Should Paul Hamm Give back his gold medal?

[AgadorSparticus]

Poll question: Should Paul Hamm Give back his gold medal?

I feel bad for athletes when they get emotionally jerked around by scoring incompetence. But why keep something that isn't yours? To me, it means nothing. What do you think?

[JPJones]

1. Only in George Bush's America do you keep things you didn't earn nt

[Swamp Rat]

2. I have no idea what you are talking about... What happened?

I need a link and background info before I can take your poll.

[phantom power]

10. Here's a brief summary

The judges screwed up, and set the Korean's starting-score 0.1 points too low. Therefore, his final score was 0.1 points too low, and so he came in second to Hamm, but his score should have been higher.

The catch is, that according to Olympic rules, any complaints are supposed to be lodged before the beginning of the next event. The Koreans didn't lodge their complaint until later.

So, according to the letter of the law, Hamm really is the official winner of the gold. In spirit, Hamm really should have silver, and the Korean should have gold.

[Swamp Rat]

13. Thanks

[Gothmog]

3. Give two gold medals

I think that this has been done in the past and here it is the right thing to do.

[Fenris]

4. Whether he keeps his medal or not is irrelevent.

He lost that match. He may have the medal, but he's still the loser.

[Beaverhausen]

5. I think he should lay off the helium

I heard him speak for the first time last night. What is up with that little squeeky voice?

[blue neen]

18. I couldn't believe it when I heard him speak...thought it was a Munchkin.

Apparently helium isn't a banned substance yet!

[johnnie]

43. Me too

I was ready for him to break into The lollipop guild at any moment.

[troublemaker]

6. Fuck Hamm. He has no honor. (It's Florida 2000 all over again.)

[Renew Deal]

12. Oh bullshit

Was Hamm in on the rigging or was his brother? Some people here need to get a grip.

[PVnRT]

28. Well said

n/t

[Surf Cowboy]

44. Yeah, an awful lot of "winners" on this site all of a sudden

So, how many of you highly honorable types who voted for Hamm to return his medals have returned things you didn't deserve, such as:

A grade?

A job?

A raise?

A girl?

A guy?

Extra change from the cashier?

Bank mistake in your favor?


This guy has practiced and worked his entire life for this--it may require a little more thought and consideration than what is evident here.

**Also, did you see the Korean's high-bar routine last night? HE SUCKED. EASILY THE WORST OF THE GROUP. I'm glad he didn't get the gold, because he certainly wasn't the class of the group.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

59. Extra change from the cashier, yes, more than once. Others never happened.

Your point?

[phantom power]

14. Hamm did win by the letter of the law. The 2000-election was dodgy...

I can't fault Hamm for keeping his medal, since he did win it legally.

I do think that he's missing an opportunity to become a legend of true sportsmanship. And, incidentally, maybe giving America's reputation a badly-needed boost. I wonder if he'll regret his decision as time passes, and he gains a bit more perspective.

[Surf Cowboy]

45. Wow. It must be nice to be so perfect

that you can attack a kid like Hamm with a straight face.

So what have you contributed to society to have such a high opinion of yourself and such a low opinion of an American Gold Medalist?

I can't wait to hear...

[MrSlayer]

7. Other: Both "B" and "C".

I don't think Hamm should have to give back the medal because someone else screwed up and I think they should give the Korean kid one too. This opens up a 4th guy to grab a Bronze. Everyone is happy.

[NC_Nurse]

8. If he had graciously

accepted that the judges were wrong and given the medal to the South Korean he would have been a hero. Instead, he hid out and got booed off the stage during the high bar event.

He couldn't have lost by giving it back.
Seems like everyone has adopted the "W" way of taking responsibility.

Hopefully "W" will end up with the same response in Nov.!

[AgadorSparticus]

19. he got booed???

missed that one. i think that he didn't offer to give up his medal makes the US look more shallow. at that level of competition, i can't imagine an athlete wanting to keep a medal that they KNOW they didn't earn. WHY would anyone want to keep it?

[barb162]

33. judges can't seem to get it right, can they

There's so much strange scoring in gymnastics, ice skating, etc. and all of the athletes are used to it. So if you get a medal you keep it. There have probably been plenty of times when Hamm was the best performer and someone else got the gold medal. I thought they were scoring women's medals very weirdly the other night and so were the announcers and audience. Remember when the Cold War was on and the US judges would give low marks to the USSR and the USSR judges would give low marks to the US?

