For more context: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Thorpe#Controversy" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Thorpe#Controversy</a>
Glad to hear. Jim Thorpe seems like a really amazing dude.<p>Slightly-off topic: if you're ever passing through Pennsylvania, check out the town Jim Thorpe. The waterfall hike there is top-notch.
I do not really understand the fetishism we have with sports purity.<p>I play volleyball for fun with a team that is at my level. The "last in business league" kind of level.<p>I have fun and this is not my job
For my job I do whatever ot takes to succeed and nobody cares as long as I do my job properly.<p>My point is that pro athletes should be allowed to do whatever to improve their results. Including doping, i.e. taking the substances appropriate for their results.<p>You need to be better at speed? Red pill.<p>They are not normal (= in the general norm) people anyway. I will never run 100 m in 10 seconds, nor will anybody in the 99% of the population.<p>So why pretending this is sport for everyone? And if we don't, why blocking them from getting even better results?<p>I
Nothing the IOC does matters. They're corporate fucking shill-sellout whores, and anything the "olympics" stood for stopped being real long ago.<p>The records and achievements of all humans who've exhibited great skill stand, irrespective of the lame "IOC's recognition".
This article doesn't say why it matters whether an athlete had previously earned money playing sports. Was it untrue that he had earned money previously? Was that rule not uniformly enforced? TFA doesn't say.<p>Also, why was he previously considered a co-winner? What does that even mean?<p>I can't tell from the article why the current result, which appears to be the third, is the correct one. Does anyone else know more about the situation, the rules, and why the current result is the correct one?
I guess I’m surprised to hear that the case is considered exceptional and unique. Maybe it’s unique regarding the specific issue of amateurism. My instinct is that there must be many controversial results from the early Olympics where we might seek to rectify historical inequity. I just can’t believe it was all squeaky clean.
This feels like the correct decision, but not one of much value. Jim Thorpe died in 1953, nearly 70 years ago. Their previous ruling was in 1982, nearly 30 years after his death. I'm not sure who gained from the ruling in either case, perhaps his family was made to feel better by it, although I doubt they were satisfied by the "co-winner" title? By now, they're a good chance his children have all passed, or are beyond the point of caring as well.