blybo wrote: j9 wrote: blybo wrote:
j9 wrote:Nick D'Arcy was dropped from the 2008 Olympic team for bringing the team in to disrepute.
Bobridge is reported as 'involved in a minor collision in a carpark' (was he too pissed to even drive out of the carpark?) and is reported to have 'lost his driver's licence for eight months and was also fined by a Spanish court'.
Spain has drink driving laws similar to Australia (0.05BAC).
Losing his licence for eight months is hardly 'minor'. Is there more to this story than has been 'reported'?
Did Bobridge exceed 0.05BAC? If he did, then how is that not bringing the Olympic Team into disrepute?
If the laws are similar then he probably blew 0.08 to get 8 months. That's hardly "too pissed" but certainly impaired but to what degree is hard to say. I believe in many countries the bac maximum allowed is 0.08.
I think everybody makes mistakes as a young man/women. The difference is what the mistakes are, how they effect others and how much of a public figure you are.
I believe the restrictions imposed on D'Arcy and his mate are ridiculous too despite being "repeat offenders". I suspect a clean record has saved the cyclists but it's all political correctness gone insane.
The latest incidents involving Nick D'Arcy and Kenrick Monk did not break any laws and are moot in this discussion.
Nick D'Arcy was booted off the 2008 Olympic Team for bringing the team in to disprepute after being charged (not convicted) with assault. D'Arcy appealed to CAS and the decision was upheld. In 2009 he was convicted of those charges and that resulted in him also being dropped from the 2009 World Championships team.
In Spain the maximum legal BAC is 0.05
In every State and Territory in Australia the maximum legal BAC is 0.05
We do not know what BAC Bobridge recorded.
We do know his licence has been suspended for eight months. Why?
We do know he has been fined by Spanish court.
Bobridge has been reported as involved in a 'minor collision' - this should not be used to dismiss the seriousness of what has occurred. That 'minor' could be fortunate in that he was incapable of getting the car out of the carpark without collision and the minor collision stopped him?
D'Arcy was only charged
and was booted off the Olympic team. Bobridge has been charged, found guilty and sentenced resulting in loss of licence for eight months. If Bobridge's loss of licence was for exceeding the maximum legal BAC in Spain then it is a charge that would also apply in Australia. If Bobridge's offences had occurred on Australian soil would it be dealt with so hush hush?
Australia has a history of admonishing their sportspeople for indiscretions with alcohol and in particular for drink driving.Given the many rumblings in the past about Olympic selection and GreenEdge lined pockets, the AOC need to be seen as acting above reproach
Seems to me you either have a grudge against Bobridge or drink driving as compared to D'Arcy and re-arranging somebodies face. There were plenty of swimmers at the party that witnessed what D'Arcy did, he was only ever going to get off on a technicallity. Did Bobridge hurt anybody? Why are people so much more likely to admonish others for the potential damage they could do rather than the damage actually inflicted. J9, plenty of sober people have minor accidents in shopping centre carparks, you've stretched things to suggest he was too drunk to exit the car park.
All athletes on the Australian Olympic Team are required to sign and adhere to the 2012 Athlete's Team Membership Agreement
http://corporate.olympics.com.au/files/ ... elines.pdf
As a member of the Team, I shall:
(3) conduct myself so as to obtain and maintain my best possible mental and physical fitness and health to perform to the highest possible standard at the Games and carry out my duties to the Team to the best of my ability;
(4) not at any time engage in conduct (whether publicly known or not and whether before or after the date of my selection), which has brought, brings or would have the tendency to bring me or my sport into disrepute or censure, or which is or would have the tendency to be inconsistent with, contrary to or prejudicial to the best interests, image or values of the AOC or Team Sponsors, or as a result of which my continued membership would not be or would not likely be in the best interests of the Australian Olympic Team;
(5) not at any time (whether before or after the date of my selection) be convicted of, or charged with, any serious offence involving violence, alcohol or drugs, or any sex offence, or any offence relating to any betting or gambling activities on sport, or any offence which is punishable by imprisonment;
(21) honestly and fully disclose and continue to disclose any information to the AOC concerning any matter arising in relation to my compliance with these obligations, immediately upon becoming aware of any such matter, and ensure that such disclosure is not false or misleading.
I did not condone the actions of D'Arcy, merely highlighted the inconsistencies of the AOC in how they handled D'Arcy's case compared to Bobridge. In Australian law one is considered innocent until proven guilty. D'Arcy is used as an example in that he had not been found guilty (yet) but was booted off the team. Bobridge has been found guilty yet he is still on the team, even though he has breached the Athletes Agreement. Why? - removing him from the team would jeopardise his fellow pursuiters. Would that be obvious to the general public, especially the swimming loving public that think cyclists are being favoured over swimmers and their behaviour has been overlooked?
If it was an Olympic swimmer that was caught drink driving and punished in a foreign court, would the AOC be so forgiving? Probably not, it is far easier to replace a relay swimmer than a pursuit team member.
In the past month the AOC have been accused of hypocrisy in their handling of swimmer's indiscretions. When D'Arcy and Monk's photos were reported the AOC were all over it. They broke no laws yet as punishment will be returned to Australia immediately at the conclusion of their events. In the case of Bobridge and Hepburn there is hardly a mention from the AOC and no sanctions.
The AOC should be seen to explain fully exactly why Bobridge has not been booted off the team for breaking the Athletes Agreement, especially when they have precedent to do it. The AOC should also be explaining why they have not sanctioned the cyclists when they have been quick to sanction the swimmers for something that was not illegal.
For the AOC to not act with full disclosure can be seen as a green edged tinge (tarnish)