[Red State Rebel]

25. The Booing tonite had nothing to do with Hamm's medal

It was all at the judges for Nemov's score. By the middle of Hamms routine, they were applauding him.

[kiahzero]

27. What were you watching?

Because it certainly wasn't the high bar event.

[AgadorSparticus]

30. yup. just saw it. they booed hamm's score. think it was too high

[LDS Jock]

9. No, leave it alone

Hamm's coach had mentioned a .2 deduction for the Korean gymnast on another event which wasn't taken. If this is pressed too far for an overturn, it will just keep going. Everyone will want to be evaluated again and have others done too. In any event with human judges there will be errors. There have been errors in sports as long as there have been sports.

[Piltdown13]

24. Yes...

In fact, it was the same event. The Americans only noticed the missed deduction for the Koraean on the parallel bars when they viewed the tape themselves upon hearing that the governing body was looking at videotape in connection with the Korean protest. And it wasn't a subjective deduction, either -- from what I hear, the guy stopped his routine four times, when the maximum allowed number of stoppages is three, for a mandatory .2 deduction. If *both* errors are corrected -- which I think they should be if FIG is going to break their own rule that bans using videotape to adjudicate protests -- then Hamm still wins.

As unfair as this whole situation is, there really isn't any consistent way to solve it that doesn't open up a huge can of worms. If scores can be contested and routines reviewed after the competition, there will be no end of protests after every meet. IMHO, the only way to make video review fair in this type of situation is to stipulate that if you ask for video review, your WHOLE routine gets reviewed, which could result in a lowered score, not the higher score you're hoping for.

[barb162]

40. Mandatory deduction put Korean 4th

I was listening this morning to an ex- olympic gymnastics team member (now an annnouncer for NBC gymnastics) and he said that the Korean's mandatory deduction for that extra stoppage was as you say. If you look at the Korean's WHOLE performance on the parallel bars, he would have come in FOURTH and not first. Hamm should not have to share a medal. He earned it fair and square!

[Pithlet]

49. But the judges didn't give it to him.

the "automatic" deductions are part of a judging system that is subjective. For whatever reason, the judges at the time did not deem to give him those deductions. It happens all the time. People can and do look at routines all the time after the fact and point out where a judge should, or shouldn't have, deducted. And not everyone agrees.

The issue is not over how the routine was judged, but the incorrect start value, which IS objective. Like I said in another post, it is like the starting line in a foot race.

[Piltdown13]

55. We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but...

From what I understand, automatic/mandatory deductions are supposed to occur, well, automatically whenever the error in question occurs. Sit your landing or fall off an apparatus, automatic .5 deduction; step out of bounds on the floor or vault landing, automatic .1 off. There isn't supposed to be any choice as to whether the deduction is taken or not; most of the disagreement over scores tends to come over things like athletes getting dinged for optional deductions that observers may or may not feel were justified -- perfect example being the high bar scoring last night, where the crowd clearly felt Nemov deserved to win, but the judges placed him fifth despite his having no major mistakes on an incredibly difficult routine.

In this case, the judges simply missed the fact that the Korean gymnast had one hold more than the allowed three (after incorrectly calculating the start value, of course). Having seen the routine replayed again last night, I can see how they made that mistake, as two of his holds were right at the beginning of the routine and the other two were immediately preceding his dismount -- it would have been easy for them to lose count. IMO, this is no different from an athlete stepping out of bounds on the floor, but not receiving the deduction because the line judge failed to raise the red flag and the other judges didn't see it.

I agree, the judges should never have made that mistake on the start value; the routine should have received the appropriate start value. However, I don't think it would be fair to go back and change it after the competition is over; such protests are required to be made before the start of the next rotation because the results on all previous events affects the competitors' performances in the subsequent events. It would be especially bad to change the results after the fact based on video review, when such review is against the rules. I'm surprised they're still pursuing this, given that video review reveals that their athlete actually ended up better off than he should have.

(Edit for clarity)

[Pithlet]

57. I agree with most of what you say

including the part where there are regulations on the time period require to file a protest. I might argue that it is too short, but they are there.

