Olympics

Spoiler for the women's 1500m freestyle race:

I've been flipping among NBC, E!, and USA to see what sports interest me at any given time. I dialed by NBC a couple of hours ago and saw that there was a swimming race happening, but there was only one swimmer in the camera's field of view. I was confused for a few seconds until finally some other people came into view. Katie Ledecky was so far ahead that she was literally the only one visible at times!
 
Oh, that's just how you know that you're getting old. I see commercials all the time, like the recent Amazon Prime Day ones, where I feel like I am supposed to know who that is, but I really have no idea who that is. 🤣
you too, huh? Can't count the number of times, I've turned to spouse and asked "are we supposed to know who that is?" and 9 times of 10, get back a "I dunno/no clue" response.
 
Spoiler for the women's 1500m freestyle race:
I was such a shame that swimmer's arm got cut off. Swimming is cancelled tomorrow while they clean the pool. I mean why were the rings on the lane line so sharp anyway?

Oh wait. I'm not supposed to reveal that until after prime time am I?

Anyway, if you haven't seen it, the women's 100 free is spectacular. Won't reveal who won or lost yet.

Edit. I can reveal now. I was totally mistaken. I was watching the jigsaw olympics. My bad. Ledecky won. And maybe the shocker of the games. Australia did not medal in the women's 100 free. USA picked up a silver on a great swim by the same swimmer who took Gold in the 100 fly. She's having a good meet.
 
Last edited:
What I want is when they show someone in the audience, they'd put the name of who it is underneath. Some of us are not aware of who it is! Fortunately my DDIL recognized Serena Williams. But I was able to identify Nadia Comenicie to her.
I’m fine with TV showing current or former Olympic athletes, and yes, they should identify them. I wouldn’t recognize Nadia Comenici (sp) 48 year later.

I don’t give a damn about seeing Tom Cruise or Chrissy Teigan, etc.
 

On a totally different vein (and if this should be moved to the controversial board please do so), but has anyone seen the stories of the Dutch volleyball player, Steven Van de Velde, who is a convicted sex offender against a minor and is allowed to participate in the games? I just read about this today so I may be very late to knowing about it. He doesn't have to do media. He is housed separately. But there are minors in Olympic Village. This seems crazy to me.

We're already talking about him in the community board. I think possibly the controversial topics portion.
 
I have started a thread about it in the Controversial Threads section of the board. With the question if athletes/artists, etc can go back to their job in the spotlight after being convicted.

There are no rules against him participating. The IOC's code of ethics is about current behaviour not past behaviour.

He is not in the Village, but is housed outside, has no conta

I'm not engaging with you on this because you have a clear bias. I would be ashamed if this was who my country chose to represent us at the Olympics. I really don't care that he served his time. I am sure this is churning up a lot of feelings for the victim. Imagine having the person who victimized you all over TV representing a country at the Olympics and you get to see your abuser haled as some sort of athletic hero. It's gross.

And I'm not saying the US doesn't have a ton of problems in this area. We do. Absolutely. But to put this man on a national platform as a representative of the best a country has to offer is embarrassing.
 
I'm not engaging with you on this because you have a clear bias. I would be ashamed if this was who my country chose to represent us at the Olympics. I really don't care that he served his time. I am sure this is churning up a lot of feelings for the victim. Imagine having the person who victimized you all over TV representing a country at the Olympics and you get to see your abuser haled as some sort of athletic hero. It's gross.

And I'm not saying the US doesn't have a ton of problems in this area. We do. Absolutely. But to put this man on a national platform as a representative of the best a country has to offer is embarrassing.
To me it's not this black and white and what my discussion on the other board was for.
I believe in second chances and I believe that people can better themselves. But I also believe the voice of the victim is not nearly as strong as it should be in our society.

It's not realistic to say that people who have committed crimes are not allowed to be successful in their field anymore. What is our society to do with people who have a specific talent like acting, singing, directing, sports, etc? Are they allowed to return to what they did before they got convicted?

If we don't want to be successful, then we shouldn't allow them to go back their field. But on the other hand, in certain cases, like this one with this athlete, him being a volleyball player is seperate from what he did 10 years ago. As far as I can tell, the girl didn't had contact with him because he was a volleyball player and at the start of a professional sports career. To me that's different than a teacher who picks up a victim from his own class.
So it would depend on the crime and the situation whether or not a person can return to their profession.

And why I used Matthew Broderick as an example in the other thread. He killed 2 people, maybe unintentional, but he killed and those victims had family. It must be hard for them to see Matthew Broderick go on to a successful career, winning a Tony and all.

As it is so hard to create a rule for these people, should we let the victim decide what the criminal can and cannot do after receiving their punishment? And if yes, for how long, should the victim get a say, for the rest of their lives? Will a victim be able to continue their lives if they have to keep deciding over the criminal?

Maybe the girl in this story was able to continue with her life and she doesn't care what the athlete does. We do not know because she has not come forward. Maybe she is devastated, but we do not know that either.
 
Last edited:
/
To me it's not this black and white and what my discussion on the other board was for.
I believe in second chances and I believe that people can better themselves. But I also believe the voice of the victim is not nearly as strong as it should be in our society.

