All through the swimming coverage that NBC has offered up during the Beijing Olympics, the announcers have hyped the possibility that Michael Phelps could set a record by winning a total of eight gold medals. And in the process, he’d edge out Mark Spitz’s record set back in 1972. As you’ve no doubt noticed, the postings here have slowed down a little. Well, there’s a good reason for that. I’ve been kind of glued to the (recorded) coverage of swimming and gymnastics at this year’s games.
Back in 1972, I was in the eighth grade, and during the Munich Olympics that year, I was also glued to the swimming coverage, wondering if Spitz could win seven golds, as many pundits back then were predicting. It’s never over until it’s over (or until the plus-sized operatic diva bellows, for that matter). And I remember one other thing about the 1972 Games, but that tragedy had nothing to do with sporting competition. What faded from my memory of the Munich Olympics was the story of Rick DeMont, who lost his chance to win a gold in the 1500-meter freestyle due to the incompetence of the USOC’s medical staff, who failed to file the appropriate paperwork for an exemption for DeMont’s asthma medication.
Spitz’s accomplishment was huge back then. But Spitz has not always been the most well-loved of swimmers. Which is sad. But that should take nothing away from his accomplishment in 1972, or the respect it deserves. But today’s the day for Michael Phelps. Hard to know what he’s like as a person, but he seems incredibly focused as an athlete. Focused enough not to let the pressure get to him. And at the same time, he has seemed gracious in the brief interviews I’ve seen during NBC’s Olympics coverage.
And, for my money, seeing Kobe Bryant and LeBron James sitting in the stands, cheering Phelps on was a great show of respect by athletes who could just as easily have gone out to the finest restaurants in Beijing, or enjoyed the sights. Professional basketball players lending their support to a swimmer. That’s class. It’s certainly something I never expected to see.
As Spitz shows some class, too, with what he told Scotland on Sunday:
“It goes to show you that not only is this guy the greatest swimmer of all time and the greatest Olympian of all time, he’s maybe the greatest athlete of all time,” said Spitz. “He’s the greatest racer who ever walked the planet.
“I think that he can be called the best Olympian of all time, more so not because he has more gold medals than anybody but in the way he’s handled himself and in the way he’s actually won under a tremendous amount of pressure.
“I always wondered what my feelings would be. I’m ecstatic.
“Somebody told me years ago you judge one’s character by the company you keep, and I’m just happy to be in the company of Michael Phelps. That’s the bottom line. I’m so proud of what he’s been able to do. I did what I did and it was in my day in those set of circumstances. For 36 years it stood as a benchmark.
“I’m just pleased that somebody was inspired by what I had done. He’s entitled to every second of what’s occurring to him now.”
Truth be told, I didn’t have much worries when it came to Phelps’ part of the 400 medley relay. I figured he’d do well on the butterfly leg. But the possibilities are endless as to what could go wrong. More so in a relay when you add three other people to the mix, even three others who are the same caliber as Phelps. It’s ain’t over `til it’s over. On the last leg, the 100 free, the big worry in my mind was whether or not Jason Lezak could hold off the world-record holder Eamon Sullivan of Australia. Phelps gave Lezak just enough room to breath. What a finish, right down to the wire. To my eye, it looked like Sullivan gained back some time for the Aussie team. But not quite enough.
Somewhere in Beijing right now, Michael Phelps and his family must be having a nice celebration. Well deserved for someone who has the reputation of being a nice guy. From what I’ve heard, he’s going to take some time off (like until February) before he gets back to training for swimming again. I’d say he deserves time to savor what he’s accomplished. Will he come back in 2012 and continue his winning ways?
Hard to say, but I’d imagine it would be tough to repeat this year’s performance. It may well be 36 years or more before we see Phelps’ accomplishment equaled or eclipsed.
Congratulations to Michael Phelps. Well done.
Yeah Rant
But according to the “reporting” of the Germans on Eurosport – EVERY win by the Americans is probably due to their “superior” drugs! I mean – it is not probable that we can have athletes who are cleaning up the Germans who have managed to slide into their own oblivion…
But I thought the Germans were so shite this year because you’ve closed Freiburg and a few other similar centres of excellence?
As for Phelps, Project Believe does give some confidence in him. Pity Usain Bolts complained so much about the vampires testing him a ‘shocking’ four times in the week before his race. That sort of whining *doesn’t* give confidence.
It will be interesting to see what various people will have to say after these Olympics conclude. We have seen WRs fall like autumn leaves in swimming, presumably due in part to the suits, along with the design of the pool. Interesting to note that not all the male swimmer, who have the option, choose wear the complete outfit, opting to go bare-chested. I am not sure what impact that would have on performance. But I wonder to what extent we will see people claiming that all this is indicative of doping.