My beef is with those who claim that Hamm won the medal. He did not. He got it because a mistake that wasn't corrected in time was made. I think that it is poor sportsmanship for Hamm to whine "It's mine!" and complain about the person who lost out on a gold because of that mistake trying to get a gold he should have had.

I would never want to win a medal like that. I would always look at that medal and think I didn't truly win it, that someone else did, and lost it because of a mistake.

[Piltdown13]

58. I take your point; however

First, as to the time period restriction, I know it's a very short amount of time, but I really think it has to be that way, because each competitor needs to know accurately where he or she stands going into each rotation. It really does affect their performances, either positively or negatively. One example of this effect would be the vault debacle at the last Olympics, where the vault was set something like 5cm too low for the women's all-around. It wasn't discovered until at least one rotation had occurred, and many of the women who vaulted before had terrible scores because of it. They were offered the chance to redo their vaults after the vault height was fixed, but most declined because their performances on their next apparatus had been so negatively affected by their falls on the vault (their focus disrupted, etc.) that a better vault score wouldn't have made a difference. This is one reason I don't like the idea of making changes after a competition ends that would have affected the dynamic of the competition had they been made during the competition.

My take on the present situation is that when you make a protest after the competition ends, you open yourself up to having the whole routine in question re-scrutinized. The reason I feel this way is because if rulings made and/or scores awarded during the competition are reversed after the competition is over, changing the final results, it is unfair to all the other competitors, who had no opportunity to adjust their performance/strategy/etc. in response to the corrected ruling/score. Now, people could argue all day as to whether any routines actually would have been changed had the correct ruling originally been made, but the fact remains that changing scores and rulings after the fact takes away that opportunity. On the one hand, changing the score seems like the fair thing to do, because there's no question that an error was made; on the other hand, you can change the score after the fact, but you can't go back and change the dynamic that existed during the competition as a result of the incorrect score.

This situation is, of course, a wonderful illustration of the problems inherent in judged sports. Judges do make mistakes, there's no question. Unfortunately, allowing a mistake to be corrected after a competition is over opens up the possibility for all kinds of chaos, especially at this Olympics, where the quality of the judging has been such that I'd imagine just about everyone could point to a mistake that had been made in the judging of one of their routines. To me, it comes down to either being unfair to one athlete by allowing an incorrect ruling to stand, or being unfair to everyone else by making a change after the fact (and setting a precedent opening up the possibility of endless similar challenges in the future).

[Pithlet]

60. It depends on the type of mistake.

I do not think that fixing mistakes makes it unfair for everyone. Indeed, I think that by only relying on the end result, who has the medal, over everything else cheapens medals. The attitudes of "well, what's done is done, and even though the wrong people have the medals, that's how it has to be. The end is what matters" makes it all about the medal, not about the competition.

You can go to far in what is and is not allowed to be protested and corrected. But to go to the other extreme and say "We can never correct mistakes" is equally detrimental.

Hamm is not the actual gold medal winner. Allowing him to keep it cheapens the medal. This was an outright mistake, not a difference of opinion, that led to it. Outright, blatant mistakes should be allowed to be corrected, or it is no longer about the competition, but about having the medal.

[Piltdown13]

62. I don't think that fixing mistakes is unfair...

...as long as the mistakes are corrected during the competition. Maybe it comes from my own experiences in athletic competition, but I absolutely hate the idea of changing the results after a competition ends in the absence of clear cheating (proven score rigging, positive drug tests), at least in cases where what happened after the mistaken call might have been different had the call been correct. To me, those things need to be fixed right away, which may result in unfairness to the person on the wrong end of the bad call when mistakes are only discovered later, but to allow after-the-fact changes sets up a situation where athletes might well be rewarded for waiting to make their protest until after the competition ends.

In the case of gymnastics, I stand by my position that if post-competition challenges are going to be heard and adjudicated based on videotape of the routine in question, then the entire routine ought to be reviewed for any other mistakes not caught at the time. Basically, I feel that if you're going to be allowed to protest the outcome after the competition ends, it ought not to be a no-lose situation for you. It's a harsh position, I agree, but IMHO necessary to cut down on protests made that are without merit (in other words, protests made just to see if a better result can be had, not because an athlete has been wronged -- and I think that such protests would be made in the absence of such a rule; just listen to the comments of Khorkina and some of the Romanian gymnasts). Now, if you protest during the competition, then I think that only the element in question ought to be reviewable.

