It is times like these I wish I didn't get myself into debates on the internet because people's opinions almost never change, and simply not responding gives the other person the impression that you've no reply to answer their objections.I can see that is likely the case here, and doing a quick search showed me you debating this exact issue several years ago saying many of the same things nearly word for word.Nonetheless, this is a "fire" I feel the need to put out. This will be my last post in this thread regarding this issue. I don't like wasting my time.
That begs the question. Which is to say that you're assuming the very thing in dispute.
In other words, nothing I said was incorrect.
Ryun was mis-seeded and never should have been in that heat to begin with.
Interesting analysis of Ryun's state of mind, however it's complete conjecture on your part.
No
We do know what would happen. This same type of incident happened at the last Olympic Games, in the very same event, in the same round (the opening heat).
The result? The runner was advanced.
Wrong.
Even if this is true, it says nothing about whether he should have been advanced.
If an athlete is fouled, and this foul was a cause for the athlete not advancing to the following round, the athlete will be reinstated.
That was a rule then, just as it is today.
Who was knocked over by another athlete. Both could have been reinstated.
It isn't.
He took money once and used it for his car.
Gasp!
No, it's not like doping. Doping is premeditated with the purpose of gaining an advantage over competition. Money is accepted after the competition is already over.
What's more, many athletes accepted money. To deny this is to simply be ignorant of the facts. And again, doing so does not give you any sort of competitive advantage.
Doping is not morally analogous to accepting money under the old amateur rules. To claim this is to adopt a moral relativist world view, which is to say that there is no objective standard for what is moral. The morality of an action is relative to the culture it takes place in.
1) Ryun, as an amateur athlete, accepted money from meet officials.
2) Accepting money for participating in or winning a race was against the rules for an amateur athlete at the time.
3) Breaking the rules is wrong.
...
4) Therefore, what Ryun did was wrong.
You hold the view that because he did something that was against the rules at the time, he was morally wrong for doing so.
In other words, what Ryun did in the past was just as bad as what the dopers are doing today.
A perfectly reasonable view for a moral relativist.
Some consequences of moral relativism -
Moral progress isn't possible. Societies do not improve morally, they simply become different.
The United States was just as moral of a society when slavery was legal as it is now when slavery is illegal. We were right then, and we're right now.
What Hitler did to Jews in Germany was perfectly moral. It was legal under the law. Germany today is not a more moral society for outlawing the practices that were legal under Nazi Germany.
These are consequences of the view you hold which proclaims that the morality of an action needs to be assessed based on the context in which it takes place.
It does not follow that because something is a rule, breaking it makes one morally accountable. It is the case that some rules are merely bad rules and should be thrown out. Indeed, this rule was thrown out.
To criticize Ryun for competing in the Olympics despite accepting money, and to not do so for athletes who compete in the Olympics today and accept money, is to hold a moral relativist view. This is a mistaken view to hold.
I never claimed this was the biggest injustice. I merely pointed out errors in the claims others made.