PDA

View Full Version : professional vs. amateur swimming.



Alicat
September 19th, 2005, 07:56 PM
OK just read that Katie Hoff has gone professional. Not that this has any bearing on anything but I am bit bummed.
I really was hoping that she would break Pablo’s NCAA records for most wins in college. There is a part of me that
really wants to have swimmers be amateurs, but that is quickly blasted out of the water with all the DUAH! Why
wouldn’t an oober athlete get millions of dollars for their athletic talents --that is years overdue. Does any one think
swimmers will get to be “divas” or “divos” like some professional athletes?

Jeff Commings
September 19th, 2005, 08:06 PM
Having been a professional swimmer for four years -- though not at the upper tier -- I can say that the answer is definitely not.

Swimmers are superstars in the sport of swimming. Never, never, never, never has a swimmer transcended the sport to the real world. Mark Spitz, maybe. Janet Evans, sort of. Michael Phelps, to some degree.

Amanda Beard has taken this year to capitalize on her marketing fame. But outside the Speedo ads, I haven't seen her anywhere else. If anyone would showcase themselves as a "diva," I would think Amanda would be it.

But swimmers fight an uphill battle. We're not on TV every week like the Big Three. The magazines don't usually advertise swimmers. Jenny Thompson's Got Milk? ad was great, but only came out for a breif period. I think I saw Pete Sampras' ad long after his retirement. Even Bart Simpson's milk ad had more visibility.

Not to say it can't happen, but this isn't the sport for those looking to be rolling in the bling-bling.

PeirsolFan
September 19th, 2005, 09:52 PM
Jeff is right.

It's nice for people to be amatuers but the time always comes for them to move on and make room for new talent.

cinc3100
September 19th, 2005, 10:24 PM
I think Katie wanted to get the endoresements, so she could stayed on the same team instead of going to another state for college. Anyway, she isn't expecting to make a million dollars a year for ten years. As for Amanda she is a successful model for many different mags-sports illustatated being one of them. She doesn't make as much as the William sisters or Michelle Kwan-the figure skater but she doesn't do that bad. Actually,Rowdy Gaines, Donna Devonna, and Summer Sanders and in the past John Nabers got announcing jobs because of their swimming. Sanders is still very active as announcer for different sports and had her own show-Olympic Gold last year. Gaines is use to promote products ilike Swimmers ear and some other products and Donna Devonna did annnoucing for different sports for almost 4 decades. Janet Evans does public speaking and gets a pretty good salary. None are making millions but probably make 250,000 to around 500,000, not bad salaries.

PeirsolFan
September 20th, 2005, 07:52 AM
Amanda is really good with public speaking and ad-libbing so hopefully she'll get a position as an announcer or something.

ande
September 20th, 2005, 09:31 AM
there's nothing wrong with swimmers going pro
so what if they miss out on NCAA swimming

NCAA sports are big business
where athletes are paid a pitance
the UT football coach makes $2,000,000
the men's basketball coach makes $1,300,000
the athletes get school, room, board, and training

to keep some great athletes an extra year or two some schools buy injury insurance for their athletes who could go pro

athletes in sports like swimming have a small window in their life times to capitalize on their talent, and it's precarious.
they could get injured or some one could just become better.

Golfers tend to have longer careers

Congratulations to Katie
she's done something only a fraction of swimmers get to do

Ande

ande
September 20th, 2005, 10:28 AM
jeff,

is it bling bling or ching ching ?

ande


Originally posted by Jeff Commings
Having been a professional swimmer for four years -- though not at the upper tier -- I can say that the answer is definitely not.

Swimmers are superstars in the sport of swimming. Never, never, never, never has a swimmer transcended the sport to the real world. Mark Spitz, maybe. Janet Evans, sort of. Michael Phelps, to some degree.

Amanda Beard has taken this year to capitalize on her marketing fame. But outside the Speedo ads, I haven't seen her anywhere else. If anyone would showcase themselves as a "diva," I would think Amanda would be it.

But swimmers fight an uphill battle. We're not on TV every week like the Big Three. The magazines don't usually advertise swimmers. Jenny Thompson's Got Milk? ad was great, but only came out for a breif period. I think I saw Pete Sampras' ad long after his retirement. Even Bart Simpson's milk ad had more visibility.

Not to say it can't happen, but this isn't the sport for those looking to be rolling in the bling-bling.

TheGoodSmith
September 20th, 2005, 11:29 AM
It's got to be frustrating now for coaches of the best swimmers to know that they will be scooped up, go Pro and leave the program in less than 4 years now.

Texas could've used Peirsol's points last season.


John Smith

knelson
September 20th, 2005, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by ande
NCAA sports are big business
where athletes are paid a pitance
the UT football coach makes $2,000,000
the men's basketball coach makes $1,300,000
the athletes get school, room, board, and training

And I've always thought that seemed like plenty. I'd hate to see the day when college athletes are paid to compete.

aquageek
September 20th, 2005, 11:44 AM
Ironic that many on this forum claim swimming is dead or is dying and yet call attention to the fact that swimmers are now going pro before their college years are done. This has been a fact of life in the big sports for decades. Maybe swimming has arrived, contrary to what some say, when its best athletes are leaving early to pursue the American dream of big $$.

