Judging scandal in Torino? | Page 2 | Golden Skate

Judging scandal in Torino?

euterpe

Medalist
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
If you looked away from the TV, you wouldn't even have been aware there was a glitch--two seconds, max.

I have always considered Berezhnaya/Sikharulidze to be the last of the great Russian pairs. When they retired and left T/M and P/T in charge, the artistic quality of Russian Pairs figure skating dropped like a stone. T/M are technically expert, but their robotic skating has never appealed to me, and P/T are good but not anywhere near great.

Sale/Pelletier weren't around long enough to have established themselves as great artistically. IMO, their "Tristan" was their best effort, but bringing back "Love Story" for the Olympics was a step backward.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Lee said:
The anonymity is still in place to protect the judges from undue pressure from whatever source, be it other judges, their own federations, etc. Keeping the anonymity of who gave what scores AFTER the event ensures that there is no 'retribution' against any of the judges.

I think there will come a time when the need for anonymity will no longer exist, but that's several years down the road because the 'old guard' still exists to some degree and needs to be replaced by judges and other officials who are younger and aren't tied to 'tradition' that's so long been a part of protocol judging.
I hope so. But the basis of this hope is that the judges are the good guys (at least that the new judges who will come along in the future will be), while the bad guys are the officials of the ISU and its member federations.

It seems to me that there is quite a lot of fraternal mixing between the saints and the sinners. Maybe the New Judging System will help; maybe it will just cover it up.

Mathman :)
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
euterpe said:
I have always considered Berezhnaya/Sikharulidze to be the last of the great Russian pairs. When they retired and left T/M and P/T in charge, the artistic quality of Russian Pairs figure skating dropped like a stone. T/M are technically expert, but their robotic skating has never appealed to me, and P/T are good but not anywhere near great.

I am totally in accord with you. B&S were very very special. But I don't want to pursue this since it's been discussed ad infinitum
Joe
 

curious

Final Flight
Joined
Aug 15, 2003
kyla2 said:
I agree with Joe that I don't think there will be a scandal in 2006 at the Olympics but I sure don't agree with him about B & S. They had a more difficult program and much better artistry and finesse than S & P. It was like looking at champagne and cheap wine in a bag. The main difference that the cheap wine in a bag had a clean skate.



that's exactly the difference between those two pairs:clap: :biggrin:
 

sk8m8

Final Flight
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyla2
I agree with Joe that I don't think there will be a scandal in 2006 at the Olympics but I sure don't agree with him about B & S. They had a more difficult program and much better artistry and finesse than S & P. It was like looking at champagne and cheap wine in a bag. The main difference that the cheap wine in a bag had a clean skate.

that's exactly the difference between those two pairs

Why do others bash skaters to make comparisons and what does it have to do with Judging scandals in Tornino???:scratch:
 

attyfan

Custom Title
Medalist
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Does the ISU do anything to protect the computer from hackers? I cannot imagine why anyone who wanted to fix the games would bother trying to persuade a bunch of judges to finagle the PCS scores -- and put myself at the mercy of a group of idiots who don't know how to stay off of video tape or to keep their mouths shut -- when I can get the same result with one hacker programming the computer to give certain PCS scores to the skater I am betting on.
 
Last edited:

mzheng

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
sk8m8 said:
By the way, I think those jumps should be called "Zips" not "Flutzes"....the jump starts off on an outside lutz edge and rocks over to a flip entrance. By definition, a "flutz" would have to be a jump that started from an inside edge and rocked over to an oustide takeoff edge ( I don't even know if that's possible on a triple)

So tell all those ladies not to ZIP when they attempt a lutz.:laugh:

:laugh: I like ZIP. But do they call it 'LIP' when a jump started from inside edge and rocked over to an outside edge? AFAIK, Elena, Arakawa are two offenders of LIP.
 

kyla2

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Sk8m8

O.k. here's why I am "bashing" S & P (although I personally feel I am just expressing an opinion). I was completely and totally disgusted by the lack of grace, class and good sportsmanship exhibited by the Canadian Figure Skating Federation, and S & P who bought into the theory that the gold was stolen from them. The Canadian Figure Skating Federation screamed, yelled, jumped up and down and spoke to any forum, written or televised, that would listen to them complain about how the gold should have been theirs. S & P played the role of the wounded innocents. They should have won an Oscar, not the Olympic Gold. That is, until they managed to get another gold medal awarded. It was an appalling display and one of the real low points in figure skating. B & S had it all over them, flawed skate or not. Yes, S & P had a clean skate, but their program was much less refined, less complex and skated to a banal piece of music. The elegance and line of B & S, the quality of their program, and the overall difficulty of their skate was reason enough for them to be awarded the gold. The judges got it right the first time. FURTHERMORE, I truly believe this whole scenario, which was played out across the planet via the mass media, cost Michelle Kwan the OGM that year. The judges didn't want a repeat of this fiasco, so they found a way to award the gold to Sarah by placing Irina ahead of Michelle.
 
