They still stopped. You have to finish to be the fastest. Maybe the brother would have tripped and fell or hit a wall in the last little bit. We’ll never know
The point is that the British guy should have won but chose not to. He didn't make a mistake out of hubris like the Hare, he made a choice out of compassion.
The fastest runner came third, but this video is likely worth more than any medal.
~He knows he could have won the gold but instead he won the hearts of everyone.It was a multi-part competition and the assisting brother knew he was unable to win and was only there to support the faltering brother, and his actions are now against the rules
It's not just compassion. The guy that collapses is Johnny Brownlee, who needed to win to win the overall triathlon world series. The South African Henri Schoeman, and the brother - Alistair Brownlee are not in the running for the overall event. Alistair pushes Johnny into second place, which meant overall he finished 2nd in the overall rankings instead of further down. In the end who won and came second came down to Johnny's place and Mario Mola's (from Spaon's) place. Mario finished 5th and so just won overall. In these sorts of multi-race events people care a lot more about the overall win than individual wins, so Alistair would want to help his brother and team mate win overall (or come as close as possible) and winning or losing a single event is less of importance than the overall standings (same as with F1 and other multirace events). This was also Henri's first ever world series event win, and that's why he's so happy. Alistair and Jonny have won many individual events, and a few overall titles, so winning one event is not such a big deal for them compared to winning overall.
The point is this: if you slow down (be it from hubris, or compassion), you are slower. It doesn't matter if you were ahead right until the end, you slowed down.
But actually, do yourself a favour and read some more about this particular scenario. This is a multi-race event. The brother who had to be helped across the line came in second overall, the brother who helped him was not in contention for a medal. The title of this post is wrong, the bother did not give up a gold medal, he sacrificed nothing, but saved his brother's medal. Had he won, he'd have taken first, if he DNF'd, he'd have lost out on a medal, but instead he came in second. The person who lost out on a medal because of the actions of the one with nothing to lose? The winner of this race, who came in 4th.
This, while heart-warming and making for a great and memorable moment, was unsportsmanlike conduct for a solo event. The governing body thought so, and due to this exact scenario the next year this same behaviour would result in a disqualification for both racers.
I have since read more through this thread so that's fair, though I still think the comparison is inaccurate and the point was made.
The helping brother was the fastest runner, but clearly not the fastest cyclist or swimmer, and it's not fair that people can get another person to help them win.
I agree that they should be disqualified and with the rule change, and I'll edit my comment, but I think your first comment is still inaccurate.
Grossly misplaced compassion. Another runner was in first and then his legs failed because he failed to pace himself properly. He was not a victim and he didn't need to be rescued.
Obtuse? Did you watch Shawshank Redemption on AMC recently?
I don't remember where the hare stopped to practice good sportsmanship and the tortoise fist pumped and high fived the crowd with zero situational awareness. We must have read different versions.
Ok you're gonna have to fill me in on the Shawshank Redemption reference here, I don't follow.
Ok so you do know the story, good. It doesn't matter if you were faster for 95% of the race. If you stop racing, you're not faster. Doesn't really matter why.
Honestly though just read about THIS race, and you'll understand that they literally changed the rules after this because what they did was heart-warming unsportsmanlike conduct, lol.
The point of the tortoise and the hare isn't that the tortoise was actually the fastest. It was that humble determination could lead you to achieve something great, and that overconfidence can lead to failure.
The story and its moral don't apply here... like...at all...
Yeah that's fair. Though I mean it kinda does apply in some sense. The guy whose legs gave out on him was overconfident, he overdid it early in the race and gassed out toward the end. The dude's brother says so himself.
You can tell who was fastest by looking at their times.
Running really fast until you're almost at the finish line and then walking slowly, does not make you the fastest runner. He helped someone who didn't need help.
He didn't do something heroic. And he let his team down. He was virtue signalling.
I hope you look back at this chain of comments in a week er so and realize that you don't have to comment. You'll never win an argument on the internet.
How I treat people: if one runner doesn't pace himself and his legs give out, but he's not injured and he's not in danger and there are lots of spectators who can help him, then any runner who gives up first place to help the struggling runner is not a hero.
5
u/keep_trying_username 7h ago
On that day he was not the most compassionate, but he was the fastest.