[Pithlet]

64. But in the case we're talking about

It's not based on video tape. The wrong start value was used for his routine. It doesn't take videotape to see it. It is on paper. It changes nothing and opens nothing else up to correct this mistake. Whenever a mistake like this happens, it should be corrected. Otherwise, you're clearly letting a result stand that shouldn't.

I do not agree that mistakes should only be corrected during competition. I think that clear cut objective cases should be corrected at the time they are discovered. I do not think that, in cases like gymnastics, videos should be reviewed after the fact, and judges decisions about deductions overridden. In such cases, you and I agree. But, that is not what happened. In subjective matters, I completely agree that they should be allowed to stand. But, not objective ones. By disallowing correcting ALL mistakes after competition ends sends the message that it is about the result, and not how it was attained.

[Piltdown13]

65. Hmmm...from what I understand, video was indeed being used

The FIG went to videotape to see what start value was displayed on the board after the Korean's parallel bars routine ended; they may also have reviewed the routine to see whether the start value should have been 9.9 or 10.0 -- I'm not sure if that was done. I don't know why they would go to videotape to check something like this, unless for some reason the only thing retained by the computer is the score given by each deductions judge and the average. Though, in a dispute over start values in every event but vault, I can see where video would be useful -- it would be the only way to determine whether the elements that the athlete claimed added up to a 10.0 start value were all present. (In vault, each vault has a given start value rather than the start value being the sum of all the elements plus bonus points as in other events. The athlete punches in the code for the vault before going, and the two start value judges in this case simply determine whether the athlete in fact performed the vault he said he would.)

[Pithlet]

67. Video tape was not being used to question the judgment

of the judges. It was merely used to see if he actually did the routine he was supposed to. He did.

It wasn't looking at the videotape to question how accurate the judges were. it was a matter of "Was that the routine?" "Yep, it was". They weren't reviewing it to see how well he did it, and if the judges scored accordingly.

[Pithlet]

35. No

the .2 deduction is another matter. Hamm's coach says he sees things that he would deduct for. But it is irrelevant. You can't go back after the fact and ask a judge to change a subjective judgement.

The mistake was not in their judging. You can entirely fix the objective mistake they made, and use the right start number, without it turning into a "let's redo everyone" fiasco. The judges aren't changing their minds on how they judged the Korean. His deductions stay the same, but added to the correct base number, it puts him ahead of Hamm. It's the right thing to do. The winner should have the gold. It isn't his fault, and he has every right to want it corrected.

[petronius]

38. But the extra hold deduction isn't a subjective thing either

As I understand it, it's a deduction that should automatically be taken when a given event occurs, similar to how sitting on a dismount automatically loses you 'x' number of points. So, I think the "yes" answer two posts up is the best...

[Pithlet]

47. Yes, but judging is subjective

there may very well be automatic deductions, but that doesn't mean a judge will see them, decide that what the gymnast did qualifies for that automatic deduction, and take them every time. A lot of the controversy of Olympic judging stems from that. The judging process IS subjective.

A start value is not, because it does not change, regardless of how well or how poor a routine is done. It's like the starting line at track and field.

[Pithlet]

54. But judges aren't machines

who automatically and fairly give a deduction where it is warranted every single time. That is why it becomes subjective. Regardless of whether every single deductions was taken when it was, when the judges give the final score, then that is the score, objectivities and all. There probably isn't a single routine where everyone in gymnastics would agree that every single deduction or lack of a deduction was correct.

A start value is objective, because no matter what else happens, if the gymnast does the routine with that start value, then the start value does not change.

The subjective deductions or lack of them should have been subtracted from a higher score. The judges did not decide to give a lower number, they mistakenly gave the wrong number. It's as if someone accidental put the start line in the wrong position in a track and field meet, but corrected it for the second heat, so that one heat got a fair run, but the first did not.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

11. Keep it.

I think the reasoning behind giving two metals is that even if the Korean man's score had started off higher, Hamm's scores would have been higher too, because there would still be the proportional difference in performances.

I don't understand how Hamm giving up his would be necessary.

[Swamp Rat]

15. Other. I say saw the damn trinkets in half and weld them back together

half and half. Give them both the silver and the gold medals... or the silver AND gold medal.

If one cries, "please don't kill it, he can have the gold," then HE can have the gold... so saith the lord.

