Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: brian1501 who wrote (199369)	9/1/2004 4:56:11 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577893

RE Hamm's gold) Agreed. Too bad his handlers are not telling him that. Has more to this story come out? The last I heard the Korean started too low, but should have been docked additional points, making Hamm still win. Unless there is more to this, then there is no way he should give it back. They can't look at that one error in a vacuum. Who told you? The RNC? I have never heard your version of the story but I gave it a pass the last time you mentioned it in order to maintain a modicum of peace on the thread. <g> Yang won by a tenth of a point fair and square. Everyone knows that but Hamm refuses to acknowledge the obvious. He needs to confer with Phelps and get some sportmanship under his belt. Of course his behavior may be explained by the fact he is from a red state. ;~) Any way you look at it, it's unprecedented that someone has been asked to return it that didn't cheat to get it (and even some cheaters haven't had to return theirs). Too bad the Koreans didn't agree to a 2nd gold. It was the IOC who would not agree to the second gold. That was the easy solution. Yes, it would have been. That doesn't change the fact that Hamm did not win the gold; he won the silver. The fair thing would be to give the gold back IMO. ted