News24

Swimmers in hot water

2012-06-07 10:33

Sydney - Olympic swimmers Nick D'Arcy and Kenrick Monk are in hot water again after being ordered to remove photos of themselves posing with guns from their social media sites.

The photo of Monk holding two pump-action shotguns and standing beside D'Arcy, who had a pistol in each hand, in a US gun shop spread quickly in social and traditional media on Thursday, with Sydney Daily Telegraph taking to Twitter to ask: "Are you offended by this photograph of Nick D'Arcy and Kenrick Monk in a US gun shop?"

Swimming Australia issued a statement saying it became aware of "inappropriate photos" and "instantly contacted the athletes involved to ask for them to be removed."

D'Arcy and Monk have faced disciplinary panels before. Both are on the way back to Australia from a meet in the US and will be asked for an explanation for the photos.

D'Arcy was excluded from the Australian team for the 2008 Olympics after assaulting another swimmer in a bar fight in Sydney the night he won selection in the squad. He was later convicted and ordered to pay former Australian swimmer Simon Cowley compensation for serious facial injuries, but declared himself bankrupt claiming massive personal debts.

The AOC had to approve his nomination for the 2012 Olympics. Monk was lucky to avoid charges after hitting the headlines last year for falsely claiming to police that he'd been the victim of a hit-and-run auto accident. He later admitted that he was injured when he fell of his skateboard.

The Australian Olympic Committee said it would wait for the Swimming Australia investigation into the latest episode before considering sanctions for what it described as "foolish and foolish and clearly inappropriate for members of the 2012 Australian Olympic team."

"This incident serves as a warning to all athletes ... about the dangers of social media," Australia's chef de Mission for the London team said in a statement. "We say again to our athletes, do not put anything up on social media that you would not share with your mother or your grandmother.

"There is no such thing as privacy on social media. Anything that is put up will be in the public domain."

AP

Comments
  • Curry - 2012-06-07 10:41

    ...and the problem is....???

      gideon.joubert.10 - 2012-06-07 10:50

      Exactly! What a nanny state! Leave them be. Does my freedom of expression offend you?

  • customdesign - 2012-06-07 10:50

    legend

  • lydonmcg - 2012-06-07 10:50

    What exactly is the issue here?

  • andrew.pottow - 2012-06-07 10:54

    \Do not put anything on social media that you wouldn't want to share with your mother or grandmother\ - fair play, but I don't understand how that applies to this? He's implying you wouldn't handle a firearm in your mothers presence? Oops, done that. Fired one too. I've seen her fire one in competition. Now what? This antigun sentiment is out of hand. We don't need more gun control, we need idiot control!

      robbie.crouch - 2012-06-07 11:07

      "We don't need more gun control, we need idiot control!" Could not have phrased it better myself!

  • Deon - 2012-06-07 11:13

    The logic behind these comments baffles me! These so-called 'nanny states' use strict firearm control to keep their gun violence and murder rates very low or at zero. Not even the police carry guns. Perhaps you're all proud of SA's 50-a-day murder rate, which could - at the very least - be halved if stricter firearm controls were in place.

      dom.stein.9 - 2012-06-07 11:44

      Deon, the only thing stricter gun control will do in SOUTH AFRICA (not referring to other countries) is disarm the law abiding citizen and remove his right to adequately defend his life and the life of his family, while the criminals (by definition these are people who DO NOT follow the law, control measures, rules, sign boards banning entry blah blah) will continue to run rampant. Gun control has proven to be ineffective in any way in reducing GUN CRIME! The only people that benefit from stricter gun control is the criminal who's still carrying his gun (remember, he doesn't follow the rules) as he has less to worry about when illegally entering your home to rape your wife/mother/girlfriend/daughter and murder you.

      tyron.herman - 2012-06-07 11:46

      What an idiotic statement... you clearly have know clue what you are talking about, Deon. Those nanny states had lower violent crime figures BEFORE they banned legal firearms. If we were to follow in their footsteps our crime rate would sky rocket. Firearms in law-abiding citizens hands thwarts crime more often than not. A gun is the only equaliser between a person being attacked by multiple thugs!

      gideon.joubert.10 - 2012-06-08 00:06

      Deon, I cannot begin to describe how your logic baffles me in this case. Why would a criminal be bothered by gun control? Surely you are aware that criminals obtain their guns illegally, and therefore do not license them or bother giving a rats ass about gun control. If their guns aren't licensed, how will the Firearms Control Act control them? And no, guns aren't stolen from law abiding owners, but rather from the police and military depots...frequently! If you want to disarm citizens then we must disarm the police and the military as well. Problem?

  • viljoenfr - 2012-06-07 12:10

    They should be ashamed of themselves. I mean really. They're in an American gun shop, with 100s of AR15s and AKs all around them and they choose to pose with.... some sissy pistols and shotguns!! Utterly shameful.

  • christophermcharg - 2012-06-08 02:36

    In the matter of Nick Darcy, questions must arise as to whether the International Olympics Committee has tarnished its own reputation by failing to uphold its own values. The Olympic Charter, Chapter 5. II Eligibility Code, states that to be eligible a competitor must "respect the spirit of fair play and non violence, and behave accordingly.” In 2008 Nick D’Arcy assaulted swimming champion Simon Cowley. He was convicted in a criminal court and given a 14-month suspended jail sentence. In effect, a criminal court found D’Arcy violated ‘the spirit of...non violence’ through his violent actions. He was rightly taken off the Beijing Olympic team. In 2011, D’Arcy was ordered by a civil court to pay Simon Cowley $180,000 in compensation plus costs ($350k+). Later in October D’Arcy filed for bankruptcy; in effect, he brutally assaulted Simon Cowley then sent him back all his bills to nurse his life-long injuries. By any accounts this shows complete disregard for the notion of ‘fair play’. Some might wonder whether the IOC, the AOC, and Swimming Australia have lost sight of the true spirit of the Olympics by allowing this criminal to compete?

  • pages:
  • 1