[phantom power]

16. say, I've got this really complicated knot I've been trying to untie....

[DrWeird]

17. Yes.

An Olympic gold medal is supposed to be something you earn, not something you get on a cheap technicality.

[HEyHEY]

20. I don't know why he hasn't

I mean, living with that medal and knowing what's behind it. Of course then the Bronze r guy swould be screwed

[barackmyworld]

21. hold deduction

tonight they said that the korean guy had four "holds," where you stop moving to do something like a handstand. You are only allowed 3, so he should have had a .2 deduction, they didn't give him that.

[truebrit71]

22. Issue a second gold medal...

..and while you're at it shoot the judges from tonight's high-bar competition..they were dreadful....

[SOteric]

23. No. Not a chance.

Paul Hamm won the gold. Period.

What might have happened if Yang Tae Young had scored higher on the bars is a non-entity - sheer guesswork. It might have made him cocky or overly excited and caused him to lose focus and flub his floor exercise. We'll never know. He'll never know. A winner was declared and playing by the rules and protocols of the game are as much a part of athletics and sportsmanship as is being a gracious winner and a graceful loser.

[AgadorSparticus]

31. it's not a matter of woulda coulda..they started him off on the wrong base

score. they may not have caught some flaws but hell, they should start on the right number. how stupid is that? and they should have enough balls to admit they were wrong and correct the number.

[SOteric]

32. It is a matter of "woulda coulda."

Gymnastics is a sport that shows an athlete's ability to handle pressure rather amazingly. A tiny flub in a routine can sometimes destroy a competitor's confidence, focus and concentration to the continued detriment of their performance. This isn't substantially different than many other sports, but in Gymnastics perfection of form is a heavily judged element of the outcome. The bars was not Yang Tae Young's last event. Regardless of how the judges determined the start value of the routine there was a potential afteraffect on everything that he did in performance afterward. That's one of the fundamental reasons for the rules regarding appropriate time frame for protest and dispute resolution.

When during the Sydney Olympics, the vault was determined to be at the wrong height during a Women's Gymnastics event, most of those who scored poorly during that event were offered the opportunity to vault again. Many declined. Their subsequent routines were so badly affected by the prattfalls and loss of confidence that the repeat would not have helped their scores.

It's ever thus. It's neither fair nor accurate to say that the score, whether correctly judged or not, would in no way have affected Yang Tae Young's subsequent performance. History, even his personal history of performance, suggests that there would have been a difference.

More of my opinions in this matter are here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=1576981&mesg_id=1579271&page=

[AgadorSparticus]

34. I'm not saying for him to redo his routine. I'm saying the judges should

redo their scoring. take the same deductions off of the new starting score. that would give him the gold medal.

[SOteric]

41. I'm not suggesting that either.

I'm saying that Young's subsequent routine and Hamm subsequent routines, are affected by the scores they make in the previous routines. The scoring mistake on bars was not the last event for either of these competitors.

If we consider fairly, then the score he (Yang Tae Young) might have gotten on bars has to be considered with the scores he might have gotten on floor exercise subsequently, and that's just absurd.

It's like going to the umpire after a game and saying "you made a bad call, ump. I was safe. We never should have had that last out and I want you to declare us the winner of the game."

Even if the hypothetical umpire admits he erred in calling an out, they don't reverse the victory after the game. Why? Because the decisions of the umpires are final, and appeals after the fact are against protocol. And ultimately, it makes those pleading the reversal based on error the poor sports.

[Pithlet]

37. The officials made an objective mistake

This wasn't biased judging. This is one mistake that could actually be fixed very quickly and easily.

The winner, Young, should have the Gold. His score was higher than Hamm's.

All the other things you mentioned are true, and that is a big part of the problem with subjective judging. But, of all the controversies I've ever seen, the cause for this one is quite simple and objective. There is no reason it can't be fixed.

[SOteric]

42. I haven't suggested judging bias.

I disagree that Young is the winner. I think it's possible he could have won if his routine had been appropriately scored, but it's by no means a guarantee. The illegal review of the tapes by the judges also revealed several errors in Yang's performance that were not originally caught in scoring his routine. And the very real question of how his score would have affected both his and Paul Hamm's subsequent routines is a forever unknowable thing.