SwiminONandON
September 20th, 2005, 12:12 PM
I had oodles or respect for Natalie Coughlin not going pro before her senior year when opportunities were looming ... it does seem to be the norm to go pro now, which I totally have mixed feelings over ... I would have loved to see Katie Hoff go NCAA ... I'm sure she'll be getting a Speedo deal before long (or maybe Nike or TYR)

hrietz
September 20th, 2005, 12:35 PM
I also would have liked to see Katie go pro and I'd like her to stay at the top of the sport for a long time. With that being said I do think that she needs to take advantage of her opportunities NOW. Who knows what life could bring her??? In a year she could have a career ending injury and in 2008 we would be saying "Katie who?"

Sabretooth Tiger
September 20th, 2005, 01:03 PM
So with Katie going pro, should the scholarship she otherwise would have had go to a foreign athlete or only to a U.S. citizen? (ooops, flashback . . . sorry).

carl

TheGoodSmith
September 20th, 2005, 01:04 PM
Amusing to see that someone on this forum thinks that going pro in swimming means they are making substantial amounts of money and success to the point that they are affecting growth in the sport in the younger age groups.

Wrong.

Even the most successful swimmers don't get a fraction of the dough or noteriety they deserve compared to the Big 3. It's a rounding error in comparison. If they ever did.... it would certainly help filter the message downward and across sports for recruiting purposes.


John Smith

craiglll@yahoo.com
September 20th, 2005, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by TheGoodSmith
Amusing to see that someone on this forum thinks that going pro in swimming means they are making substantial amounts of money and success to the point that they are affecting growth in the sport in the younger age groups.

Wrong.

Even the most successful swimmers don't get a fraction of the dough or noteriety they deserve compared to the Big 3. It's a rounding error in comparison. If they ever did.... it would certainly help filter the message downward and across sports for recruiting purposes.


John Smith
I don't exactly understand your last statement. If you are saying that swimming pros aren't going to effect the growht of hte sport, you are correct. Few swimmers will ever make enough money or prestige to truly increase tose young peole who go into swimming. If anything, increased purses and swimming pros will probably only help to maintain the status quo in th e US.

mattson
September 20th, 2005, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by craiglll@yahoo.com
I don't exactly understand your last statement. If you are saying that swimming pros aren't going to effect the growht of hte sport, you are correct. Few swimmers will ever make enough money or prestige to truly increase tose young peole who go into swimming. If anything, increased purses and swimming pros will probably only help to maintain the status quo in th e US.

Mr. Smith can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think his point was that Single A baseball players are considered pro, even though they may barely get food per diem money. (OT, I almost typed perdiem (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perdiem), which would be something else altogether.) The growth part is just addressing that the money isn't enough to make someone decide to give up a potential basketball career to be a pro swimmer.

aquageek
September 20th, 2005, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by TheGoodSmith
Amusing to see that someone on this forum thinks that going pro in swimming means they are making substantial amounts of money and success to the point that they are affecting growth in the sport in the younger age groups.

Wrong.

Even the most successful swimmers don't get a fraction of the dough or noteriety they deserve compared to the Big 3. It's a rounding error in comparison. If they ever did.... it would certainly help filter the message downward and across sports for recruiting purposes.


John Smith

What I found amusing is your constant belittling of our sport saying its dying because there aren't enough sponsors of our gold plated membership rolls, we aren't setting world records everyday, and the endless other ways you try to say its a dead or dying sport. Yet, you then get all goo goo over a swimmer going pro.

As to this deserving thing. No one deserves anything in life. You work for what you get and the market determines your financial value.

Maybe it's the other Smith who has this attitude, I can't keep your two straight.

craiglll@yahoo.com
September 20th, 2005, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by aquageek
What I found amusing is your constant belittling of our sport saying its dying because there aren't enough sponsors of our gold plated membership rolls, we aren't setting world records everyday, and the endless other ways you try to say its a dead or dying sport. Yet, you then get all goo goo over a swimmer going pro.

As to this deserving thing. No one deserves anything in life. You work for what you get and the market determines your financial value.

Maybe it's the other Smith who has this attitude, I can't keep your two straight.

Aquaugeek,

The number of competitive swimmers in the US has extremely decreased in the last 5-6 years. Look at how they have had to increase qualifying times to get the same numbers of swimmers at meets yet there are fewer swimmers registerd at collegiate levels according to the NCAA. Also, many Y programs and club programs are losing students. One reason is that there are fewer people in the age-group category. This is even more upsetting. There is a bubble of 9-13 year-olds but they aren't enrolled in swimmign programs.

I have been told that the market for swimmers is very lucrative. We spend a lot of money. However, we are very small compared to ohter sports. Having a big name swimmer as a client and an endorser is supposed to help sell products to us because of product compettition

aquageek
September 20th, 2005, 02:26 PM
I believe news of the death of swimming is premature. Every program around here is busting at the seams. Charlotte may not be indicative of the nation, however.

USA Swimming claims it went over the 200K member mark in 1992 and as of this year has 270K members, an increase of 35%. I can't find a figure of an extreme decrese in the past 5-6 years as you have stated but I guess it is quite possible. But, apparently we have 35% more competitive swimmers registered with USA Swimming now than we had back in 1992.

Kevin in MD
September 20th, 2005, 02:52 PM
why do something for free when she can get paid for it?

Assuming she gets an education eventually, go ahead and make some money while you can.

