Topic: Competing injured versus team responsibilites

[Mike Cook]

I think it all comes down to what is written in the selection procedures.

If the selection procedures state that the selection is based on competition results, and don't have any mechanism or procedure of someone selected via competition results, then legally, USAW is stuck with that athelete.  However, I would have to think that the selection procedures are written so that competition results do not absolutely guarantee that a selected athlete cannot removed from the team, for any number of reasons, including ones mentioned by previous posters - injury, illness, losing a leg, etc.

Chris, are you suggesting that selection procedures that do not have a mechanism for removing someone from a team are morally superior that a selection procedure that does not, based on your belief that altruism is evil?    Or is it based on the belief that any "removal from team" criteria are necessarily subjective?

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Chris, are you suggesting that selection procedures that do not have a mechanism for removing someone from a team are morally superior that a selection procedure that does not, based on your belief that altruism is evil?

In this case (injury, not fraud or something along those lines), yes, because the removals would be motivated by the altruistic idea that the individual should be sacrificed for the good of the collective.

Or is it based on the belief that any "removal from team" criteria are necessarily subjective?

Its both. Its immoral because it victimizes the individual to supposedly help the unknowable common good (altruism) and because it is based on subjective opinions about how different individuals look in training versus an objective determination resulting from competition. And, it is counterproductive since it is not consistent with Man's nature and is inefficient. The ideas mentioned create a whole new role for the USAW over the athlete (do this workout/percentages/etc on this date or go here to live for this period of time). It creates bureaucratic burdens on the athlete and USAW to make, ship, receive, review, process, and store video of the lifters (wasting time and resources of all concerned), and will inevitably cause only guilt for those lifting over those who earned the slots, guilt for those who are envious of those with slots, arguing about who looks the best and should get the slot (among athletes, coaches, politicians, and bureaucrats), suppression of the athlete's willingness to perform normal treatment of injuries for fear of being deemed incapable of performing, possibility of pressuring an athlete into hurting themselves much worse than they are so they can prove their fitness on an unimportant, totally arbitrary date, etc, etc, etc. Its the wrong direction to go morally and it will be terrible for overall athletic performance over the long term.

[Mike Cook]

Why do you consider it immoral if the elected leaders of a voluntary association make decisions that they consider to benefit the good of the association to the detriment of one member of the association?

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

The individual athlete earns the competition slot, not the collective. To deny a slot earned by an individual based on subjective, political opinions is to make a mockery of the sport entirely, to make it a political contest instead. Penalizing the guy who performed in the heat of competition in favor of who looks good to the most politicians on some arbitrary date in training, all for the unknowable common good = unjust. And the collective will never benefit from an organization willing to victimize them based on opinion or whim.

[Shaun Le Conte]

How about we leave it at this - it's up for the lifter who qualified for the trip to decide. Often, there is no big issue of team points and it's just a matter of one lifter or another getting international experience (World University, Junior Worlds, Pan Am Juniors). At the World Championships or possibly the Pan-Ams, the lifter will have to be pursuaded that it is in his own interest to let somebody else lift, not have the decision made for him.

(begin saving emergency bribe money)

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

The ethics of taking the slot from the individual that earned it in competition based on opinion and whim does not change depending on the stakes- i.e., which year world it is or if it is for Olympic slots. It is wrong regardless and counterproductive. The amount you want something someone else earned is irrelevant to whether it is right to take it from them. Freedom is stronger than controls in the long run. Rewarding production is the way to go, not coercing compliance. Cut funding in other areas to provide big incentives/prize money at the nationals and worlds.