This matter is neither simple nor objective. Paul Hamm won the decision on the gold and I believe he is entitled to it by all the rules, protocols and his own performance during the competition.

[Pithlet]

52. But the judges at the time did not deduct from them

Let's say they deducted 5 tenths of a point. I don't know what the real numbers are, but just for the sake of argument. You can say with absolute certainty that had they deducted those 5 tenths from the correct, higher start value, the score would have been higher.

People can look at the routine after the fact, and point out where the judges could have judged differently, but the fact remains the wrong start value was used. And if it hadn't, Young's score would have been higher than Hamm's, giving him the gold, because the deductions the judges assessed would have been subtracted from a higher, given number.

[Pithlet]

36. but the rules and protocols weren't followed

Young had the higher score. THe only reason it was lower was the wrong start number was used. He beat Hamm fair and square. He was the winner. Paul got the gold because Young's score was wrong, and should have been higher. There is no period about it.

[SOteric]

39. I disagree.

Whether Young would have beaten Hamm had he been given the proper start value is and always will be a question we cannot answer. You're assuming that the proper start value would have resulted in the exact same subsequent routines and subsequent scores and that is highly unlikely, even improbable.

He didn't "beat Hamm fair and square." He possibly might have won had he been given the proper start value. I

[Pithlet]

46. Yes we can. It is simple math

if the deductions had been made from the higher start value, his end score would have been higher, putting him above Hamm. 10-3=7. 9-3=6. The start value remains the same regardless of how the routine was judged, as long is it is the routine that was given the start value, which in Young's case, it was. He didn't vary from his routine.

[SOteric]

50. Nope. We can't. And it isn't 'simple math.'

You're making a presumption based on a non-entity.

[Pithlet]

51. The start value does not change

deductions are made from that start value. The same deductions, from the higher and correct start value, would have yielded a higher score. 10-3=7 9-3=6. The start value is NOT a non-entity. The simple math is, if you deduct the same amount from a larger number, the result will be larger.

[SOteric]

53. But his subsequent routines would not be a given

had the start value been appropriate. And the illegal review of the tapes by the judges exposed several errors in Yang's performance for which no deductions were originally made. Even correcting the start value, one cannot assure that Yang Tae Young would have or should have won gold over Paul Hamm. And all of that is moot. The protocols were not followed by either the Korean team nor the FIG judges.

A victor was declared. Rightly or wrongly the rules of participation state that all decisions of the judges are final. I believe Paul Hamm won fair and square and that's that.

Not only do I disagree that Yang deserves the medal, I believe it sets a dangerous precedent withing the IOC judging committee to bow to any pressure to change a decision. Next it'll be for political motivations and the entire system will be rendered ludicrous by its inability to present a fair and unbiased score in an event.

The judges responsible have been dismissed. If they want to maintain a shred of credibility the IOC and FIG ought to grow a backbone, admit there was an error and assert that the victor has already been determined and no change will be made.

[Pithlet]

56. How would they not?

Look two men did their routines. One, Hamm had a correct start value that the judges deducted from. The second one, Young, did not. Both men had already done their routines before any of this happened. Their routines that they had performed were already a given. I don't understand what you mean by they aren't, unless you're adding some quantum physics in there somewhere. Young, in a simultaneous universe might have performed differently had the correct start value been used?

You cannot claim that no mistakes should EVER be corrected. That is a false argument. I do think that when an official makes a mistake that affects an athlete, that that athlete had no control over, then it should be corrected. No one is pressuring anyone to change a decision, but correct a mistake.

Not only do I disagree that Yang deserves the medal, I believe it sets a dangerous precedent withing the IOC judging committee to bow to any pressure to change a decision. They wouldn't be changing a decision. They would be correcting a mistake. They aren't asking the judges to change their opinion about Young's routine.

[SOteric]

66. Again we disagree.

Let's start with something we do agree on: It was a mistake on the part of the judges who incorrectly scored Yang Tae Young's performance on bars to have given him the lower start value.

Here is the sequence of events.

• Yang Tae Young performs his bars routine and completes it.
  
• The judges post a score for that routine, using an incorrect start value.
  
• The score is not contested at this time.
  
• Paul Hamm takes the floor and performs his routine on the bars.
  
• The judges post a score for that routine, using a correct start value.
  
• Both competitors progress to the 6th rotation and commence performing their floor exercises.
  