Ken Classen
September 20th, 2005, 04:17 PM
Katie Hoff needs to what's best for her. I would like to see a more accommodating NCAA. It's a shame that a swimmer is essentially DQ'd from collegiate swimming by getting little pay check from doing a paid Speedo ad or clinic. At the University of Colorado they had a very promising football player who also happened to be a world class bump skier. Jeremy Bloom. Unfortunately the NCAA told him he couldn't play football if he became pro skier, two completely different sports. Anyway the NCAA/University monopoly makes billions off the Football and Basketball and quite frankly the colleges our getting off cheap by just paying the athlete just a scholarship

aquageek
September 20th, 2005, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Ken Classen
Anyway the NCAA/University monopoly makes billions off the Football and Basketball and quite frankly the colleges our getting off cheap by just paying the athlete just a scholarship

You have to realize that there are only a handful of sports at a handful of schools that actually make any money for the school. The NCAA, for all of its detractors, does provide funds back to the schools and does serve as a central administrative source for college athletics. You could call their packaging of the bowl games, the NCAA bball tournet, college world series, etc a stroke of brilliance when you consider how much those endeavors have brought back to the universities.

On the other hand, I do realize the NCAA has some big issues, recently highlighted by their idiotic attempt to make schools like FSU change their team mascot/name.

dorothyrde
September 20th, 2005, 04:34 PM
And Illinois.

TheGoodSmith
September 20th, 2005, 05:10 PM
Geek,

So you think I am belittling the sport by showing concern for its future growth and enrollment ........ nice .......... you've totally mised the target as usual. Swimmers going pro is great, the problem is the direction it takes the NCAA championships going forward. The meet is boring without Phelps, Peirsol & co....

As a parent of 3 USS age groupers, being a former age grouper, highschooler, collegiate and USS participant, a masters coach and currently a masters swimmer...... you think I want to degrade the world I have participated in so much of my life?


Think again.


John Smith

TheGoodSmith
September 20th, 2005, 05:24 PM
Yes, increased purse size and sponsorship contracts for elite swimmers is an obvious plus to the sport. The problem is the contract sizes don't compare to the contracts being signed in the Big 3. Hopefully the future will change this, and they will one day catch up to the Tiger Woods level...... although I doubt it will be soon. As it stands today, there's enough money to entice a college kid away from amateur status for a good living, but no where near enough money and promotional time to truly advance the sport in the media.

My beef with it all ...... why do we really care about the difference between and amatuer and pro anymore? I don't get it. What is it that the NCAA thinks they are controlling in this amateur definition and lock down? Why do we care if a professional competes in the Olympics anymore? The whole thing seems grossly outdated, and it will eat away at the NCAA championships over time.


John Smith

aquageek
September 20th, 2005, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by TheGoodSmith
As a parent of 3 USS age groupers, being a former age grouper, highschooler, collegiate and USS participant, a masters coach and currently a masters swimmer...... you think I want to degrade the world I have participated in so much of my life?


Based on your gloom and doom posts, I'd say yes.

Peter Cruise
September 20th, 2005, 05:59 PM
John- you're getting 'geeked'.

TheGoodSmith
September 20th, 2005, 06:03 PM
I'm trying to figure out which is worse.... an argument with Ion or Geek.


John Smith

Paul Smith
September 20th, 2005, 06:07 PM
religion and politics with geek

vo2max or loaning money with ion

Matt S
September 20th, 2005, 06:30 PM
This is a bit off of the swimming topic, but I profoundly disagree that a college scholarship has no monetary value and that poor, poor pitiful football and basketball players are so exploited by the wicked NCAA and their member coconspirators, er... institutions.

This is nonsense from any one of a number of angles. You think college scholarship has no monetary value; talk to all the parents that save, scheme and obsess about how they will send their children to college. You argue that top flight athletes don't get an education. That may be true at some universities in some sports, but that is not the case in every school. Who picked the sports factory program where they got no education? Last time I checked, the NCAA has no draft. If an athlete decided to go to Whatsamatta U and failed to graduate because the team encouraged him to take blow-off classes, that was his choice. He and his family had options.

Now let's take the big time programs that rake in the big bucks and even with lavish spending, it can still subsidize the other sports in the athletic department. (I am unaware of ANY university where the money programs make so much that it covers the AD, and refunds the excess to the University's general fund.) There is an underlying assumptions that fans pay big money because they want to see the current members of the team. That seems seductive, but let's be honest. As Jerry Seinfeld pointed out, we're not cheering for players, we're cheering for laundry. If a high school star decides to attend our hated rival, we'll hate his guts for next four years. Except for a few marquee players, we couldn't care less who carries the ball for dear old University, as long as he is better than the guy from evil empire University. And let's examine the marquee players, shall we? We love them because earlier in their college careers, when they were all freshman nerves and the whisper of a promise, they made big plays for dear old University, and we expect/hope they will do more of the same. We cheer for these guys because they are all wrapped up in our gauzy recollections of when we were students and all our fond memories of dear old University, and it makes us feel more important and like "winners" when these guys win championships and we can associate ourselves with them. Still don't believe me? Let me take the case from a minor money sport, womens basketball. Columbus OH used to have a womens professional team. Because it was a pro league, and there are generally fewer spots on all pro league rosters than there are spots on Div I basketball programs, I'm betting the Columbus pro team was substantially better than the Lady Buckeyes. Guess who drew higher average attendance, like three times higher. The Lady Buckeyes. It's NOT the individual players; it's the University. Chris Weber (in a rare moment of wisdom) was asked his rookie NBA year whether Michigan needed him to win an NCAA championship. His response was beautiful, "You don't understand. Chris Webber needs Michigan to win a National Championship. Michigan does not need Chris Webber to win one."

