By John Lohn
CRANBURY, New Jersey, April 10. THIS summer was going to be Nick D'Arcy's period of redemption, the chance to make up for lost time. He would travel to the World Championships in Rome and, if the blueprint went accordingly, he would have a medal draped around his neck as he stood side-by-side with the best on the planet in the 200 butterfly.
Suddenly, recent history would be forgotten and the Australian would be in the headlines for positive reasons, not negative. He would have the chance to turn the page, as they say, and put an ugly aspect of his life in the rearview mirror. While he would never escape The Punch Heard Round the Swimming World, it would move to the back burner, no longer simmering in full view of the sport.
As a refresher course, D'Arcy is the young man, immensely talented in the 200 fly, who crushed his own Olympic dreams last year. Just after qualifying for the Beijing Olympics in his specialty, D'Arcy attacked Simon Cowley in a Sydney bar, inflicting serious damage. A former Commonwealth Games medalist, Cowley's injuries included a broken nose and fractures to his cheekbone, eye socket and jaw.
Following the incident, the Australian Olympic Committee opted to toss D'Arcy off the Aussie squad that would travel to China for the 29th Olympiad. The decision by the AOC seemed reasonable, as D'Arcy surely brought disrepute to his sport and country. A year later, D'Arcy continues to be blackballed, and therein lies the problem. He has not been given the chance to start fresh.
Recently given a 14-month suspended sentence by the Australian court system, D'Arcy was informed by Swimming Australia earlier this week that, as was the case with the Beijing Games, he was being tossed off the squad that will travel to Rome for the World Champs. The question: If Swimming Australia was headed in this direction, why did the organization even allow D'Arcy to compete for a slot on the team bound for Italy?
Swimming Australia has told its national media that D'Arcy knew the nature of the conduct contract he signed. Yet, that's not the point. The Aussie Trials to select the team for the World Championships were held last month. Couldn't Swimming Australia have decided before that competition that D'Arcy was ineligible for Rome? A decision of that sort wouldn't have wasted D'Arcy's time and it could have avoided the circus that has arisen.
There's no doubt that Nick D'Arcy committed a despicable and stupid act after punching his ticket for Beijing. Being booted from that team was more than appropriate. Now, though, he has been strung along, led to believe that his career would go forward, only to have it short-circuited again. All the hours of training that went toward his Rome berth are meaningless.
If D'Arcy had been told by Swimming Australia that he would be banned for life after the incident – and that scenario may happen at some point – that decision would have been acceptable, for it would have been timely. Instead, the organization that oversees the sport Down Under danced around the issue, waiting for the courts to render a sentence on D'Arcy's case. Really, was that necessary? Make a call. He's either done or he can continue. Don't wait until he's qualified for a second international squad, then say, "Oh, by the way, you're not going."
Obviously, Simon Cowley is the victim of what went down in Sydney more than a year ago. No one is debating that fact, and his dealing with serious facial injuries is a terrible thing. But, through its indecision and poor timing, Swimming Australia has made Nick D'Arcy into a victim of sorts as well. One way or another, he should have been given a clear understanding of what his future in the sport entailed, not jerked around.
Search For More News About: Nick D'Arcy
Reaction Time Comments
Reaction Time responses do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions
of Swimming World Magazine or SwimmingWorldMagazine.com.
Reaction Time is provided as a service to our readers.
April 10, 2009 Right on the money John. Not that I condone D'Arcy's behavior but enough is enough. This guy paid a huge price. Out of the Olympics and a suspended criminal sentence. To kick him off the team agin is just plain overkill and unfair. Submitted by: blastoff
April 10, 2009 While I completely agree with the above analysis, it is my understanding that Swimming Australia is not the villan here but rather the Aussie Olympic Committee -- which decreed D'Arcy's banning -- and Swimming Austrlia had to acquiesce in the matter.
In any event, it's a, petty, vindictive and complerely wrong-headed action against a great swimmer who committed a terribly act more than a year ago.
Give the guy a break.
It's over, let it be.
What Nick did is/was unconscionable but keeping him off the team for Rome -- especially AFTER he was not allowed to swim @ the Olympics -- is equally unconscionable.
I hope he is able to bring the matter before the CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) and that he gets reinstated. Submitted by: slickwillie32
April 10, 2009 Follow the timeline. Aussie World trials, then Aussie Govt court decision, then Australian Olympic cmte decision, in that order.
He first had to qualify for the team with the hopes that the court would dismiss, then he could go to FINA WC. He qualified. Then the court made its decision. These are unrelated things. Does anyone think a gov't court system cares much about a swim meet when they are ruling on assault cases? Dare I say no. The court ruled and gave him an 18 month sentence, suspended or not, it is an 18 month sentence due to guilt in the matter. With this now the case, The Aussie Olympic cmte enacted their rules of conduct and removed him from the WC team. Since this is the World Championships, the national Olympic cmtes have jurisdiction on the athletes and team conduct. Aussie Swimming was not involved.
The argument of "give him a break" is juvenile at best. How about Mr. Cowley? was it fair that his nose, jaw, eye, and pride were all damaged? Give Simon a break! I'll risk the fact that Swimming Australia would have taken him to Rome. Their Olympic Committee made this decision. Federations want fast swimming and Gold medals!! OC's want good press and Gold medals. We fall into these standards as well. Our "suspended athlete" was at a national team camp during his suspension. The US has a high profile swimmer that is clearly a time bomb waiting to go off and get suspended (again)or worse. The Aussies just may be lucky that their "bomb" already went off and will not negatively influence his team-mates or embarass his nation any longer. Submitted by: thinkithrough
April 10, 2009 i am not sorry for nick darcy: he sound like a spoilt brat : it is all about him , his apologies to simon sounded fake and too late , come on it came on the day of the trial , in the previous intervieu he never said a word of simon, 3 months ago he also threten an another person when drunk at a night club. i think a suspension of 14 month like his penal sanction would be fair. i mean his family and he never call simon to apologize . Submitted by: maly
April 10, 2009 Perhaps a reasonable guideline for Nick's reinstatement should be dependent on Simon Cowley's recovery from his injuries. If Simon's injuries are permanent and life changing, Nick should also suffer severe consequences for his barbaric act toward Simon. If Nick were looking to do the right thing, he should want to take personal responsibility for what he has done. If Nick chose not to seek to be on the National Team until Simon is fully recovered from his injuries, that would go a long way toward making things right. That would show the decision makers that Nick's priorities were honorable and that he was putting the image of the sport above his own self interest.
Submitted by: Texas Masters Coach
April 10, 2009 I know that Nick and Simon had a confrontation, but would someone please explain EXACTLY what happened to cause it.
Do others agree with thinkithrough that a certain "high profile swimmer" is a "time bomb waiting to go off and get suspended (again) or worse." ? Submitted by: paddles
April 10, 2009 I think Texas Masters Coach had a good idea. But I have alot of questions:
Is Cowley retired, by the way? And if so did this injury lead to that?
Also, although I agreed with D'Arcy not competing in the Olypmics last year,why does the Aussie Olympic Committee still have jurisdiction over Swimming Australia when it comes to a non-Olympic event, the world championships?
And why didn't they make their decision prior to the WC Trials?
Submitted by: liquidassets
April 10, 2009 Right OFF the money John...
here is the truth:
I have, in fact, actually been privy to reading the pre-trail court transcripts and preparation documents (as I work as a jnr. criminal prosecution lawyer in the DDP) that were being prepared by the prosecution when D'Arcy was pleading NOT GUILTY...
As you may be aware he changed his plea in the last weeks on advice from his lawyers. The reason why is that the witness accounts are damming, and when found guilty he would most certainly been given a custodial sentence.
What happened (really) - and I can't divulge too much due to it being prejudicial - was that D'Arcy was pissed and came across to Eamon Sullivan who was chatting with Simon Cowley. D'Arcy was boisterous (drunk) and pressuring Sullivan to have a spirit shot with him. It was an amazing coincidence that Sullivan's discussion with Cowley was that he wanted to act responsibly and not get drunk and make a fool of himself in public and Cowley was giving him reassurance on this subject. An amazing coincidence.