• The scoring of Yang Tae Young's bar work is still not protested.
  
• The floor exercise is completed and Paul Hamm is awarded the gold, Yang Tae Young receives the bronze.
  
• The scoring of Yang Tae Young's bar work is still not protested.
  
• There's much partying and celebration, interviews and congratulations. A new day dawns on Athens and now, Yang Tae Young's score is protested.

Okay, all well and good. I'm going to Zen Navigate a bit here and draw another baseball analogy, hoping to explain my perspective.

It's the top of the 9th inning. The Boston Buttheads are at bat, the Pittsburg Poopyheads are on the field. The score is Buttheads 3, Poopyheads 4.

Blaster Bumptious of the Buttheads takes the bat. There is a man on 3rd, 2 outs. If Bumptious hits a homerun the Buttheads take the lead. Bumptious smacks the ball and he and the dude on 3rd both come into home plate. (Any resemblence to actual baseball teams, players or local politicians is purely coincidental).

The umpire, Gonzo Goniff, calls the play by Bumptious out. The Poopyheads and Buttheads leave the field, the game is over. The Poopyheads do not need to make additional runs during the bottom of the 9th, they win the game. Buttheads and their fans feel the ump was mistaken, and indeed network instant replays show that the play never should have been called out, in which case the two home runs would have put the Buttheads in the lead. No protest or question on the ruling is launched during the game.

The following day the Head Coach of the Buttheads goes to the Baseball Commission and launches a protest, demanding the Buttheads be awarded the game and not the Poopyheads.

Therein lies the difficulty. Even though umpire Goniff acknowledges he shouldn't have called Bumptious' play out, that it was indeed safe. That doesn't mean that the Buttheads were fated to win the game and the Poopyheads to lose. There's no proof of predestiny. Moreover, there's hardly peripheral point that athletic events performed by human being's have myriad variables.

If the Buttheads had not been called out, if they had made the two runs and perhaps even another, the Poopyheads would not have left the field secure in their win at the bottom of the 9th. They would have remained to play and possibly scored more wins themselves. The outcome is indefinite in this altered scenario.

Similarly, Paul Hamm knew the scores of the closest competitors when he took the floor exercise. He was the last to compete in the final rotation. He went onto the floor and rallied himself to beat a set of scores as he knew them.

It's not possible for us to know whether if Yang Tae Young's score had been correctly valued, Paul Hamm wouldn't have chosen to add elements of additional difficulty to both his bar routine his floor exercise. He could conceivably have received a 9.850, on only one or the other still winning the gold. Both Paul Hamm's bar work and his floor exercise took place after Yang's routine on bars and its scoring. It's not possible to know whether Hamm could have rallied that far in excellence, because he wasn't given the opportunity to know the correct score he had to rally to beat.

The rules of the IOC and each competition's judging are fully explained to each team in their native language. A team representative is fully tutored in procedures. Many other events from all nationalities have already received formal protest of rulings and disqualifications and these have been made according to protocol and in the proper timeframe.

I don't believe that Yang Tae Young automatically deserves the gold owing to an error. Following the rules - even the rules for dealing with mistakes by the officials, - is a part of sportsmanship. Yang and the Korean team failed to follow those rules and failed to follow them in a time frame that would have allowed fair competition between himself and Paul Hamm. Hamm won. That should stand. To do otherwise is unfair to Hamm and to everyone else who competed.

I'm through with this discussion now. I'm sure you've read enough of my posts to know that I do understand the situation, I may perceive the fairness of the issue quite differently than do you, but I do understand the situation. I suspect we will not change one another's minds about this and at some point the energy and focus needed to continue to engage in discussion need to be assessed. Let's agree to disagree.

Peace. :hi:

[Pithlet]

69. I never claimed you didn't understand

What frustrates me is this push to not correct something that is easily corrected. It's a simple matter that the wrong numbers were added up. Otherwise, it seems that it matters more who has the medal, regardless of their performance.

All the esoteric things aside, it comes down to a mathematical error. We shouldn't correct something that is easily corrected, like giving the correct number, because of all those esoteric "what might happen"? Then, why ever correct anything? Why even make sure that the correct person wins? Why doesn't everyone just get the correct score, and no winner ever determined?

[SOteric]

70. There is merit in correcting wrongs

and I have no interest in pushing any point so black and white as to suggest otherwise. But there is an appropriate time for correcting errors.