Lastly, from our own parochial swimming point of view, arguing college football players should be paid is simply nuts. You think every football scholarship athlete needs a stipend. Guess what part of the University's budget will take the hit to pay for that. Hint: it won't be the head football coach's six or seven figure salary. Think Div I swimming is under budgetary pressure now; in the idiom of Keith Jackson, "WHOA NELLIE!" Wait until you see what would happen next. Anyone who professes to care about swimming and be concerned about it as a college scholarship sport, and then turns around and argues college football and basketball players should be paid, deserves to smacked on the nose with a rolled up newspaper for piddling in our sandbox.

There, I feel much better now. Thanks for letting me get that out of my system

Matt

P.S. GO BLUE!

aquageek
September 20th, 2005, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by TheGoodSmith
I'm trying to figure out which is worse.... and argument with Ion or Geek.


Isn't that cute, the two Smiths teaming up against common enemies. And, I see you've enlisted a foreigner on your side. Beware, Cruise, these are the same twins that think "ferners" shouldn't be allowed in USMS records.

WWRS?

Paul Smith
September 20th, 2005, 06:44 PM
Just as I don't ever expect to hold any "Canadian" records if I go up there for a meet and happen to break one........other than a beer chug with Peter!

However I may be unclear on this, Peter are beer drinking records in the "open" division of by country?

TheGoodSmith
September 20th, 2005, 06:50 PM
Who ever said Canada was a foreign country?

It's more like an argumentative 51st state.


John Smith

Paul Smith
September 20th, 2005, 06:54 PM
JS......I think he as refering to the "French" Canada!

ande
September 20th, 2005, 06:56 PM
i think janet evans might have missed out on serious dinero by not going pro in 1988 when she cleaned up in the olympics and smashed world records

ande

aquageek
September 20th, 2005, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by TheGoodSmith
It's more like an argumentative 51st state.


That doesn't have an army...

PeirsolFan
September 20th, 2005, 07:06 PM
Is swimming a dying sport? I don't think so. It's not getting the exposure I'd like to see - like say, tennis - but it's not dying.

Maybe it seems to be dying because a handful of elite swimmers are the ones who get all the attention. Hoff wasn't praised for her swimming initially, it was her crying and throwing up. She was just a kid, though.

If you don't turn pro in swimming what do you do when college is over? Peirsol is majoring in Government. I don't know where he expects to go with that, but good for him for taking the Nike offer.

The downside to turning pro is they aren't getting paid NBA and NFL contract amounts and sponsorship can be a pain in the butt. I was mortified at seeing Peirsol bring out a bottle of Penta water on Cold Pizza and not so inconspicously flash the label at the camera. But without sponsorship, the sport will die.

Someone mentioned Michelle Kwan in this thread. Kwan wins most events she enters but is unable to get over not having an Olympic gold medal and so she refuses to turn pro. I think it's wrong, because it takes a spot away from a younger and possibly more deserving skater.

Athletes need to think of their future, and in our sport, after collegiate swimming there is no pro sports team. At 22 or 23 can you afford the resources of an NCAA coach and a nice big training pool for hours on end?

knelson
September 20th, 2005, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by PeirsolFan
Someone mentioned Michelle Kwan in this thread. Kwan wins most events she enters but is unable to get over not having an Olympic gold medal and so she refuses to turn pro. I think it's wrong, because it takes a spot away from a younger and possibly more deserving skater.

Figure skating is completely different, though. When you turn pro in skating you turn your back on Nationals, Worlds and the Olympics in favor of show skating. You basically give up competing. Kwan obviously thrives on the competition and that's why she has remained an amateur. I just don't see that as "taking a spot away" from a younger skater.

PeirsolFan
September 20th, 2005, 07:32 PM
I do. She appears to be motivated by self-esteem issues. She's had a very successful and lucrative career. There are a lot of 15 or 16 year old kids out there who would like to be able to move up, but there are only a handful of spots available.

After 2 Olympic games and 5 world championship titles, I say she's had time to prove herself as an excellent skater gold medal or not. Don't get me started. I've been into skating since Toller Cranston did his bizarre routines in spacey costumes. :o

Peter Cruise
September 20th, 2005, 08:59 PM
Paul- it is the same thing as with USMS; if an American joins our Masters Swimming Canada, then they can hold 'our' records. Yes, the beer drinking is an 'open' division, often characterised by American competitors being overwhelmed by our brew, and vigorously 'giving back' to the sport.

Geek, we have a tiny army, true- but its not how big it is, its how you use it-

by the way, our Vancouver Fire Dept Emergency Rescue Dept made it to New Orleans well before your regular army.

aquageek
September 21st, 2005, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by Peter Cruise
Geek, we have a tiny army, true- but its not how big it is, its how you use it-


or if you use it.

TheGoodSmith
September 21st, 2005, 10:19 AM
"by the way, our Vancouver Fire Dept Emergency Rescue Dept made it to New Orleans well before your regular army."



Peter,

That's not saying much..... hell the red cross made it to the relief victims before our govt. our natl. guard did.


