D'Arcy's 200m qualification is no redemption

Well.. I'm in debating and my topic is 'Politicians are better Role Models than Athletes' and my team agrees with this topic. i was told to search up Nick Darcy and explain in my speech why he is a bad person & I Absolutely agree...Punching someone and being able to compete in the Olympics.. Yeaahh. this guy is TOTALLY a GREAT role model. This guy should just be in Jail. Just Saying~

They quickly shut down comments on an article about Nick D'Arcy's impressive failure in the Sydney Morning Herald today. Read the comments. You would have to say that about 90% of contributors are more than happy Nick D'Arcy is not in the finals--the other 10% must be family and friends, mindless teen girl swimming groups, devotees of the king hit, and the odd Queenslander (ever notice how Queensland papers, commentators and hick mad-Katter politicians stand up for D'Arcy?). Let's hope that D'Arcy takes his failure out on a shooting range and not on the face of some unsuspecting guy! http://www.smh.com.au/olympics/swimming-london-2012/nick-darcy-gets-knocked-out-20120731-23b7j.html

It's amazing to think that nick Darcy should defy the advice bestowed on him by his legal persons in regards to going bankrupt. When ray Hadley and his co commentators suggested he should of just paid Simon Cowley and ignored his advisors is pretty ludicrous. I for one would think that morally he should pay and apologize and would love to think we ALL should do as such, but the fact is we would not need a legal system would we?

nick is great i love swimming 2

Leave Darcy alone he has done his time, cowley just has sour grapes because he wasn't a better swimmer. He paid the crime since when did the public become a judge and jury, how many times do you need to pay for something Cowley threw the first punch. Focus on what matters winning gold at the Olympics as for being a good message for young people they are only sports people, parents are the ones suppose to send a good message. Get over it. Football players do much worst.

I took the other route, by writing to English newspapers , asking them to pressure the Sports Minister to ban D'Arcy. They do it to rugby players who have convictions, so why should a swimmer be treated differently. Matt, if you believe that people who attend Court for violence related offences, are allowed to return to work, try working in the mining industry.

@ Matt. I guess at the heart of the whole D'Arcy matter is (Australia's) pursuit of gold medals versus the characteristics of an (Australian) Olympic champion. When I read your comment, my immediate response was that I would feel a proud Australian if Nick D'Arcy won Olympic gold for New Zealand, knowing we had rejected him; I feel only shame that he is representing our country. There is an interesting article in the Good Weekend today, in which Simon Cowley claims Swimming Australia made a deal with Nick D'Arcy to allow him to return to the national team. People will deny it, but you have to wonder whether D'Arcy would have declared himself bankrupt if he weren't confident it wouldn't affect his Olympic chances... Guess you are right that at the end of the day it's about the medal count. Perhaps when the media talk of redemption for D’Arcy, maybe they are referring to the financial use of the term, e.g. when you redeem points on your credit card to purchase something—D’Arcy can redeem a medal for endorsements and Australia can redeem it in its all important final medal count. I note that the original of my article was “Olympic Gold: The Currency of Redemtion”.

Well otherwise he would be swimming for New Zealand. He is a chance at a gold medal and Swimming New Zealand were interested in his services and there was initial contact between his people and them. The fact is he was going to be at the Olympics in London regardless of Swimming Australia's decision. He just has to keep focused on the objective and as he is coach said to me, "show everyone what he is capable of". People who go to court unless directed by the court are allowed to return to work, swimming is his job. It is unfair to deny him his employment and his employment is to swim at the elite level.

YEAH! thank you for sharing that opinion. i think you are absolutely right.

Speedo sponsors Nick D'Arcy, by the way Dale. Lost my business and I go out of my way to tell people why.

Further to my note that London must uphold the values of the Olympics and not allow Nick D'Arcy entry is: Chapter 5. II Eligibility Code, which notes that to be eligible a competitor must "respect the spirit of fair play and non violence, and behave accordingly."

Or here is another suggestion...Write to the London Olympic Committtee and put forward the argument that, as 2012 custodians of the Olympic tradition, they must surely prevent Nick D'Arcy from entering the country to compete, thus doing what Australia has failed to do because it is too concerned about medals.

I probably was being unfair to Dale and I apologise for that. He has every right to say what he feels as we all do. I guess I get concerned about the direction of some of these forums that too often miss the important point and focus their attention on the symptom rather than the cause of the problem. Darcy was convicted and sentenced and met the rquirements of his sentence. He was then ordered to pay compensation and declared himself bankrupt, again within the requirements of the law. Any effective solicitor and accountant would have encouraged their client to take such action and how to achieve it, as has happened with so many wealthy people and companies in the past. You see the problem is not so much Darcy, its the system that allows this situation to occur, and it is that which this forum should be addressing and how we should petition to have the law changed ot overcome this glaring loophole. No use complaining about the courts because they are bound by the laws the public have developped. And taking action now against Darcy verges on a form of vigilanteism. You see if Darcy had been denied his spot on the team for these Olympics, the Australian Olympic Committee could have been charged with contravening the Anti-Discrimination Act. You see that act also includes discrimination against criminal histories. Therefore Dale and Christo, better we seek to petition against the existing bankruptcy laws to change them and ensure that such immoral acts arent repeated.

