Topic: Competing injured versus team responsibilites

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Rachel, I hope if you do not wish to continue the debate, that other altruists will take up your cause for you.

It seems pretty obvious to me that lifters who "are down" are not fulfilling their obligations to the team that they joined voluntarily/under free will/by choice/etc. If lifters do not have the Team's best interest in mind, then they should not have joined said Team.

What obligations does the lifter have toward the team? Is there a contract on such matters? Or is there rather an understanding that both want the same thing- the athlete to perform to their best? What specific contractual obligation are you claiming the athletes you are condemning violated? As for the team's best interests, that is for the lifter to lift their best. If the lifter did not do their best, then I would condemn their effort as would all Objectivists. Other than this responsibility to themselves, they have no obligations I am aware of. Even catching their plane?

For example, in 2005, I acted in accordance with the best interest of the Team when I voluntarily handed my slot to the next lifter in line. Could I have gone to Jr. Worlds in 2005? Absolutely. After all, I WAS the #1-ranked jr. female lifter and, as I recall, the only female to have made over 100% of the qualifying total. I would have LOVED to go to China as well! However, I quit lifting 5 months before Jr. Worlds. By the rules of the contract, I could have gone to the competition and snatched 45k and clean and jerked 50k. By your logic, that behavior would have been entirely acceptable. I think not.

So, you are indeed an altruist. No, I see nothing wrong with lifting injured whatsoever. It is in fact noble, evidence of great courage, self confidence, and motivation. I condemn your action. So, that would have been your 6th Jr Worlds? An accomplishment you sacrificed for the collective? Yuck. Who do you think appreciates it now? I do not of course. The amount of weight lifted is irrelevant. If the athlete did their best, it is noble. Have you lifted in a senior worlds, a senior worlds you are claiming the right to say others should have skipped?

No, I never said that. I said that if people choose to join a team, then they should act in accordance with the best interest of that team.

So, how is this different from the altruistic claim that citizens of a Nation must sacrifice for others within it? Serve the best interests of the Nation by having their labor taxed to oblivion, behavior (even simple economic trades) regulated, and controlled,etc? You are claiming the same moral obligation of the individual to the group. Altruism. Collectivism. Evil.

I stand by the fact my position on this issue is Objectivist and therefore correct, while yours is neither Objectivist or moral. If you refuse to debate, I can only take it as ackonlwdgement that you have no support for your accusations that you "know Objectivism better than I do." It seems clear that I failed to teach you this philosophy of truth, which was the most upsetting thing in this situation for me to deal with. You are my greatest failure since becoming an Objectivist- a supposed Objectivist that does not understand nor support Objectivism. And when you condemn the philosophy as an Objectivist, the collectivists will cheer you. Enjoy.

[Mike Wittmer]

    For example, in 2005, I acted in accordance with the best interest of the Team when I voluntarily handed my slot to the next lifter in line. Could I have gone to Jr. Worlds in 2005? Absolutely. After all, I WAS the #1-ranked jr. female lifter and, as I recall, the only female to have made over 100% of the qualifying total. I would have LOVED to go to China as well! However, I quit lifting 5 months before Jr. Worlds. By the rules of the contract, I could have gone to the competition and snatched 45k and clean and jerked 50k. By your logic, that behavior would have been entirely acceptable. I think not.


So, you are indeed an altruist. No, I see nothing wrong with lifting injured whatsoever. It is in fact noble, evidence of great courage, self confidence, and motivation. I condemn your action. So, that would have been your 6th Jr Worlds? An accomplishment you sacrificed for the collective? Yuck. Who do you think appreciates it now? I do not of course. The amount of weight lifted is irrelevant. If the athlete did their best, it is noble. Have you lifted in a senior worlds, a senior worlds you are claiming the right to say others should have skipped?

Chris, I hate to step in on this and certainly do not want to get into another prolonged debate, but I think in this situation of an injury (Rachel retired) the honorable thing would be to step aside and allow another lifter to take your place.  I think the individual who took Rachel's place appreciates what she did.  USAWs intent at international competitions is to field the best team possible.  Since they pay the bill I feel the lifters should further that intent and if one knows they are injured and knows others would preform better and place higher, then they should step aside.

If we are talking about a local meet, or even national, and you are paying your way, then the decision to compete injured or at less than 100% would be entirely up to you, and I see nothing wrong with showing up and doing your best.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

but I think in this situation of an injury (Rachel retired) the honorable thing would be to step aside and allow another lifter to take your place.  I think the individual who took Rachel's place appreciates what she did.