John Smith

SwiminONandON
September 21st, 2005, 10:58 AM
Peirsolfan, if she skates better than other Americans and earns her spots onto teams why shouldn't she skate ... she wants her gold medal ... as long as she can consistently be on top why stop competing?

cinc3100
September 21st, 2005, 12:06 PM
Well, I agree with Michelle Kwan wanting to continue to skate. I was saying that Amanda Beard doesn't make that type of money but she doesn't do that bad. Maybe, Amanda makes a 250,000 income or so. So, I don't see it wrong for swimmers to give up their college swimming career to make 200,000 dollars or so. In Figure Skating Sasha Cohen behind Michelle also gets endoresemtns around the 250,000 to 300,000 range.

cinc3100
September 21st, 2005, 12:15 PM
Well, lets say someone like Shirley Bashashoff had a chance to make a good 6 figure income from the sport in the 1970's. I image she might have stayed in the sport longer. She left at age 19. And while Shirley finished community college, she dropped out of UCLA and I think she might have finished at UCI. But most of her life she was a postial carrier. The little endoresment she got for leaving the sport allowed her to make a downpayment on her house. So, a person that not into school as much it helps them with a little extra-cash.

TheGoodSmith
September 21st, 2005, 04:56 PM
The issue isn't swimmers making money in the sport... the issue is the NCAA not allowing them to participate. It's destroying the NCAA championships.


John Smith

PeirsolFan
September 21st, 2005, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by SwiminONandON
Peirsolfan, if she skates better than other Americans and earns her spots onto teams why shouldn't she skate ... she wants her gold medal ... as long as she can consistently be on top why stop competing?

It's a courtesy. There are very few spots available in any competition. As with most sports, only the top few advance.

Ever since the pro and amatuer rule change by the USFSA, Kwan is one of the holdouts. What if Hamilton wanted to return to amatuer status and compete against your 15 year old child at Nationals? Fair? I don't think so, but that's just me.

It's the reason we have age-group swimming and like gymnastics, skating is a sport where you're considered a burn out at 20 sometimes. The USFSA does have some age requirements, but there are still large gaps.

Kids are reaching Olympic levels younger and younger - 16, 15 and why should they be forced to compete with people who are - oh what's that term - sandbagging? It's not the same thing but it kinda is.

Good enough for the Olympic team but not enough to beat an older far more advanced and 2 time Olympian like Kwan.

- hung up the Harlicks a long time ago

craiglll@yahoo.com
September 22nd, 2005, 02:40 PM
1) Michelle Kwan has become a millinoinaire from skating. the tours she does she can get paid for becuase of the public speaking tha supposedly goes on. she doesn't in any way have to worry about money.

2) Canada is a 51st state, the US has become too conservative for it. This Goodsmith is one of our few disagreements.

TheGoodSmith
September 22nd, 2005, 06:06 PM
Much too conservative.....

I completely agree. Geoge Bush is bad charma for this country. A slow economy, a war and two nasty hurricanes...... not good.

Canada probably doesn't want to be too closely associated with us right now. It may rubb off.


John Smith

Paul Smith
September 22nd, 2005, 06:24 PM
The tax cuts pulled the US out of recession that began the last year of Clintons presidency. Home ownership now for all races and income levels is at an all time high.

Bush's education bill is the highest spent on education in history

In 1996 Clintons budget allocated $191 billion for poverty entitlements, Bush's 2006 budget for the same is $368 billion.

War sucks and is debateable but came to us (9/11 attacks) after 8 years of Clinton at which time hatred for the US exploded.

I'm not a fan of being entrenched with either party, opne your minds and explore all sides before throwing out BS

Sabretooth Tiger
September 22nd, 2005, 07:29 PM
You have got to be kidding.

The poverty rate at the end of the Clinton administration was 11.3%. In 2004 under W's "leadership," up to 12.7% (as reported by Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post on Sept. 21).

Under Clinton, huge annual budget surpluses to work down the debt.

Under W, record breaking deficits by increasing spending while cutting taxes for the wealthy. What happened to tight fisted republicans? Spend within your means republicans? Fiscally responsible republicans?

Oh yes, glad we got rid of all of those WMD's in Iraq. (oops)

War came to us? Iraq had NOTHING to do w/ 9/11.

W makes Warren G. Harding look like an angel.

He is an embarrasement and has done unspeakable damage to this country that my six year old will be paying for long after I've returned to the earth.

I'll take Clinton (Bill or Hillary), Barack Obama, John McCain or Bob Dole any day.

A.K.
September 22nd, 2005, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by botterud
You have got to be kidding.

The poverty rate at the end of the Clinton administration was 11.3%. In 2004 under W's "leadership," up to 12.7% (as reported by Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post on Sept. 21).

Under Clinton, huge annual budget surpluses to work down the debt.

Under W, record breaking deficits by increasing spending while cutting taxes for the wealthy. What happened to tight fisted republicans? Spend within your means republicans? Fiscally responsible republicans?

Oh yes, glad we got rid of all of those WMD's in Iraq. (oops)

War came to us? Iraq had NOTHING to do w/ 9/11.

W makes Warren G. Harding look like an angel.

He is an embarrasement and has done unspeakable damage to this country that my six year old will be paying for long after I've returned to the earth.

I'll take Clinton (Bill or Hillary), Barack Obama, John McCain or Bob Dole any day.

