From: kenl@origami.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Ken Lehner)
Subject: Re: Amateurism
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 15:55:37 GMT


In article <1992Jul28.062320.3522@erg.sri.com>, vlad@erg.sri.com (vlad) writes:
|> 
|> In article <1992Jul23.145615.27189@walter.bellcore.com> kenl@origami.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Ken Lehner) writes:
|> >
|> >Anita Nall is the world record holder in the women's 200m breaststroke.  She
|> >is also a high school student.
|> 
|> >So, "vlad", are they
|> >"idle aristocrats" or "millionairs" (sic)?
|> 
|> Of course not. They are normal people like you and me. They have spent all
                           ^^^^^^
|> their concious lives training in the pool, their parents made tremendous
|> sacrifices and have spent probably hundreds of thousands of dollars on
                                      ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
|> paying for their training and travel. Thus, these swimmers have the right
|> to recoup their costs by being paid. They are pro athletes, not
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> "millionnaires". 
|> 
|> >  If not, then they must be
|> >receiving "money for their ahtletic performance".  What nefarious sponsor
|> >do they have, other than their parents?
|> 
|> Glad to answer your question, Ken. According to tonights NBC Olympic
|> broadcast, Anita Noll "is not only fast in the water but also fast to the
|> bank". According to NBC, Anita has already earned $30 thousand in
|> commercial endorsements. Now, if oyu want the names of her sponsors, please
|> write to NBC. They will be glad to furnish their names.
|> 

Jeez.  Your original posting stated that it was impossible to be an Olympic
calibre athlete without being "idle aristocrats", "millionairs", or be
receiving "money for their ahtletic performance".  I gave two examples of
people (who aren't "normal" like you and me by ANY stretch of the imagination)
who BECAME Olympic calibre athletes without any of these three choices applying
to them.  What they did after they acheived that level wasn't the point (at
least it wasn't *my* point).  And I believe that Ms. Nall received these
endorsements after the Olympic Trials and her world records.  I, for one,
certainly do not begrudge these people from profiting from their hard work as
they see fit.  Whether they become professional (by any definition) is
independent of what they did before receiving these huge sums of money.

As for "hundreds of thousands of dollars", swimming is not figure skating or
gymnastics.  Ms. Nall lives at home (or so it seems), she attends her hometown
school, and she swims for a local club.  Her parents haven't shipped her off to
The Peddie School (like Nelson Diebel, and Royce Sharpe) or Mercersburg (sp?)
Academy.  Any travel she's done (e.g., to Y Nats in Florida) probably cost less
than the equivalent family vacation to Disney World.

|> 
|> >When one uses "all", "none", "never", or "always" in a statement, it only
|> >takes a single counter-example to allow the audience to dismiss the entire
|> >content of the statement, and often serves to cast doubt on anything else
|> >presented by the speaker.
|> 
|> I am sure among 10 thousand Olympic athletes there must be one or two
|> counterexamples to the well-known theory that "amateurism" is an idea
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> created by idle aristocrats to fend off normal people. However, yuo have
|> not found that counterexample yet. Keep on digging. But check your sources
|> before putting your foot in your mouth.

Pardon my ignorance.  I ran track in college, I swim Masters, I do triathlons.
I know very little about the sports of the majority of the 10,000 Olympians.
(News flash:  my girlfriend's ex-husband's sister (well, that's who she is!),
Patty Dix, made it to the final cut in the women's Olympic Trials in the
cycling road race in 1988.  At the time, she worked full-time selling drugs
(for a major pharmaceutical company).  Just another data point.)

I also never said anything about the origin of amateurism in the Olympics.  I
was merely disputing your generalization of the *impossibility* of being
Olympic calibre without being a professional or idle rich.

Oh, because a theory is "well-known" doesn't say anything about validity.  The
theory that the moon is made of green cheese is well-known.

The last responder insinuated that I'm a jerk.  You say I put my foot in my
mouth.  Why do you need to attack people, instead of discussing facts?  Let's
not get personal here, please?
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA