LET'S GIVE MICHAEL PHELPS A PASS ON HIS CONDUCT

Does anyone remember Eleanor Holm?

If you don't, it is understandable. But with half the world seemingly
concerned about Michael Phelps, it seems appropriate to recall the
stunning, blonde 100-meter backstroke champion of the 1932 Olympics
whose consumption of a few glasses of champagne and late night dice
playing with sportswriters in 1936 cost her a repeat of her earlier
gold medal triumph.

On the boat over to the Berlin games, Holm ran afoul of Avery
Brundage, the strait-laced, sanctimonious U.S. Olympic czar whose
unrealistic defense of amateur standing probably cost U. S. athletes
more victories over the years than any other single thing. He saw
Holm as a threat to his ideals of how an athlete should act in or
out of competition and kicked her off the team, sacrificing her to
his own ideals about personal behavior.

There have been arguments over the years as to how much champagne the
beauteous swimming star, who was later to become the wife of
legendary showman Billy Rose and a movie and aquacade celebrity,
actually consumed. A doctor on the boat charged she was suffering
from acute alcohol poisoning. Holm vigorously disputed that, saying
she had drunk only a couple of glasses during a toast to the team.
Nevertheless, she sat helplessly in the stands as a Dutch swimmer won
the event she was an odds-on favorite to capture a second time.

While the circumstances of her infamy are quite different than
Phelps' or those who have violated strict anti-doping rules, Holm
felt the pain of public scorn up until her death at age 91 in 2004.
She always thought she had been a victim of selective standards and
punished far too drastically by a self-appointed moral arbiter. Her
critics argued she had violated the rules and had cost the U.S. an
important gold medal.

Phelps, of course, is a victim of modern technology that prevents any
sort of privacy and of his own arrested development brought on by the
enormous rigors and pressures of a sport that requires total
dedication without deviation. The enormity of his accomplishments
has come at the sacrifice of much of his childhood, leaving him
woefully short of the social skills, experience and maturity that
would protect him. He is still a teen-ager in terms of development.
His picking up a marijuana pipe at a fraternity party and an earlier
DUI arrest would be no big thing for most his age. But as a role
model for millions of others, he is held to a different standard,
fairly or unfairly.

Never mind that he has never tested positive for any drug nor
exhibited behavior that like Holm would keep him out of the
competition. Never mind that he has spent so much time in the water
that when he is on dry land he hardly knows how to act. His fans, at
least some of them, and the corporations whose products he endorses
expect him to be superhuman in every aspect and not to succumb to the
normal temptations of youngsters his age. Why, you say, he is after
all 23 and should know better.

Right. If he hadn't spent up to eight hours a day in the water and
the rest of the time eating, studying and sleeping, year after year
since he was a mere baby. As the father of a more than just fair
"year-round" competitive swimmer, I personally can attest to what it
does to youngsters not to mention fathers and mothers who must have
nearly as much dedication. Most, like my son, decided it wasn't worth
what it would take and he sought an outlet in less time-demanding
sports. In other words, he wanted to enjoy his boyhood.

Like Holm who wanted not to have to go to bed at 9 o'clock and to
enjoy a glass or two of champagne, Phelps finally wanted to act like
a human being instead of an automaton. So before casting that stone,
wouldn't it be better to try to understand what is required to get
where he is and how much it cost. Would you do it?