Well said.. I do believe and you can probably ask most foreign nations that they are not happy with the U.S. now as opposed to Clinton's era... and did you like ......

Why G.W. delayed the shortening of his 6 week vacation by 2.5 days while one of the worst national disasters was occurring.and decided to hit a money raising Republican meeting before showing up to show respect for the 3 states hit by Katrina?

Gas prices almost doubling- W's way to explain why he wants to drill in AK and FL..What ever happened to alternative fuels--oh yeah that's right we have an oil man in the White House.

Previous quote-"The tax cuts pulled the US out of recession that began the last year of Clinton's presidency. Home ownership now for all races and income levels is at an all time high."

Recession, a normal ebb and flow of economy-especially after such a robust economy of which has been lacking these last 5 years. Realty is soaring because of the low interest rates and low stock returns-gotta move your money elsewhere.

But on to what this thread is supposed to be about.....

USA Swimming, one of the best athletic medal showings at the Olympics for decades, should allow a form of monetary compensation for the intense dedication and hard work these athletes have shown on the world stage.

knelson
September 23rd, 2005, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by PeirsolFan
It's a courtesy. There are very few spots available in any competition. As with most sports, only the top few advance.

So since Aaron Peirsol has already won several Olympic medals should he recuse himself from competing from now on? Explain to me how Kwan's situation is any different.

The Scott Hamilton example makes no sense. Scott Hamilton is 47. I know it seems like Michelle's been around forever, but she's still only 25 (and only turned 25 in July). Not only that, there's no way Hamilton could compete against the top male skaters. He's still a good skater, but you don't see skaters attempting a whole lot of quads at Stars on Ice.

Sam Perry
September 23rd, 2005, 12:27 AM
Kwan is evil because she supports Bush, she drives an SUV and owns stock in Halliburton. I read it in the Washington Post which we all know as the bastion of truth and unbiased views in news reporting...

(I couldn't resist)

TheGoodSmith
September 23rd, 2005, 10:45 AM
Paul,

Face it.... you are a closet Republican. You are a Republican in Independent sheeps clothing. No ! .... actually..... you are a scared Republican, one who would like to be a Republican, but is too embarassed about where the party has gone in recent years so you hide in Independent purgatory

Dude.... as liberal and annoying as I am, I can honestly say that I would gladly take old school Republican style Bob Dole over George Bush any day of the week.

As for your strange and made up facts below...

1. Tax Cuts..... oohhh yes... that extra $1600/yr tax cut I received really pumped up my spending and helped the economy..... NOT.

2. Bush's "No child left behind"...... full of sweeping promises, irresponsible authority, more expensive than many school systems can afford.

3. Linking 9/11 to the war on Iraq.... nice job ..... I can see you've been living in your Republican closet the last 5 years. Goofball.... the two are unrelated. In addition, most of Europe is pissed as sh*t at Bush and his so called foreign policy. Are you trying to tell me that you think Americans are more welcome now abroad than 10 years ago? Unless your traveling to Australia or Canada you'd best keep your nationality to yourself. Hell the only reason Canada puts up with us half the time is that they're stuck with the apartment next door.

Dude.... let's not even talk about the deficit. You will get ground into a fine powder if you try and defend Bush.


John Smith

Paul Smith
September 23rd, 2005, 05:30 PM
As usual.....extremists getting emotional and not ready carefully!!

1) I did not vote for Bush in the last election, I'm a registerd Indepenent and can't fathom voting by party, I vote for the individual based on who I hope will do the least harm.

2) Fact......like it or note the tax cuts did help our economy recover

3) No Child left behind? All programs should be evaluated carefully and dropped if not effective. Maybe this program was, show me the stats?

- The bigger point is some many people who don't pay attention to detials lash out at a President without knowing the facts, in this case Bush has allocated record spending on two major programs. The bigger point being ignored is spending more IS NOT the answer!

- Never once "linked" 9/11 specifically to Iraq.....a war I opposed. My point is that hatred for the US has been growing long before Bush came into office.

PS: I recycle, use biodiesel, follow Buddism more than christianity....so not the closet conservative you may think!

Tom Ellison
September 23rd, 2005, 06:03 PM
That is OK Paul you're from Colo.....so you get a bye due to that....~....

scyfreestyler
September 23rd, 2005, 06:09 PM
Oooh! A political discussion. Last time I engaged in one of those on this forum I got emails from the moderator.

Paul Smith
September 23rd, 2005, 06:34 PM
My bad........once again lured to the dark side by evil-goodsmith who had to steer us off track. Maybe he was snoozing and missed this one?! Either that or glued to the TI thread!

By the way.........I do think the NCAA needs to examine these guidelines.......the Olympics already dissed the entire concept of amateur so why not college?

Heck, get the NFL to use the colleges as farm teams and pay for 150 athletes.....then we can take their buget and invest in swimming, water polo, etc.!

newmastersswimmer
September 23rd, 2005, 11:46 PM
originally posted by 330 man

Oooh! A political discussion. Last time I engaged in one of those on this forum I got emails from the moderator.


What if I start by chiming on on the main topic thread and then afterwards slip in my political agenda message as a p.s. afterthought?.....Is that legal or will the moderator's see through my little gimmick?....I promise the political slant will be brief!!