In the Olympics, in the spirit of sportsmanship and fair play, that appropriate time is while there is still in sufficient room to allow fair competition with other athletes. It's not a simple mathematical error, it's a judging error that would award the advantage to Yang Tae Young after it is too late for Hamm or any competitor to rally to beat his score to add elements of difficult or to take risks they might have otherwise. And that is both unfair and unsportsmanlike. He should have followed the rules of fair play and he didn't. His lower score should stand, even though we all know fairly, it would have been different, - because he didn't protest in time to be fair to everyone else.

[Pithlet]

71. It is in dispute

whether or not the South Koreans filed their complaint in time.

I think the spirit of sportsman ship and fair play does not have to include keeping your moth shut about a mistake that was made. And it doesn't have to include holding results that came about because of errors to the same level as results that were attained fairly.

[tedzbear]

26. The two scores were so close they really both won the gold in my book.

If both errors were corrected, the start count and the extra hold, they were both only fractionally apart. They both deserve the gold.

[DemWitch]

29. who cares...

by Christmas we'll be saying Paul who?

If you want to be remembered as an athlete you must go that extra mile, like biting an ear off, or clubbing your opponent in the shin with a pipe... now that's true 'Murkin sportsmanship...

[Commendatori]

48. No, he shouldn't, but he SHOULD shut up.

Silence is golden. His likening the situation to a blown NFL call and "tough shit, it's mine" attitude makes him look like a dick and had me rooting against him last night.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

61. Frankly, I think the whole thing's tainted now.

Why should Hamm suffer because of incompetent judges? On the other hand, you could argue that the Korean did actually earn the gold. No matter how it turns out, there will always be a dark cloud over that event.

P.S. The idea of giving them both gold medals is silly, because the medal really would be worthless. Honestly, be natural instinct is to say let Hamm keep his gold.

[camero]

63. other

The IOC should give him the silver and the Korean should get the gold. South Korea should file a formal protest like the Canadians did in the vault with Dragulescu's fall.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

68. Hamm earned it fair and square.

Those who are saying he won on a "technicality" forget that those technicalities are part of the sport. Imagine if this was an American football game. If an official screws up, the coach has opportunities (depending on whether it's college or professional level) to challenge that call. If the coach misses the opportunity to challenge and have the play reviewed, it's just too bad for that team. If the other team wins, they win fair and square. The Korean athlete and his coach had their opportunity to challenge and they missed it. That's part of the game too. It's not always only about who gave the best performance. Football games have been lost because of end zone celebrations and other things that have nothing to do with who the better team is.

[George_Bonanza]

73. What if a ref gave 8 points for a touchdown?

The Paul Hamm case is not about nitpicking split-second maneuvers in super-slowmo and playing Monday morning QB. The simple fact remains that the judges made a mathematical error, like 1 + 1 = 3. This is not a case where Judge A just didn't like the gymnast's routine and used his subjective views to penalize him. No, there was a miscalculation to begin with.

[amazona]

72. we've hammered this out pretty thoroughly elsewhere but...

...I will just say, briefly, that the decision of the judges should be final. It is not up to a competitor to contravene the decision of the judges. They awarded Hamm the gold. It's his gold. Yes, judges sometimes make bad calls. However, the evil that would come of being able to pressure competitors and judges after the fact would far outlive the one-time "cheap thrill" of Hamm making a big show of giving the other guy the gold. Hamm and the other competitors should abide by the decision of the judges. So I think Hamm is doing the right thing. Even if he doesn't necessarily have the most pleasing personality, he is doing the right thing for sport.

[George_Bonanza]

74. What's the point of being an asterisk gold medallist?

Hamm didn't prevail over Yang because of questionable judging. He won because the judges couldn't add properly. What a way to win, huh? Until his death, Paul Hamm is going to be known as that guy who probably shouldn't have won the gold but got it because the Koreans were not fast enough in their complaints, not the American golden boy who rallied back against all odds. What good's a gold medal if you're gonna get dogged for it for the rest of your sporting career?

[juajen]

75. I don't think he should give it up

He was absolutely brilliant under a lot of pressure. Who knows if he wouldn't have been scored higher if the Korean had been given the better score. They still would have had to decide who was better, and, IMHO, it was Paul Hamm.