Nick D'Arcy

The Nick D'Arcy saga is an interesting one.

(pic news.yahoo.com)

Should he be allowed to compete at Beijing despite having clocked someone on a night out after a number of drinks. Of course his court case is still pending so he hasn't been found guilty of anything. Yet.

The initial `shock, horror' reaction seems to still remain and it is my view that his hearings with the AOC have been horribly slanted against him.

What he did is not right. Clearly. But has it bought swimming into disrepute?

I would argue that it hasn't and agree with a talkback caller I heard saying that to bring a sport into disrepute your actions should occur on the sporting field or have an overall damaging effect on the sport's image.

I had never heard of this guy until he qualified for the Games. I don't see how an average person can say this, little known, person can damage the public's view of any sport.

Can anyone say that D'Arcy's actions have left a lasting effect on swimmings's image? Do we now view swimming as a lesser sport than we did before? I don't think so.

The AOC should have said to D'Arcy their decision on his Olympic spot hangs on his court case. If he is found guilty and given a penalty then he can't represent his country. If he isn't then he is free to take up his spot. He could have kept training in peace and be judged by the law before everyone else judges him.

Now I have no association with Nick whatsoever, I have never met him, but his is the most blatant case of trial by media I've seen in a while.

Would this have happened if it was Grant Hackett? I think not.

Time to get off my soapbox.