I am sure that sub did appreciate it, but that means nothing to me. I do not consider it honorable at all to sacrifice oneself for the collective but evil. The issue is one of choice. If Rachel wanted to lift but didn't do so out of guilt, then it was altruistic and in my view wrong. If Rachel did not want to embarrass herself with a poor performance or for some other related reasons, then I consider it honorable since she would have pursued her own self-interest. Of course, this is Objectivism- anti-altruism. We Objectivists are small in numbers but numbers do not determine truth. The majority of course accepts altruism.

USAWs intent at international competitions is to field the best team possible.  Since they pay the bill I feel the lifters should further that intent and if one knows they are injured and knows others would preform better and place higher, then they should step aside.

Saying lifters should sacrifice their ambitions and dreams for the USAW because it pays the bills is like saying all the people must sacrifice for the federal government because they provide "services," whether you want them or not. The USAW is nothing without the lifters. It is the lifters that provide the funding. The USAW is only their agent. It exists for the athletes, not vice versa. I wouldn't do it, just as I reject the assertion I am responsible for someone else's health care costs. I am not. I owe no one anything except to leave them alone, and this includes the USAW. If I *wanted* to lift but could only do 40 and 60, I'd have no remorse whatsoever, though I of course would not want to embarrass myself in such a way. I was pretty seriously injured before the 92 Nat Jrs. Won Best lifter. Lifted hurt at both Jr Worlds, especially the second one. Still placed higher than the rest of the team. No one can predict performance. That is why it only counts on the stage.

Again, there was nothing productive about slamming these lifters for competing and there is no rational, objective solution to issues of injury. The athletes were under no contractual obligations to sacrifice themselves and in my view also under absolutely no moral obligation to do so either, since I reject such moral obligations to the group entirely.  I would say there is an implied contract- that the lifter will do their best. Other than that, the only productive outcome of this line of thinking is some sort of heinously subjective fitness test. But, if you have an objective way to screen injured lifters from team selections, I am open to hearing it.

Thanks

[Matt Rupiper]

Unfortunately I wasted five minutes reading this useless and "NON-WEIGHTLIFTING" garbage.  Move this hunk of trash to the off-topic so you two can continue your hissy fitting.

You two would be better served by  .  Their is no winner in a philosophical debate.

Have a nice day...

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Not a single moderator spoke up for removing this thread. Its on topic, about weightlifting. Philosophy applies to weightlifting as it does to everything else.

[Mike Wittmer]

Geez Chris, you're way over the top here.  I don't like the government any more than you, however, your analogy that the USAW is like the federal government makes no sense.  No one forces you to join the organization.  Unlike not paying your taxes, no one will put you in jail if you do not pay your USAW dues. 

I'm just saying if you are selected to represent the United States in an international competition, and that selection is based on your recent performance(s) in a qualifying competition, then it is not unreasonable for the organization to expect that you will be healthy and fit enough to compete well.   

Mike

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Mike, I am not equating government and the USAW. I am noting the same principle underlies both situations- altruism.

I'm just saying if you are selected to represent the United States in an international competition, and that selection is based on your recent performance(s) in a qualifying competition, then it is not unreasonable for the organization to expect that you will be healthy and fit enough to compete well.   

But, what is "well" and who is to decide? What is too injured? What is too unfit for someone who earned the spot? Would you have your son skip a worlds knowing it would make him a million dollars if he was only capable of lifting 90%, 80%, 70%, 60%, 50%? Would you have him skip it knowing that being in it would get him a $100,000 a year job? I am attacking the principle which motivates the identification of this non-problem because I know what is coming next- subjectivity in the selection process. Altruism is the only thing which could possibly justify it.

[Mike Wittmer]

But, what is "well" and who is to decide?
 
I suppose the same people that decide how the team is selected in the first place.  In our present system, that would be the BOD.

What is too injured? What is too unfit for someone who earned the spot?

That is something that is being, and will continue to be, discussed.  Suggestions such as providing training video two-three weeks out, making 94% of your total two weeks out, etc., have been mentioned. 

Would you have your son skip a worlds knowing it would make him a million dollars if he was only capable of lifting 90%, 80%, 70%, 60%, 50%?

Seriously?  Perhaps an Olympic gold medalist (from a different country) might get a $million.  A US medalist?  Don't think so.

Would you have him skip it knowing that being in it would get him a $100,000 a year job?

Depends.