perception and reality in the Paul Hamm controversy

The Paul Hamm incident has been and continues to be beaten to death by millions of people, but this one particularly showed me the difference between public perception and what the reality of a situation might be. Although everything I’ve written here has already been said, I just wanted to get my say in it. This is a very much pro Hamm post, but I didn’t always think like this. At first, I thought Paul should have given his medal back because he didn’t earn it. But after reading through different articles and trying to sort through the lines for facts, I now believe that Paul should keep his medal. Here’s my four-point rebuttal to those who believe Paul doesn’t deserve his medal:

1) All the public knows about is that .10 start value that would have given Yang Tae-young the lead, but they don't realized that the Korean gymnast also had a mistake—he had 4 holds instead of 3, which is the maxim allowed—that could have meant an automatic .20 deduction that would leave him with nothing.

The public is probably not aware of that because it isn't mentioned a lot in the media. Only Hamm, others close to him, and select journalists have mentioned this. Not only that, I don't think the public, John or Jane doe, realizes that the .10 start value might not have given the South Korean an automatic gold because it takes into consideration the fact that everything would have played out the way it had. There are too many variables to assume that with the .10 added on, Yang Tae-young would get the gold and Paul Hamm the silver. Even journalists miss this point. And every article I’ve ever read that berate Paul for not giving up his gold medal never mention the 4 holds the Korean had or that for Yang Tae-young to win with the .10 added on, everything would have to played out that way they did on that night.

And if you’re going to use videotape to determine that the start value should have been 10.0 instead of 9.9, then a deduction has to be made for the extra hold as well. Can’t use the video to benefit Yang Tae-young, and not take deductions for his mistake. That would be the injustice.

Here's E.M. Swift in Back off: Despite judging error, Hamm's gold medal shows no tarnish on this point:

So why not a second gold medal? Why not accommodate the upset Koreans and send everyone home happy? Well for one thing, you can make a pretty good case that, if you're going to go to the videotape, Yang shouldn't have won.

Yes, the videotape of the parallel bars showed the judges erred by assigning a 9.9 start value. But it showed something else, too. In the course of his routine, Yang had four holds on the bar, when the rules allow for a maximum of three. The deduction for that mistake? Two-tenths of a point.

The judges missed it.

2) Stop with the giving up the gold crap. Some journalists suggest that Paul Hamm has the opportunity to show the world honor, fairplay, and integrity by giving up his medal, and he would appear on a thousand Wheaties Box, but I doubt that it would play out like people suggest. The American public is fickle and incredibly forgetful. People like to suggest Paul do the noble thing because it's the right thing to do. But take into account the .20 deduction and Hamm would have won anyways.

Here’s some thoughts from journalists on this matter:

There is also some talk from journalists that perhaps Hamm should actually offer to give up the medal and become a bigger hero. Those same journalists would never give up a writing award if a superior competitor turned in a late entry, yet they are asking Hamm to give up his life's achievement for essentially the same reason? – from They're All Setting the Bar Low in Uneven Sportsmanship Event by Bill Plaschke

The controversy was not of his making, but some columnists have suggested, quite publicly, that he should solve it by making the grand gesture of returning his medal, as if it were an errant piece of mail. One actually said he should do so in the interest of improving America's image abroad. Brilliant. Let's blame a gymnast for the decline of America's stature in the world.

Another prominent figure at a certain national daily opined how such a move would actually enrich Hamm, make him a magnet for endorsements, set himself apart from the rest of the gold medalists from these Games. Never mind that Hamm is not about riches and fame, that he would never have started down this road if that had been the goal. Right now he's about gymnastics, being the best. He's worked his life for this, and in his heart he believes he should have won. -- Leaving plenty to be desired: Judging controversies, misguided media mar Olympic gymnastics by E. M. Swift

3) People have talked about awarding dual gold medals. Again, people, if they had read up on the news and history behind what made the IOC do that in the first place, they would see that you couldn’t apply it here. In Salt Lake City, there was manipulation involved. The French judge was pressured to vote for the Russian pair. She did it decisively and intentionally. In Athens, the judges made mistakes, but they didn't mean too. No small consolation for the Korean, but that's what happened.

4) The Korean also didn’t file a protest in the correct time, which I believe would have been before the rotation was over. That was the rules. They are trying to bend the rules for their athlete to get the gold medal, but they didn’t follow the rules in the first place to ensure that. The South Korean should have protested harder and more furiously on that night before the routine was over, not now after the event was over.

5) The IOC, the FIG, the USOC, USA Gymnastics, and whatever else acronym comes up show poor, if little, leadership in this whole mess. They have rules governing this sort of thing, but they allowed the whole miss to escalate instead of telling everyone involved to look at the rules books. They did not.

And a final note from E. M. Swift (again, I know!):

So this is what it has come to in my profession. The media a willing conduit between the rulers of the sport and the athlete, feeding the story, refusing to let it play out on its own terms, hoping to push the button that will get someone to melt down. Not reporting the news, but creating it. Destroying the Olympic experience for a great athlete and a good man. Diminishing all of us.

Like I said, it hasn't been our finest hour. -- from Leaving plenty to be desired: Judging controversies, misguided media mar Olympic gymnastics

******And people who don't want to learn all the technicalities of gymnastics—like the history behind how the start value a routine is determined—because it's gymnastics mumbow-jambow shouldn't be allowed to form opinions unless they show a concern for the whole truth.

I think people form opinions faster than they get the facts. People hear what’s floating around in the news, but they don't hear the whole story. Therefore, they made ill informed opinions based on half-truths. I'm thinking the last sentence pretty much sums up the difficulty of trying to discern facts from friction in politics, but that's another post all together.

This post is more of a response to what I heard on the radio. Some people felt that Paul should have given up his medal, but unfortunately, they doen't care to learn all the intricacies of the controversy, and that made me really disappoint and mad. ******Another incident, more minor, but still important: the 200m-backstroke race. Aaron Piersol touched the wall first, but he was disqualified, then reinstated as the winner in less than 30 minutes, I believe. Now, here's where I see a difference in reporting. Some articles said that after the Americans filed a protest, the overrule was made then; others have said that the overrule was made even before the US had time to file a protest against the disqualification.

The British articles, at first, were extremely harsh in tone, because their swimmer would have received a bronze if the disqualification stood. The British mentioned the US influence in FINA and so forth. I'm not blaming them, actually I like to read other countries news reports and see their perspective on events. It's understandable the British felt this way.

Now, I'm asking, which is correct? I saw how two different version of the events reported (the DQ was overturned before Americans had appealed or the overrule was made even before a US protest) can change the tone of the article. The latter scenario made it seem like the US used its bully pulpit to force the judges to overturn the DQ if you want to be that harsh.

I still don't think people know exactly what happened there. Yet.