D'Arcy, as was stated by witnesses, had consumed six schooners, (WITH SIX WHISKY CHASSER SHOTS)... Don't know about you but that would send me legless or to the dunny for a technicolor yawn... Sullivan was not interested in drinking anymore, and Cowley being the senior there told D'Arcy to take a hike, and gave him a light cuff to the back of his head. He did not slap him, as reported in the media.
D'Arcy went away and stood by himself for a while simmering. Then he must have had a brain snap, and quickly walked over to Cowley, who had resumed his seat around a table with Sullivan. Cowley saw D'Arcy approach and started to get out of his seat. It was then D'Arcy recklessly lunged at him with a vicious elbow strike to Cowley's face. An elbow strike, (if you have watched Muay Thai Kick Boxing) is an offensive move and carries much more force than a punch. D'Arcy stated that Cowley was going to punch him, but wittiness have countered his claim. In Kickboxing, to lob an elbow you must be very close to your opponent.
So, in one stupid violent move D'Arcy ruined his swimming career and sent a well respected Commonwealth gold medal winner to hospital with suspected brain leakage and horrific damages to his face. Simon Cowley has been unable to work since the crime.
This is the truth and now you know. That's why D'Arcy changed his plea to guilty.
No offence to you, but I have been mostly incensed that Nick D'Arcy and his mega-rich arrogant old man just don't seem to get it...
Some countries like UK(SemiColon replaced here) USA(SemiColon replaced here) Japan(SemiColon replaced here) etc won't even let him in now... and as I said with a criminal conviction you can't even drive a cab or be a bouncer.
It is a very sad situation for all involved. But D'Arcy has a history of extreme violent behaviour. Maybe it's something he learnt in his family surrounds. There is talk (only hearsay) that his old man is a wife beater. That might explain it.
But it will come out in the Civil Law suit which will be handled by a non-government barrister.
Submitted by: JohnnyO
April 10, 2009 From what I understand Swimming Australia's contract says that any member of the team can be removed if they are found guilty of a criminal offense. Since D'arcy pleaded GUILTY he kind of dug his own grave. HOWEVER, I completely agree that he should've been notified or at least reminded that if he were to make the team for Rome he could be kicked off depending on the court's ruling. As for their confrontation, I don't think we'll ever know what exactly happened but I have heard Sullivan turned down and drink and D'arcy hasseled him for it, Cowley then telling D'arcy to back off...or something. We'll never know what happened! Submitted by: VronRoxy
April 10, 2009 john lohn are you sure that Darcy had no idea that SA was going to render some decision on his place in the sport post the court case? are you sure his legal team had no idea for the past 12 months this was the case?
are you so sure that darcy new nothing of SA's plans?
you really need to do some homework to find out the facts because he knew and everyone knew, i think he was hoping they were going to give him a break since he missed the olympic team, but they didnt.
dont be so naive to back darcy and his team on this one. facts are facts and the fact is he knew it was only one step at a time (as he stated after the 200 fly)
Submitted by: fesbes
April 10, 2009 the facts are Darcy and his legal team knew all along that he was not a walk up start to the WC, to say they did not know is naive, everyone knew, the shock is they were hoping a guilty plea and the past AOC penalty of missing the Olympics would be enough.
Swimming Australia has waited until after the court case and the darcy group knew that. thats a fact.
listen to his pool deck interview, he mentioned it was only one step.
you may think it is harsh but dont say SA needed to let him know when he and his legal team were already fully aware of the possibilities.
they are playing up to the sympathetic on this one. Submitted by: fesbes
April 10, 2009 i read in the paper that the legal adviser from the australian swimming federation told them that nick d'arcy wouldn't have got a visa to enter the uk where the australian team was going to have a training camp before rome because of his criminal conviction. Submitted by: maly
April 10, 2009 After reading JohnnyO's explanation, I can't help but feel shame and sadness about this entire incident. Kinda makes you want to take a GIANT step backwards and LEARN from this horrific incident. Two lives permanently changed. Submitted by: paddles
Reaction Time responses do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions
of Swimming World Magazine or SwimmingWorldMagazine.com.
Reaction Time is provided as a service to our readers.
|
Subscribe Now!
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
