You’re sticking to this theory even though none of the people who were actually affected by the decision agree with you.
So the support for your proposed conspiracy is… a larger conspiracy. Color me unsurprised - and unconvinced.
I addressed this already.
Yeah, well, I tried arguing with my computer screen, but people were giving me funny looks. Like I said: I don’t think Cavic is touching the wall, and the photos make it clear that Phelps’ arms are moving toward the wall much faster.
If that’s what you think my point has been all along, I haven’t done very well expressing myself. I definitely do not believe that everything going on with the Olympics has been on the up and up. I simply have heard nothing that presents a credible case for how this event could have been fixed to produce a false result
The moment a proposed conspiracy requires superhuman reaction times, or literally inhuman judgment, or simply rapid and decisive communications between more than, say, five people, without any of them leaking their part, the theory fails the real-world likelihood test: i.e. would this be possible in the real world.
Nothing you’ve linked to in any of the articles addresses the very valid points that Finagle made upthread. And when your initial redirect involved claiming that someone could convincing “throw” a race at a hundredth of a second intervals you lost even your initial credibility.
The simple fact that some entity might have a motive for a given result is not sufficient to justify a charge of shenanigans. As for your recital of prior frauds in sports, no one I think has said that sports, nor even the Olympics, are immune from cheating. It’s simply that this particular scenario does not lend itself to easy, or believable fixing.
As for the NY Times - simply because something is fit to print, doesn’t make it true, nor does it make it accurate, nor complete.