It's not realistic to say that people who have committed crimes are not allowed to be successful in their field anymore. What is our society to do with people who have a specific talent like acting, singing, directing, sports, etc? Are they allowed to return to what they did before they got convicted?

If we don't want to be successful, then we shouldn't allow them to go back their field. But on the other hand, in certain cases, like this one with this athlete, him being a volleyball player is seperate from what he did 10 years ago. As far as I can tell, the girl didn't had contact with him because he was a volleyball player and at the start of a professional sports career. To me that's different than a teacher who picks up a victim from his own class.
So it would depend on the crime and the situation whether or not a person can return to their profession.

And why I used Matthew Broderick as an example. He killed 2 people, maybe unintentional, but he killed and those victims had family. It must be hard for them to see Matthew Broderick go on to a successful career, winning a Tony and all.

As it is so hard to create a rule for these people, should we let the victim decide what the criminal can and cannot do after receiving their punishment? And if yes, for how long, should the victim get a say for the rest of their lives? Will a victim be able to continue their lives if they have to keep deciding over the criminal?

Maybe the girl in this story was able to continue with her life and she doesn't care what the athlete does. We do not know because she has not come forward. Maybe she is devastated, but we do not know that either.
Disgraceful
 
I’m just so glad a few months ago, we got a dvr. We’d never make it past the two million commercials.

We are only be recording off NBC, and haven’t watched everything, but do they still do the medals ceremony? Maybe they haven’t done it in years, I don’t know. Our DS was correct, we do like having a DVR.
 
I’m just so glad a few months ago, we got a dvr. We’d never make it past the two million commercials.

We are only be recording off NBC, and haven’t watched everything, but do they still do the medals ceremony? Maybe they haven’t done it in years, I don’t know. Our DS was correct, we do like having a DVR.

They show the "important" medal ceremonies, but not all of them. The prime-time coverage is cut up quite a bit, so the ceremony may be later in the night after they show some other events.
 
Spoiler for the women's 1500m freestyle race:

I've been flipping among NBC, E!, and USA to see what sports interest me at any given time. I dialed by NBC a couple of hours ago and saw that there was a swimming race happening, but there was only one swimmer in the camera's field of view. I was confused for a few seconds until finally some other people came into view. Katie Ledecky was so far ahead that she was literally the only one visible at times!

Yeah, Ledecky is ridiculous. Sure, Michael Phelps has won more hardware, but a lot of times it was by a razor thin margin. She beat everybody by 10 seconds! Remember that everyone else is swimming in the Gold Medal race at the Olympics - they're all great swimmers. Katie is just on another level!
 
Yeah, Ledecky is ridiculous. Sure, Michael Phelps has won more hardware, but a lot of times it was by a razor thin margin. She beat everybody by 10 seconds! Remember that everyone else is swimming in the Gold Medal race at the Olympics - they're all great swimmers. Katie is just on another level!
She has the 20 fastest times in that event. Crazy.
 
To me it's not this black and white and what my discussion on the other board was for.
I believe in second chances and I believe that people can better themselves. But I also believe the voice of the victim is not nearly as strong as it should be in our society.

It's not realistic to say that people who have committed crimes are not allowed to be successful in their field anymore. What is our society to do with people who have a specific talent like acting, singing, directing, sports, etc? Are they allowed to return to what they did before they got convicted?

If we don't want to be successful, then we shouldn't allow them to go back their field. But on the other hand, in certain cases, like this one with this athlete, him being a volleyball player is seperate from what he did 10 years ago. As far as I can tell, the girl didn't had contact with him because he was a volleyball player and at the start of a professional sports career. To me that's different than a teacher who picks up a victim from his own class.
So it would depend on the crime and the situation whether or not a person can return to their profession.

And why I used Matthew Broderick as an example in the other thread. He killed 2 people, maybe unintentional, but he killed and those victims had family. It must be hard for them to see Matthew Broderick go on to a successful career, winning a Tony and all.

As it is so hard to create a rule for these people, should we let the victim decide what the criminal can and cannot do after receiving their punishment? And if yes, for how long, should the victim get a say, for the rest of their lives? Will a victim be able to continue their lives if they have to keep deciding over the criminal?

Maybe the girl in this story was able to continue with her life and she doesn't care what the athlete does. We do not know because she has not come forward. Maybe she is devastated, but we do not know that either.
Are intentional and unintentional acts properly considered equivalent? IMO no.

The opportunity to compete at the Olympic games is a privilege, not a profession. Someone who has served their sentence can absolutely go on to earn a living, but not necessarily be entitled to return to their chosen profession. Plenty of people are barred from continuing in their chosen profession on the basis of a single infraction, deservedly so.
 
Spoiler for the women's 1500m freestyle race:

I've been flipping among NBC, E!, and USA to see what sports interest me at any given time. I dialed by NBC a couple of hours ago and saw that there was a swimming race happening, but there was only one swimmer in the camera's field of view. I was confused for a few seconds until finally some other people came into view. Katie Ledecky was so far ahead that she was literally the only one visible at times!
I don't consider that really a spoiler. That and the Chinese divers are sure bets.
 
