Everything was going swimmingly for Aussie Olympic hopeful Nick D'Arcy ... until he had one too many

No, the AOC decision was never about "Nick D'Arcy" or his "dream". I was about determining what circumstances an athletes behavior, perusant to an agreed term of the AOC Athletes contract, had bourght himself, his sport, AOC or the Olympic Team into disrepute. I would expect the AOC to make the same impartial decision, no matter who the Athlete was, now or in the future. The decision was correct. By any objective community standard the alledged conduct was unacceptable, and the Australian Community would not expect any Olympic Athlete to behave that way.

the AOC decision wasn't based solely on the alleged charges laid against him but more on the contract he signed as an athlete as was shown a week or so ago on the news. It was about behaviour unbecoming which lead to the athlete & the sport into disrepute. Discounting the pending court case, his behaviour & action did warrant sacking from the Olympic team. His legal team could argue all they want about AOC basing it on the charges laid by the police but it was just mentioned in passing by Coates and NOT the real reason for his disbanding from the swim team. Nick D'arcy should have his legal team re-read his athlete's contract again with the AOC.

Thank you for your comments on Nick's case Craig. This story rings true to those closest to Nick and the real story of what happened that night.....the above comments seem to be by the typical know-it-alls who once again DO NOT have all the facts. On another note, please remember the support team behind Nick's dream consisting of his family, his friends and don't forget his Coach of 13 years who has put just as much effort into Nicks training as Nick has. They are all missing out on the Olympic experience as well.