About the Amatuer vs Proffesional debate.....I wholeheartedly agree with evil good on this one (and many others) that if the relevant Olympic Committees will allow professional swimmers to compete than the prude and currently "conservative slanted" NCAA's should cut these pro swimmer the same slack.....Who knows....Now that the dividing line that we once called "Seperation of Church and State" is diminishing into nothingness; The religious right wing may eventually take hold of the NCAA and require that only self proclaimed Christian fundamentalists can compete in NCAA competition??.......See....I claim this thread topic has some natural overlap with politics ...hence making politics a somewhat (if only remote) relevant topic here (on some level perhaps??)


Newmastersswimmer

p.s. Oh yeah....My Anti-Bush remark......Read the article in the following link below....Nothing new....but it is ironic that Bush's stance on the basic environmental policies associated to the Kyoto Accords seems to be so intimately connected to these recent Hurricane fiascos via the Global Warming Factor that his oil infested soul has helped to perpetuate and ignore beyond all other major industrialized nations of the world....you know the old saying about reaping what you sow!!

http://www.workers.org/ww/2001/co20329.php

Sam Perry
September 24th, 2005, 12:44 AM
but it is ironic that Bush's stance on the basic environmental policies associated to the Kyoto Accords seems to be so intimately connected to these recent Hurricane fiascos via the Global Warming Factor that his oil infested soul has helped to perpetuate and ignore beyond all other major industrialized nations of the world....you know the old saying about reaping what you sow!!

Do you really want to go there? It is amazing that the Left gets more and more ingrained that EVERYTHING in the world that goes wrong is Bush's fault. I am so sick of the "Blame the Bush's for everything" mantra. How about solutions rather than blaming? How about working hard to get people in office by voting your side into power rather than attacking someone's intellect for supporting Bush? How about looking at the fact that fossil fuel is still the most economic way to get around and until something better comes along, will continue to be before attacking "Big Oil" (A term that literally makes me laugh every time I hear it).

If the American government had ANY ability to control the price of oil, then the worst president in recent history was a peanut farmer in Georgia. Oil prices were much higher then, inflation adjusted which is the only way to measure any price. Oil is manipulated by OPEC, always has been, always will be. I am surprised so many people like Phelps being that he drives an evil SUV and all.

You will never get back into power without an original idea that makes sense to voters. Just look at how the Republicans gained Congress back after 40 years in 1994. It was called "The Contract With America". Regardless if you agreed with it or not, it was a set of solutions to problems that were laid out and easily understandable to voters and the politicians were held accountable for once.

I felt all along Bush would win reelection in 2004 due to the fact the vote for Kerrey wasn't a vote for Kerrey at all, it was a vote AGAINST Bush. No one has ever one election with the theme "Vote for me, because I am not him".

No more politics from me, I am just amazed that the left has denigrated itself to only blame and point fingers and to this day still has no solutions to the many serious our country faces.

PeirsolFan
September 24th, 2005, 03:43 AM
Originally posted by Sam Perry
Kwan is evil because she supports Bush, she drives an SUV and owns stock in Halliburton. I read it in the Washington Post which we all know as the bastion of truth and unbiased views in news reporting...

(I couldn't resist)

Now that's funny! :D

PeirsolFan
September 24th, 2005, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by knelson
So since Aaron Peirsol has already won several Olympic medals should he recuse himself from competing from now on? Explain to me how Kwan's situation is any different.

The Scott Hamilton example makes no sense. Scott Hamilton is 47. I know it seems like Michelle's been around forever, but she's still only 25 (and only turned 25 in July). Not only that, there's no way Hamilton could compete against the top male skaters. He's still a good skater, but you don't see skaters attempting a whole lot of quads at Stars on Ice.

You always seem to be looking for an argument. So, you'd have no problem competing against Peirsol, Crocker, or Hansen? I would! The governing rules/bodies of swimming are different than the rules/bodies of figure skating which is a shame. That's all.

newmastersswimmer
September 24th, 2005, 12:01 PM
Sam, I am going to send you a PM b/c I clearly made a mistake bringing politics into the discussion....My first comments are relevant though (even though thier political in nature) b/c the topic of this thread overlaps the current political climate in The U.S. and I made sure to point that part out when I made those comments.........I have to say that I disagree with you 100% about just "Blaming Bush" about HIS totally clear and conscious decision to ignore the issues of Global Warming as spelled out in the Kyoto Accords....It can't be more cut and dry in fact....I can't see how anyone at all can possibly deny this fact......And the solutions that you claim are not being offered here are completely obvious...so please explain via PM to me how in the world you can claim "no solutions" on this particular subject I brought up are being made???...I'm totally and completely baffled by your comments....The article I posted makes those solution so clear that only a severly mentally handicaped individual or a very young child couldn't understand them......I'm sorry if you take this the wrong way but I can't see how you can stand by any of those comments in response to the very particular issue I was bringing up in my posting.....I guess the moderators may ax me...but I don't care.....let them!


Jim

Paul Smith
September 24th, 2005, 12:24 PM
Go ahead george and sign the accords.......even though two of the largest/fastest growing economies in the wrold (China/India) as well as most developing companies would get a pass......ohh and regardless about where you stand on our current overdependence on oil lets put those restrictions in place and cripple an econonmy in recovery. You must be a trust funder Jim!!

PS: Get the US on a fast track to alternative fuels, hold all nations to the same standards, rewrite the accord then sign it!