Last edited:

R.D.

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
The judges didn't want a repeat of this fiasco, so they found a way to award the gold to Sarah by placing Irina ahead of Michelle.

I don't think so. I think it came out right. But I'm not going to re-hash this for the 10 to the nth time.
 

dancindiva03

Match Penalty
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
I don't think there will be a judging scandal in firgure skating in Torino. After the fiasco that followed the SLC Games I would think all parties involved would want to prevent a repeat performance. The scandal in 2002 made a lot of people question whether or not figure skating is a "real sport" and to protct its integrity, the ISU and the IOC and whoever else is involved needs to make sure that these games are judged fairly.

Edited to add my own $0.02 : I still think B&S deserved to win ;)
 

Lee

Rinkside
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
kyla2 said:
O.k. here's why I am "bashing" S & P (although I personally feel I am just expressing an opinion). I was completely and totally disgusted by the lack of grace, class and good sportsmanship exhibited by the Canadian Figure Skating Federation, and S & P who bought into the theory that the gold was stolen from them. The Canadian Figure Skating Federation screamed, yelled, jumped up and down and spoke to any forum, written or televised, that would listen to them complain about how the gold should have been theirs. S & P played the role of the wounded innocents. They should have won an Oscar, not the Olympic Gold.
Excuse me while I loudly and vociferously call BS on your statements. Skate Canada said NOTHING about an appeal or anything until AFTER the announcement had been made that a judge had 'confessed' to fixing results to Ms. Stapleford and Mr. Pfenning.

Marilyn Chidlow (president of SC) was on the CBC set being interviewed by Ron Maclean and was leaving there to go to the press conference that had been scheduled by the ISU for later on the day AFTER the pairs event. In that interview with Maclean, she said there had been rumours that morning of improprieties, but that SC would do nothing until hearing from whomever was speaking at the press conference (I can't remember at this time who was speaking at it).

There's this big crock of hooey floating around that all the appeals and BS were brought about at the behest of SC and Sale & Pelletier. The appeal came about AFTER a judge admitted to have voted a certain way under pressure. That she recanted several days later has no bearing on the submission of the appeal. The appeal was based on the appearance of fraudulent/dishonest behavior on the part of at least one judge.

In interviews after the pairs event that night, S&P expressed disappointment at not winning gold, much like any other 'close' competitor would have done. There were absolutely no cries of 'cheating' or any other such things as have been attributed to them at all.

I get reallllllly po'd at the crap that gets spewed out there -- it's nothing more than people not having their facts straight and looking to take their frustrations over the eventual results out on the wrong people. Jamie and David didn't cause that damn fiasco -- put the blame where it belongs -- on LaGougne, Stapleford and Pfenning. They're the ones who let it all out and turned it into the media circus it became.

To blame Jamie and David is just as juvenile as you're accusing them of being.

And that's MY opinion.
 

kyla2

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Nonsense

The wheels were in motion before the judging issue. There were cries of robbery before the judging scandal. In fact, it started right then and there as the medals were being awarded. But you're a Canadian so that is something I suspect you wouldnt see. If S & P had the class that I wish they had had, they would have said "no" to a second set of gold medals (for goodness sakes, have you have heard of anything so ridiculous??). The net effect was that all 4 medals were devalued. The true class of that whole debacle were B & S. They kept their silence and were gracious at a second medal ceremony when a second set were awarded (an absolute slap in their faces). The Russian Federation, for once, were justifiably outraged and I totally agreed with them.
 

JonnyCoop

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
kyla2 said:
FURTHERMORE, I truly believe this whole scenario, which was played out across the planet via the mass media, cost Michelle Kwan the OGM that year. The judges didn't want a repeat of this fiasco, so they found a way to award the gold to Sarah by placing Irina ahead of Michelle.

