Hey Nick D’Arcy, I just want to say that I’m sorry. I’m sorry you’re a dickhead. And I’m sorry the guys who run your Olympic team are dickheads too.
If you’re surprised to read that first description, then hold the phone.
Yes, swimmer Nick D’Arcy is one of the most controversial Olympians in history – remember this is the guy who smashed in former teammate Simon Cowley’s face in a one-way altercation, then dodged the $370,000 damages bill by pleading bankruptcy.
Nonetheless, in the manner of Chris Brown at the Grammys, he had been granted absolution by the relevant authorities, and permission to enjoy the spotlight at his calling’s biggest stage.
Having put him on the team for London, the Australian Olympic Committee didn’t want any more bad publicity from a guy with a history of drunken violence. Then a photo popped up of him with an as-yet facially intact teammate, posing with weapons in a gun shop after a United States swim meet.
Kenrick Monk, aside from potentially being confused with a zany television detective, only provides the supporting cast for this story. His role will be remembered with as much passion and clarity as that of Cary Elwes in Titanic.
The important thing was that the AOC had expected D’Arcy to keep his head down, and he didn’t. They cracked it.
He and Monk were told that they can swim in London, but will be sent home immediately after their events. And this is where the AOC decision-makers start to look like fools too. In fact, it’s hard to know who comes off worse.
Certainly, posing with heavy duty assault hardware may not be the kind of clean-cut, Uncle-Toby image that the Olympic team wants to cultivate. But if every Olympian is supposed to be sporting a Kieren Perkins shit-eating grin, then someone should have shot Jumping Jai Taurima in the back of the head.
The fact that there was some sort of furore about the photograph of D’Arcy is yet another example of media outlets creating news rather than reporting it.
So D’Arcy walked into a shop full of guns, where the owner invited him and his mate to have a go on a firing range. At some point, they struck a cheesy pose with some of the weapons in question.
I’d cordially like to pose the question: so what?
Certainly, Australia isn’t particularly big on firearms. John Howard’s determined gun reform following the Port Arthur massacre had its social effect, and the toting of ballistic weaponry hasn’t had much social cachet since. Not that we ever had the over-inflated ‘right to bear arms’ posturing of the Yanks.
But while guns are controlled, they’re not illegal here. And the photo in question wasn’t even taken here, but in the United States.
In a country that utterly lost its rag over half a second of accidental Janet Jackson nipple, you can purchase assault rifles at K-Mart. In the comparative graph of guns versus boobs, I’m pretty sure I know which has caused more fatalities. Regardless, America is absurd and heavy weapons are an everyday item.
So can visitors really be pilloried for wandering into a shop and picking them up? Would it have been any different if they were wielding registered weapons at a gun club in Australia? Or is it just a cover-all attitude that guns are bad, m’kay?
Because the follow-up question is: why the hell is anyone surprised?
Guns may well be scarce in day to day Australian life, but we are immersed in a culture that glorifies and idealises gun violence. American films and TV shows dominate our viewing. Our own productions take their lead. Track down commercial films that don’t include firearms, and I guarantee you’ll be clocking ratios of one to plenty.
My generation has grown up on Arnie swinging the lever-action on his Harley, on Tybalt diving sideways while firing one-handed, on Bruce Willis reaching for the pistol taped to his back.
So when a couple of young guys, who generally have no access to impressive firearms, suddenly get their hands on a couple of Remington pump-action shotguns, it’s basically inevitable that the glamour of these unattainable, cinematic items will impress the holders.
They strike a pose. They get a photo. And so many thousands of others would have done the same.
That the AOC should jump on them, not for doing anything illegal, and not for doing anything immoral, but for doing something that someone might get antsy about, is pitiful.
Yes, athletes are influential, and it’s bad for kids to see them with guns. So take the photo down. Tell them not to be stupid with what they post. End of story.
Also pitiful is the middling sanction that was handed down. Not kicked off the team, still allowed to compete, but sent home immediately after their events. It makes the AOC look like a clucking collection of schoolteachers, sending the naughty kids to bed without pudding.
Posing with guns is a nothing offence. The offence that D’Arcy committed was staving in a man’s face, then dodging responsibility despite somehow finding the money for all his legal challenges.
If the Olympic team wanted to punish him for that, they should have done so. If they were prepared to let it slide, then they should consider it slid.
The truth, though, is that D’Arcy is under close monitoring because of that earlier offence. But exaggerating the importance of small indiscretions on that basis is pointless.
Yes, Nick D’Arcy is a dickhead. But you can’t select a dickhead and then get surprised when he acts like one.
Carlton Banks
Guest
The set against D'Arcy in general is just that of a lazy media and a gullible public of snipers. The mob mentality of it all is disgusting. D'Arcy's crime is having too strong a punch. Cowley, a well-known agitator, went out of his way to provoke a physical response from D'Arcy. D'Arcy has been so unfairly treated by the media and the legal system in this country that it disgusts me. We have a media and public siding with the true villain who is trying to seek financial gain from an incident that he provoked. Now, that is disgusting.
