserve energy in whatever sporting endeavour. A limited resource is being rationally directed towards a goal, an earnest attempt to succeed.

It is the same with pecuniary matters: One does not extend beyond one's means. One has to control one's finances, so that it is not exhausted before the goal is reached.

In that sense, the players' actions should not have been faulted by the sport's authority. There is a dichotomy between the ideal, that the human body is unlimited, and the pragmatic path. The former sounds great, but pragmatism brings home the gold.

If the goal of competing athletes and countries is to win, then there must be focus.

To entertain the crowd is secondary, not primary. To win and break records would entertain spectators, but this would occur when resources are planned to peak at the right time.

This is the pivot around which success and talent revolve. It would be hyperbole to believe otherwise.