So far we have had the one Spanish cyclist and some weight lifters tossed for doping. Maybe some others I have missed. But all in all, not all that many. Does this mean the Olympics are pretty much clean, that the testing is missing some, or what? Of course, we have just started the track and field competition where in the past many of the Olympic doping cases have come from.
A couple of Korean shooters have been done for beta-blockers. A Greek hurdler fell at the steroid test.
One reason there’s so few junkies being caught in Beijing might be that so many were caught before they even got to Beijing. A minimum of forty according to most sources, probably more than that.
Of course, another reason may be that Don Berry has the testers so scared of declaring false positives that they’re erring on the side of false negatives. That’s what he claims anyway.
Or maybe the bogeyman really exists and they’re all gene-doping.
I’d rather doubt that Berry has had much effect on Olympic anti-doping efforts. For one thing, recent decisions by CAS seem to indicate they have little respect for such arguments. If WADA says everything is jake, that’s fine with CAS.
Certainly a number of possible dopers were excluded prior to leaving for China, either as result of home-country testing, or perhaps simply by virtue of dropping out. It is even possible that some dopers were beaten for spots by clean athletes. And some athletes who perhaps used in the past may have gone clean.
Problem is, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So we don’t know for sure if un-sanctioned athletes are truly clean, have undetectable doping schemes, or are simply lucky.
fmk, did Berry actually SAY that he’s had an effect on Olympic doping testing?
According to the IHT: “‘If the cat and mouse are quiet, is the mouse in hiding or is the cat asleep?’ asked Donald Berry, chairman of the department of biostatistics at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Texas. Berry recently published an article in the journal Nature on drug testing in sports and testified for the defense team of Mary Decker Slaney, a 1996 Olympian who was accused of doping. Testing labs, Berry said, have been criticized and ‘may well be increasingly cowed about calling positive.'”
Interpret that as you will. I interpret it as Berry believing he’s scared labs off calling positives.
If there is a political reason to have few athletes caught for doping in China, that is more a chinese will. Chinese lab would not be scared by Berry’s statements when they want to have the “greatest”JO so to have JO untarnished by major doping scandal.
Jean C – you’re not suggesting that, like the Americans in 84 and 96, the Chinese are burying positives and declaring them negative?
That is a more likely scenario: “catch” a few athletes from “known” doping sports like cycling, track, and weight lifting, or minor sports like shooting (who really cares about that except for other shooters) while leaving the major, TV audience drawing sports, like swimming, gymnastics (or any other sport involving young women clad in revealing outfits) largely untouched.
I remember someone predicting prior to the games that something like 40 athletes would be caught at the games. At the current rate, that looks to be wrong. But there’s a lot to still be run, so we’ll see.
fmk,
I think your assumption that Berry “scared” the labs into “silence” is a bit reaching. Consider that what ALL THAT HAS BEEN found out – we still see no changes in the “operations” of the governing bodies.
In my opinion – nothing will change in HOW the “labs/governing bodies” function till they are taken to court and shut down. And if I may point out – they have managed to “encapsulate” themselves so that they are a “law unto themselves”.
William,
I agree with you – but would also like to direct your attention to the fact that here in Europe – Cycling is BIG – and if the governing bodies have no fears of “hurting this sport” here – then they must assume that no one here will fight them…And since it would seem that most federations are paying only “lip service” for or against “doping” I am sad to say no one will.
By “allowing such a chaotic” form of drug control to exist – ALL THE PARTIES involved gain benefit…
Morgan – *I* don’t think Berry has scared anyone. *He* is the one with the over-inflated sense of his own importance. But then, given that he’s trying to sell himself to the media, you can’t blame the guy for talking himself up.
Perhaps I’m missing something here, but I don’t quite get the impression from this statement that Berry is saying he’s responsible for the labs being “increasingly cowed about calling positive.” He may be taking part of the credit (I’d need to see more of the context of his remarks, which may not be included in the IHT article, to be sure), but the whole anti-doping system, and the performance of certain labs, has been the subject of criticism by many people for a long time now, including both Tyler Hamilton’s and Floyd Landis’ defense teams, among others.
You can’t blame a guy for talking himself up, but in this case, I’m not convinced that Donald Berry is taking that much credit for labs being reluctant to call a positive a positive. In the current Olympics, I suspect that any reluctance to do so is more of the variety that Jean C and William pointed out. Make sure that the positives come from the less popular sports or those sports long “known” to have a doping problem, but keep the IOC’s big viewership/moneymaking (by way of broadcast rights) sports out of it.
What? Me cynical? 😉
It would be interesting if labs were required to release all results, along with the data behind them. Are certain athletes/countries/sports getting the benefit of the doubt on close calls? Are others getting nailed with the same results? Is every sample being treated with the same care? Enquiring minds want to know.