A1
Guest
He can't answer it, because he doesn't know.
Craig Welch
Guest
I don't think anyone's saying that. But you're being asked which social media rule they broke, and seem to be having trouble answering that question.
stillmatic1
Guest
tom, you cant say that athletes shouldnt be punished any harsher than other members of the public regarding the pics, then suggest hackett SHOULD be punished harsher for what he has done because he is a public figure!? fair enough about the "weighting" given to the 2 issues, but your stance is slightly contradictory into what should happen to the 2 parties, notwithstanding the difference in the nature of the "crimes". fact is, there is a difference in expectation of people who are in the public arena, and especially those who rely on tax dollars to do the things the love, than the average worker in the office or worksite. a sportsman/woman relies on a good public image, for better or worse, to generate income for themselves and their employers, so a standard has to be maintained and met to ensure this profitability. its not just a media convention, it has always been this way, and is part of the price you pay for being a "public" person. it should be said, that not many of us could handle what these people go through, but we also dont get the adulation and wealth that comes with it either. pros and cons everywhere, but your right, hardly a hanging offence!!
amazonfan
Roar Guru
You say 'I care nothing for your half-arsed ad hominem attacks which are a sign that you cannot construct a sound argument to save your life' and then follow it with 'but then again I wouldn’t expect anything less from a left winger' and 'If you want to do that then go comment on a Fairfax publication where you can join all of the other left wing losers who like to find non-existent issues that only they can see and claim that as fact'. Talk about throwing stones in glass houses.
Craig Welch
Guest
You would not doubt have observed that the photograph was taken illegally. No-one is allowed in front of the firing line at any registered shooting range whilst firing is taking place. So the photographer, and the range operators, are in breach of the Weapons Act. But that photo is 'OK' despite this illegality, because it was part of 'team bonding'. Yet Monk and d'Arcy get a perfectly legal photo and publish it, and that is 'BAD'. The Olympic Committee certainly has been brought into disrepute. Not by these two bozos, but by Green.
Craig Welch
Guest
"So it’s not as if the punishment was meted out by some ignoramus bureaucrat." Yes it is. Green has become one.
Big Ramifications
Guest
You certainly won't be cheering them on coz they've already won the medal. Hard to cheer someone on when the race is over.
Big Ramifications
Guest
Mate, I was exaggerating [or in this case - under exaggerating] to make a point about scumbag lawyers. Still I wonder what Cowley did to provoke such a reaction, eh? *Does research* *Finds entire face not caved in* Some exaggeration is more equal than others. Derp derp derp.
Geoff Lemon
Expert
BR - Cowley's entire face was caved in. Do a bit of research about the nature and extent of his injuries, it's pretty disturbing stuff.
Tom
Guest
I would also add that Geoff Lemon, as anyone who has read his excellent heathen scripture blog would know, can hardly be described as a right winger...I also note that despite repeated requests, Brendan still has not told us which part of the swimming Australia code of conduct has been broken here...
ray carlton
Guest
i am totally appalled that these two morons are still allowed to represent australia at the olympics - if they are so interested in high powered assault weapons they should join the armed services, find out what these weapons are really for and represent australia in a theatre of war - would they though?? i doubt they have the guts for that job - they are sending a very wrong message to the youngsters of this country about firearms and the AOC should bring them home before they compete - if one of these silly little boys do win a medal i certainly will not be cheering them on
Jerome
Guest
I'm pretty sure it was more than a chipped tooth mate!
Jerome
Guest
Just a beatup, designed to draw attention to the Olympics and swimming from an increasingly apathetic public.
Arthur Fonzarelli
Guest
Luckily the Fonz didnt have to cough up such megabucks every time he pounded a Milwaukee punks face in, otherwise he would have never have been able to open his auto-shop.
Big Ramifications
Guest
$370,000 for a chipped tooth? And he's supposed to man up and wear that cost? Yes, yes he's a dickhead. But I put myself in D'Acy's shoes and I'd be sorely tempted to take the bankrupcy route as well. The microscope should be on the scumbag lawyers in this instance. As for the dramatic pics with the bruising: boo farking hoo. Anyone who's ever played sport [checks to see if this is a sport website] will know that the swelling will be completely gone in two days, his face will retain a yellow hue for maybe a couple more. And why did Cowley get clocked in the head in the first place? Speaking of social media policy. Remember Stephanie Rice's sexy policewoman photo from when she was about 16? Matron! Three hundred and seventy grand? Jeeesus.
super G
Guest
Ahhh....no.
super G
Guest
Well said Walt! Brendon I think you missed something.
super G
Guest
I don't care much for how many medals they might win. I just don't want these dickheads admired and followed around as much as they are. I have zero tolerance for tossers, whatever the sport.
Big Ramifications
Guest
I really wanted to see a drunk Nick D’Arcy punching-on in the Games village after his last swim. Oh well. LOL at the Swimming Australia “team bonding” gun range hypocrisy. Too funny. The only thing wrong with this sordid affair is that D’Arcy is pointing the gun at Monk’s head. Crikey!