Sportsmanship/legitimacy

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 151933

> a_svirn:
> Well, you got it all wrong. I never said a word against Harry. It 
is
> the way the tournament is organized that raises my hackles. If
> anyone's integrity is in question it's Dumbledore's, not Harry's.


Geoff:
Well, if I "got it all wrong", it was possibly because the 
tournament was
raising your hackles and you didn't make your points particularly 
clear.

a_svirn:
In a Message 151721 (Mon 1 2006) I stated:

"Here is a broad and general meaning from a
dictionary: "sportsmanship 1. conduct considered fitting for a
sportsperson, including *observance of the rules of fair play*
(emphasis mine – a_svirn), respect for others, and graciousness in
losing". While it can easily be applied for the champions
themselves, the jury and the members of the organizing committee
don't seem to know the first thing about fair play".

I should think it's clear enough. Maybe you confused me with someone 
else. (Although I can't think who it could have been. I've yet to 
see a post stating that Harry is an unscrupulous double dealer.)

Pippin:
But do the judges have power over the magical contract  or is it in
the sole discretion of the goblet? It appears they do not.

a_svirn:
Which calls for the question – why on earth the judges use magical 
contracts at all, if they don't have power over them? 

Pippin:
That's why everyone keeps saying that the goblet is impartial – 
supposedly none of the judges can influence it.

a_svirn:
I fail to see what the impartiality of the Goblet has to do with 
magical contracts, though. Surely Dumbledore could charm the Goblet, 
so that magical binding did not follow the selection itself. And if 
he couldn't, why use the Goblet at all? It is easily duped, as we 
have seen, and what's more there is not a shred of fairness in these 
one-sided magical contracts, even without this extra champion 
debacle. 

Pippin:
The rules seem to be that scoring is totally within the judges' 
discretion, just like the scoring for the House Cup.

a_svirn:
If you can call that rules
 Besides, your simile is not particularly 
accurate. In the House Cup points are being awarded for pretty much 
everything, whereas in the tournament the participants had concrete 
tasks to accomplish. It follows, therefore, that points should have 
been awarded for the accomplishment of these tasks. 

Pippin:
Anyway, no one has addressed my  point that as far as Dumbledore 
knew, all  Harry would get out of being awarded extra points is more 
exposure to the dangers of the maze.

a_svirn:
But he would have been exposed to them in any case. Extra points 
gave him (quite unfairly) advantage over Krum, but even if he had 
been the last one to enter the maze he would have had the same 
dangers to face. 

Pat:
How do we know that anyone, if caught, goes unpunished?  I have no
recollection of anything from canon that discusses this.

a_svirn:
Because they cannot be disqualified – these magical contracts see to 
it. The worst that can be done is (presumably) the subtraction of 
points. And that's no big deal – because judges can cheat by 
awarding points unfairly (like Karkaroff) and without fear of 
reprisal. And even if you get 0 points you are allowed to enter the 
maze. Indeed, that's an honour you cannot refuse. 

Pat:
At any rate, where I'm going
with this is to dispute your statement that cheating is incorporated
in the rules.  Everybody *is not* doing it - none of the Hogwarts
staff is involved, except the afore-mentioned Crouch!Moody, who had
his own agenda there, too (he wasn't interested in Harry winning for
a good purpose, but to serve his master.)

a_svirn:
And who is Professor Hagrid – a next-door neighbor? Also Crouch Jr., 
whatever his agenda, *is* a member of the staff and no one seems to 
think his behavior fishy. Harry gratefully accepts his help and 
swallows the explanation about traditional cheating without a second 
thought. And no wonder – nothing he had seen so far could dissuade 
him from it. So, presumably, did Cedric and Hagrid. Charley Weasley 
is not exactly a member of the staff but he's a member of the team 
nonetheless. And yet he turns a blind eye on Hagrid's cheating. If 
he seems a trifle exasperated, it is because Hagrid helps a rival 
team. One of the judges – Bagman – also cheats or at the very least 
tries to. Moreover, he is heavily involved in betting, and not 
particularly discreet about it. Dumbledore awards points on a 
dubious pretext. Karkaroff awards points blatantly unfairly. The 
only ones who were directly involved and did not cheat were Crouch 
Sr. and Percy (well, Dumbledore undecided). And considering that 
Crouch Sr. and Percy never attended simultaneously it means that out 
of the five judges only one was unscrupulously and unquestionably 
fair (And to think that it was "the world's biggest prat".) 

But it's not just these instances that make me say that cheating is 
incorporated into the rules. The very fact that Harry Potter the 
underage second Hogwarts' Champion is quite officially foisted onto 
the other champions and nothing can be done about it means that 
rules aren't working and cheating is the order of the day.