Wow. We must not have been watching the same competition, either that, or your TV was showing entirely different long programs from Slutskaya and Kwan than the ones mine was. Irina, tho not spectacular that night, SHOULD have been placed ahead of Kwan in the free skate (and IMHO, in the short program as well). That was easily the weakest performance Kwan had given in competition in many years, and perhaps ever, IMHO. No, Irina wasn't great either (no-one really was that night, except for Hughes and Suguri) but IMHO her performance was a shade or two better than Kwan's -- and this is coming from someone who will be the first to say that on many occasions, especially in Grand Prix Finals, Irina was given the nod over Michelle when Michelle actually skated better.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Lee said:
Jamie and David didn't cause that damn fiasco -- put the blame where it belongs -- on LaGougne, Stapleford and Pfenning. They're the ones who let it all out and turned it into the media circus it became.
Hi Lee. I agree with everything in your post except the part about blaming Stapleford and Pfenning for not sweeping what they knew under the rug. Truth will out, Speedy notwithstanding.

MM
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
CAN WE DROP THIS NEVER ENDING NEVER RESOLVING DEBATE

Look at the bright side: We know hanky panky has existed. We know the heartbreaker it is. We know it will put fear in the minds of future colluders because it will kill the sport. In effect, this may be the end of the cooperative cheats.

Joe
 

euterpe

Medalist
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
It's because we know that hanky panky existed that we know it is bound to happen again. Only now our chance of knowing that it happened again is virtually nil. We can see an incredibly wrong outcome but be powerless to know how it happened and who was responsible.

What is clear is this: the talking heads can't say whether skaters control their own destiny, because they don't. The caller and the judges are in control. While a clean skate is not necessarily a winning skate, a skate with 3 falls can have the potential to be a winner.

What does this mean to the casual observer, when they see a clean skate and a sloppy one, and the sloppyy one wins? The logical conclusion (and possibly the correct one) will be 'it was fixed!'
 

kyla2

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
JohnnyCoop

I think we saw the exact same program but came to enitrely different conclusions. There are quite a few poeple who agree with me about this. Irina was very sloppy throughout most of the program. Michelle was not. But that's my last word on this subject on this thread. I don't want Joe to send the police after me!
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
JonnyCoop said:
That was easily the weakest performance Kwan had given in competition in many years, and perhaps ever, IMHO.

Nah, not ever. She'd had worse performances at Nationals the years she won silver, esp. 1997, and at various fall events, often winning anyway because everyone else was worse. But weakest performance at Worlds or Olympics? Yeah, probably.

in Grand Prix Finals, Irina was given the nod over Michelle when Michelle actually skated better.

In the final long program, yeah. Clearly ahead after the SP and first LP (remember that stupid format?), so how the points work out for medals even if Kwan had won the LP gets complicated again.

What if the final LP results at that GPF had been Hughes-Kwan-Slutskaya, which would have been reasonable going by jumps landed/lack of visible mistakes? In that case Slutskaya would still have gotten gold. Only Kwan-Hughes-Slute in the long would have given Kwan the gold.
 

R.D.

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
euterpe said:
It's because we know that hanky panky existed that we know it is bound to happen again. Only now our chance of knowing that it happened again is virtually nil. We can see an incredibly wrong outcome but be powerless to know how it happened and who was responsible.

What is clear is this: the talking heads can't say whether skaters control their own destiny, because they don't. The caller and the judges are in control. While a clean skate is not necessarily a winning skate, a skate with 3 falls can have the potential to be a winner.

What does this mean to the casual observer, when they see a clean skate and a sloppy one, and the sloppyy one wins? The logical conclusion (and possibly the correct one) will be 'it was fixed!'


I can definitely side by this because this was the logic I used to go by when watching skating competitions before I started following it closely. I would be like, "She fell, she doesn't deserve to win!" So I can definitely see some sort of outcry if a skater w/mistakes wins over one who does not have any mistakes. Sarah HAD to win that ladies event after that FS in SLC. I think the results were right, but even if someone else deserved to win (due to placement), something would have seemed wrong if Sarah didn't win. At least in the casual viewer's eyes.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I don't think it's that cut and dried. I think the casual audience can relate to the concept that skater A did a bunch of really hard stuff and fell a time or two, while skater B just skated around in circles for a while -- no falls -- and called it a day.
 
Top