Are intentional and unintentional acts properly considered equivalent? IMO no.

The opportunity to compete at the Olympic games is a privilege, not a profession. Someone who has served their sentence can absolutely go on to earn a living, but not necessarily be entitled to return to their chosen profession. Plenty of people are barred from continuing in their chosen profession on the basis of a single infraction, deservedly so.
If we say the victim's voice is most important and matters more than the general public, does intention matter? Maybe to some victims, but not for all.

The deaths of the people who got killed by Matthew Broderick were preventable, if he had listened to the police officer who warned him about the route he wanted to take, these people might still be alive today. Regardless of his intentions. That Broderick got off so lightly, did not sit well with the family of the people he killed. He went on making a lot more movies and plays, winning awards. While the victim's family had to watch it happen.

If one is allowed to be successful in their career, why should the next not be?
Both got their punishment, both regretted their actions.
What I can make up from the news reports about this case, the athlete didn't fly to the UK with the intention to have sex with the girl. We do not know if this is true. But that was what he said in his statement to the court. And what was probably believed, otherwise he wouldn't have been released from prison so soon.

In these cases, there is not one answer, let alone a good answer.

To give some cultural insight in the Dutch mind:
I do not think many people here in NL consider competing in the Olympics a privilege. It's a challenge.
When you see interviews with Dutch athletes, almost no one talks about what an honour it is to be on this stage. There seems to be no difference to them to compete at the Olympics or at any other World or European championship. It is about winning, getting the medal, defeating your opponent, but not about representing the Netherlands. National pride is not a big thing here. The main difference is for most sports, there are more cameras at the Olympics. Most sports do not get the amount of screentime, except football.

It's a pragmatic approach: There are certain qualifications you have to meet to be allowed to compete. Having a criminal record yes/no is not one of them.

And that is probably why this entire case is not a big thing in the Netherlands. It wasn't a thing at all till the foreign press started to publish about it.
On a Dutch Christian news website they did a poll whether or not he should be allowed to compete. 50% said yes (cause he did his time), 30% said no, 19% didnt know.

To be clear: I do not condone what this athlete has done, he shouldn't have interacted with a minor and definitely shouldn't have flown over to the UK to meet her, let alone have sex with her. But I also do not see a reason why he shouldn't be allowed to compete. In his profession he doesn't interact with young girls. Neither does he at the Olympics.
 
If we say the victim's voice is most important and matters more than the general public, does intention matter? Maybe to some victims, but not for all.

The deaths of the people who got killed by Matthew Broderick were preventable, if he had listened to the police officer who warned him about the route he wanted to take, these people might still be alive today. Regardless of his intentions. That Broderick got off so lightly, did not sit well with the family of the people he killed. He went on making a lot more movies and plays, winning awards. While the victim's family had to watch it happen.

If one is allowed to be successful in their career, why should the next not be?
Both got their punishment, both regretted their actions.
What I can make up from the news reports about this case, the athlete didn't fly to the UK with the intention to have sex with the girl. We do not know if this is true. But that was what he said in his statement to the court. And what was probably believed, otherwise he wouldn't have been released from prison so soon.

In these cases, there is not one answer, let alone a good answer.

To give some cultural insight in the Dutch mind:
I do not think many people here in NL consider competing in the Olympics a privilege. It's a challenge.
When you see interviews with Dutch athletes, almost no one talks about what an honour it is to be on this stage. There seems to be no difference for them to compete at the Olympics or any other World or European championship. It is about winning, getting the medal, defeating your opponent, but not about representing the Netherlands. National pride is not a big thing here.
It's a pragmatic approach: There are certain qualifications you have to meet to be allowed to compete. Having a criminal record yes/no is not one of them.

And that is probably why this entire case is not a big thing in the Netherlands. It wasn't a thing at all till the foreign press started to publish about it.
On a Dutch Christian news website they did a poll whether or not he should be allowed to compete. 50% said yes (cause he did his time), 30% said no, 19% didnt know.

To be clear: I do not condone what this athlete has done, he shouldn't have interacted with a minor and definitely shouldn't have flown over to the UK to meet her, let alone have sex with her. But I also do not see a reason why he shouldn't be allowed to compete. In his profession he doesn't interact with young girls. Neither does he at the Olympics.
What a predator wants is always the primary consideration, and predators will say and do anything to achieve their goals because that is what drives them. They rarely change their stripes, merely take greater measures to prevent getting caught again. Deliberately looking the other way makes it that much easier for them.

Whether he's driven to compete in these games because it's his profession, because of the national honor or because of the challenge of obtaining a medal is irrelevant -- it's all semantics. He wants what he wants and he sees no reason he shouldn't get it and it sure would be easier if everybody else went along and saw it his way and let him get on with achieving his goal. Textbook predator behavior.

Past and potential future victims' voices, irrelevant in the face of a predator's desire to pursue medals on arguably the biggest world stage? Is that really the kind of ideals humanity aspires to? The primary focus should be the voice of society repudiating the behavior, not yawns and shrugging shoulders
 

PixFuture Display Ad Tag












Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE














DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top