Hi Dale. Indeed our legal system is imperfect, e.g. what people might generally consider to be morally wrong is not necessarily legally wrong, and yes it is the best we have. This doesn’t mean that you are wrong to voice your views on the matter (I think BearFax's response is unnecessariy personal, btw). I’ve had people say things like, “If Matthew Johns can get away with what he did then why single out Nick?”. Such comments shift the argument away from what Nick D’Arcy did to Simon Cowley and the way he avoided payment of his punishment; it is not about dumping the ills of society of some 'poor fellow' who ‘made a mistake’. (Isn’t Nick D’Arcy part of the wealthy who have the means and knowhow to beat the system?). If you feel frustrated by the fact that Nick D’Arcy assaulted Simon Cowley and then sent Simon the bills for his actions, and that the AOC doesn’t seem to care, then find your voice elsewhere. An example. Nick D’Arcy employed Max Markson to repair his public image. Markson thought D’Arcy could make millions in endorsements with companies like Red Bull. Use your voice as a consumer. Email/Facebook Red Bull and let them know their brand has been high-jacked and that if they endorsed Nick D’Arcy many people would associate their brand with images like this: http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2011/06/27/1226082/730070-d-039-arcy.jpg

Yes Father Dale and I'm sure your moral judgement is the framework upon which forgiveness for sins can be dispensed. The Courts have dealt with the matter and sure there is an issue still to be resolved regarding compensation, but I think that's best left to the appropriate authorities dont you. You may maintain that his claim of bankruptcy is a cop out of responsibility, and you are most assuredly right. But if we were to judge everyone who abrogates their responsibility in a system that's still probably the best in the World, The Westminster System, we would be seeking retribution for literally tens of thousands of people in Oz...not to forget all those wealthy people in this country, who through quirks in our taxation system,not only pay virtually no tax but make a profit ... and it does happen frequently, I've seen it happen...so that the poor wear an even greater burden in raising family.Shall we make this young fellow the final scapegoat for our frustrations with a flawed system. The legal system I'm afraid is not about justice, for justice is what you can afford. Its about giving the impression that we have security so that the status quo can be maintained...mainly for the wealthy. There are far worse misjustices happening every day in our society Dale than some kid who impulsively battered another. And I'm not saying he's right, I'm just saying that's the system and yet its the best so far around.

Darcy's selection in the Australian team sends the wrong message,in particular to our young athletes.He may well have made a poor judgement in his altercation with Simon Cowley but the bottom line is that he has not "done the time for his crime".Only then is he morally able to move and lead his life in any direction he chooses.Yes he may have acted with the shortsightedness of youth but when is this ever justification for actions which hurt another person.Shame on the AOC for selecting this person as a representative of Australia.At this point he has not done anything to demonstrate that he understands the importance of representing Australia.So what he can swim fast.There is much more to being a champion Australian!

D'Arcy is supported by his manic mega-rich father who will support his way-ward son until he completes his bankruptcy period. Sick I think. D'Arcy is a spoilt brat and that's it.

The assault matter was decided on in a criminal and civil case. I have no further issue with the actual assault, the rulings and the punishment, though a suspended sentence is light. But surely you cannot accept that the victim should bear the costs, not the perpetrator, in addition to life-long injuries? Are young males to learn that bashing someone late at night in a bar has no real consequences? indeed you can bash them and then cause them enormous future financial loss, with comparably little effect on you. Forget Darcy was kicked off the Beijing team as that is not relevant to your drunken brawling thug who beats someone up; Darcy got a suspended sentence and skipped out on his bills. This is not a good signal to send and the matter should be settled properly. There is no redemption, just a walking away.

Well put Christo. I sometimes wonder how much journalists are influenced by their need to be allowed into press rooms for 'exclusive' titbits, and given free, or heavily subsidised trips overseas to cover the Olympics etc, by sports bodies. If a writer really got stuck into Swimming Australia, I wonder how they would be treated. I think the term is , bite the hand that feeds you. As for D'Arcy not throwing the first punch, or elbow , I have never heard of that being accepted as evidence in Court. It appears that D'Arcy being slapped by Cowley was something that was fed to the media by his legal team, working on the principle that if you say something often enough, people will believe it to be true. Personally I hope that D'Arcy wins gold, and then the bankruptcy administrators take it off him.

Like I said I am not condoning the action and there may well be outstanding legal implications. I have also heard said that there may be a later attempt to reopen the case by the Darcy family given Darcy was reportedly struck first after he was apparently mouthing off. But that is all for the Courts to decide. The lad has every right though to continue his life, and attempt to achieve his goals. Having worked in the criminal justice system for several decades, I see too often people who make mistakes when they are younger (and sillier) discriminated against in later life. We expect these people to address their aberant behaviour and live a law abiding life, but too often journalists hinder those efforts by continuously focussing on past indiscretions and making them public so that the individuals efforts to reform are hampered.