PSS: global warming has nthing to do with the recent spate of hurricanes, warmer temps actually have the effect of reducing the magnitude of such storms.

geochuck
September 24th, 2005, 12:39 PM
Why not attack the hurricanes before they get to landfall. What ever happened to salting the storms with Dry Ice so they would get rid of the moisture.

Get rid of all the federations swimming, figure skating etc let bullies rule.

knelson
September 24th, 2005, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by PeirsolFan
You always seem to be looking for an argument. So, you'd have no problem competing against Peirsol, Crocker, or Hansen?

Forums like this wouldn't be very interesting without arguments, would they?

Anyway, no, of course I wouldn't mind competing against those guys. Yes, my butt would be soundly kicked. Peirsol could probably lap me in a short course 200 back :) But that's what competition is all about. When you're talking about something like the Olympics or World Championships you expect the best competitors to be there. I don't want to see the second tier up-and-comers just because the top dogs dropped out "as a courtesy."

edit: and as my wife pointed out, do you think Irina Slutskaya should give up amateur status, too? she's been competing at a high level as long as Michelle has and she just won Worlds this year. Maybe she should quit to give others a chance, too?

Your entitled to your opinion, of course, but I just don't understand it at all.

knelson
September 24th, 2005, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by geochuck
Why not attack the hurricanes before they get to landfall. What ever happened to salting the storms with Dry Ice so they would get rid of the moisture.

I'd say this would be something like trying to drain New Orleans with a bucket brigade.

Sam Perry
September 24th, 2005, 01:06 PM
The article I posted makes those solution so clear that only a severly mentally handicaped individual or a very young child couldn't understand them

Again, from the Left, attacks on intellect. Paul said it best, but let's ASSUME you are right and in 5 years since Bush was put into the White House, the globe has warmed and he is "reaping what he sewed" as you so eloquently put it.

This is not the first year we've had active hurricanes. 1992 Andrew practically destroyed lower Florida, oh yeah blame Bush 41 for that one, he had been in office for four years.

Last time Galveston was demolished in 1961 with Camille, you know Kennedy was an awful president he was heating up the Earth then, but Eisenhower was the real culprit because he was Republican.

Galveston was completely destroyed in 1900 by the most deadly natural disaster in US History over 6,000 people killed. That darn William McKinley should be to blame, he loved horse drawn carriages and those horses had masses amounts of methane gas they produced that warmed the earth up so much. The less horses the better.

Hurricanes are cyclical! We are in a bad cycle now similar to cycles in the past. The left takes short term cycles and goes on to extrapolate that in the long term this will continue to get useless (i.e. Kyoto Accords) and unreasonable agreements in place.

I know I said I would stop, but when someone comes at me with a quote like the one above I feel I need to speak up.

Peter Cruise
September 24th, 2005, 04:44 PM
I am rather enjoying watching everyone flailing away at each other, esp. the two Smiths, as they seem to have so much history to taunt each other with. Kidding aside, I don't mind a good political discussion even on this swimming site, but is it really necessary to gratuitously insult each other just for having contrary opinions? It seems to me that just puts off reasonable people from an honest difference of opinion if insults come with it.

Sam Perry
September 24th, 2005, 04:51 PM
Kidding aside, I don't mind a good political discussion even on this swimming site, but is it really necessary to gratuitously insult each other just for having contrary opinions?

Don't you think the phrase "gratuitously insult" is a bit strong? I don't believe I have made one personal insult to anyone. All I am trying to do, obviously not too well I might add, is to make a case that short term events should not be used to make long term, poorly thought out decisions. I am on the Right side obviously, but that doesn't make me blind that we don't do things wrong, i.e. many aspects of The Patriot Act, that many people on the Left voted for also I might add. Or for that matter quickly goiong to war. It just amazes me that again many on the Left voted to support this move based on the same intelligence (I use that term loosely), and now that the intelligence was flawed, come back and say war is wrong. I just wish hindsight being 20/20 that people would admit being wrong once in a while.

That being said, Iraq may not have been where the war on terror started, but I would much rather have the terrorists fighting us there rather than on our own soil like they achieved on 9/11.

But to say that this discussion has devolved to "gratuitous insults" is a stretch.

Peter Cruise
September 24th, 2005, 05:55 PM
Sam, the gratuitous was more applying to the quote by Jim that got you a little steamed. Rather than look at what I said for personal criticism, please take it as a more general comment meant to prevent debate from devolving to ionic proportions.

Sam Perry
September 24th, 2005, 06:15 PM
ionic proportions

Nice adjective! Point well taken and sorry if I came off a bit defensive. (Ionic proportion I think that phrase has some definite long term potential here...)

knelson
September 24th, 2005, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by Sam Perry
It just amazes me that again many on the Left voted to support this move based on the same intelligence (I use that term loosly), and now that the intelligence was flawed, come back and say war is wrong. I just wish hindsight being 20/20 that people would admit being wrong once in a while.

What I remember is demonstration after demonstration supporting NOT going to war and lots of car bumper stickers reading "Attack Iraq? NO!" Then again I'm in Seattle. Your mileage may vary.

Any lefty who supported the Iraq war should be tarred and feathered.

matysekj
September 24th, 2005, 09:27 PM
Okay, you've had your fun. Once again, I must remind you all that these forums are for discussions related to swimming. Political discussions are not welcome here - take that elsewhere.