Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: ISU Congress

  1. #1
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,243

    ISU Congress

    New ISU Communication, ISU Congress Agenda

    http://www.isu.org/vsite/vnavsite/pa...v-list,00.html

    There are some proposed changes regarding technical rules in figure skating.
    Last edited by gio; 04-29-2006 at 05:36 AM.

  2. #2
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,058
    Thanks for the heads up, Gio.

    This one caught my eye. The United States is proposing a change in the rules that govern the participation of eligible skaters who want to take part in exhibitions and shows like SOI which also incude pros.

    The wording of the USFS proposal would allow the member federations involved (i.e., the federations of the country where the event is being held, together with the country of the skater in question) to make decisions about this without rerquiring the approval of the ISU.

    The ISU council opposes this amendment.

  3. #3
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    The USFS acts like it's still holding on to days when an amateur was just that.

  4. #4
    MY TVC 1 5 SeaniBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Watching the Wheels
    Posts
    4,983

    Question

    Where are "the lines" drawn? i.e. Pro, pro amateur, amateur, novice, etc....
    Is pro just saying that you don't compete for money, just make some for a living? Is that really "that" different then competing. Kinda curious how they define these things. The adult classifications/ judges clarification list got me rather confused as well. I think it is committees that decide who can do what and the skater decides when to bow out, Is that correct?

  5. #5
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,058
    Since the distinction between pro and amateur has totally disappeared, I have to look at this as part of the ongoing low-key power struggle between the ISU and its member federations. The ISU (meaning Cinquanta) would like to centralize more authority in its own hands.

    Two salvos on the on the part of the ISU are (a) the prominence given to the technical specialist (appointed directly by the ISU) vis-à-vis the judges (nominated by the national federations) and (b) the rationale given for anonymous judging (to free the judges from undue pressure from their federations).

    I see this proposal as USFS trying to increase its own power in the matter of deciding, independently of the ISU, who is “eligible” (formerly “amateur”) and who isn’t.

    USFS has a sweetheart deal with Tom Collins, so I understand, where COI pays a flat fee to USFS in exchange for letting eligible skaters, both American and International, skate in COI alongside so-called “pros” without jeopardizing their eligibility for ISU events such as Worlds and Olympics.

    Scott Hamilton refuses to pay such a fee, and consequently skaters who want to perform in SOI are in the USFS doghouse unless (like Todd Eldredge did) they can wangle some kind of special dispensation on their own.

    As I read this proposed amendment, my understanding is that currently these deals must be approved by the ISU. But if the amendment passes, the ISU is out of the loop and USFS becomes the sole arbiter in the case of US skaters participating in US tours. (In the case of foreign skaters in COI and SOI the skaters’ own federation -- or the ISU -- would have to give approval as well.)

    It seems like a minor issue, but I don’t think the amendment will pass. It seems to benefit only the US (and maybe Canada and Japan, which also have lots of tours and exhibition-type events).

  6. #6
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,058
    Hey, wait a minute. I just notice the real gauntlet thrown down by USFS.

    USFS is proposing term limits on Cinquanta and other ISU officers!

    The propsed amendment specifies no more than three consecutive 4-year terms for the president and no more than two four-year terms for other office-holders.

    (The ISU Executive Council is on record as opposing this amendment, LOL.)

  7. #7
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman
    ...

    USFS has a sweetheart deal with Tom Collins, so I understand, where COI pays a flat fee to USFS in exchange for letting eligible skaters, both American and International, skate in COI alongside so-called “pros” without jeopardizing their eligibility for ISU events such as Worlds and Olympics.

    Scott Hamilton refuses to pay such a fee, and consequently skaters who want to perform in SOI are in the USFS doghouse unless (like Todd Eldredge did) they can wangle some kind of special dispensation on their own.
    ...
    As I understood it, the USFSA doesn't have discretion to refuse to let a skater do SOI as long as they fill out the paperwork (both Kyoko Ina and Todd Eldredge went pro after other problems surfaced, and Sarah is still Oly eligible) and the Russians never had any problem. I thought the only events that knocked a skater out of Oly eligibility were not the tours or the Disson shows, but the competitions that are not sanctioned by the ISU (in the US, these consist of "Ice Wars" and "World Team Challenge") If, in fact, only two events are involved, I don't think it would cause a lot of controversy.

  8. #8
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,058
    It does seem like ado about nothing.

    Still, I can't help but wonder if there is something behind it after all.

    The new wording must be of some use to USFS, otherwise they would not go to the trouble of sponsoring an amendment to the ISU constitution.

    Conversely, there must be some reason why the ISU Council officially opposes it.

  9. #9
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    769
    42. UNITED STATES, Figure
    Rule 102, paragraph 3
    Amend the fourth and fifth lines to read as follows:
    Eligible persons may take part in exhibitions and tours which may include ineligible skaters, only if such exhibitions
    and tours are sanctioned by either the Member in whose country the exhibition or tour will take place and/or the
    ISU, and the Member of the eligible person.
    Reason: To reflect the exclusive rights of the Members within their own territories to hold figure skating events
    which involve the participation of eligible skaters.
    Council recommendation: The Council is not in favor of this proposal. The existing rules are more adequate for the
    objects of the ISU.
    MM- Is this the proposal that you were refering to? It looks to me like it is aimed at Non US skaters working in the US. With this wording, wouldn't the USFSA have some $ay over which skaters are authorized to skate in US shows and cheezefests? This would mean that a skater like (JUST an example) Joubert might have to be cleared by the ISU AND/or the USFSA as well as by his own federation in order to work here.

    This might give the USFSA more power over who works here. Plus, no one can tell me they don't get $omething for granting their ok. (OK, I am cynical. It's easier to be right that way. )

    I re-read it and it does say the bit about sanctioning events, but the effect would be the same. Right now, don't skaters just need their federations ok and maybe the ISU?
    Last edited by SusanBeth; 04-30-2006 at 06:45 PM.

  10. #10
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,058
    Yes, you are quite right SusanBeth. I had the wrong slant on it.

    I just looked up the actual wording that this amendment will replace. The current rule is:

    "Eligible persons may take part in exhibitions and tours which may include ineligible skaters, only if such exhibitions and tours are sanctioned by a Member (federation) and/or the ISU."

    (This wording does seem a little strange, however. Does it mean that, say, Evgeny Plushenko can skate in a Japanese pro-am provided he gets permission from the Skating Federation of Puerto Rico -- "a Member?")

    Anyway, the rationale of USFS -- "To reflect the exclusive rights of the Members within their own territories to hold figure skating events which involve the participation of eligible skaters." -- makes it clear what they want.

    MM

  11. #11
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    769
    That would mean that a show like SOI would have to get the USFSA sanction before hiring any eligible skater, not just the US ones, right? It might be on a skater-by-skater basis, but the USFSA would have an opening to say yea or nay to any eligible skater who works for that show. Either that or SOI would have to be sanctioned by the ISU, which I can't envision happening.

    That might make Collins really happy.

  12. #12
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    769
    Are the proposals as good as dead if the ISU opposes them or is there still room for "politicking"? I was reading on different boards that COI isn't doing well. Since this is an Olympic year, that is scary. I was wondering how much this would benefit COI. With the admendment, they could have their pick of all the eligibles and pay them what they want. They would be the only game in town. However, they are, in effect, the only game in town anyway. So, how important would this be to them?

    They might have a better shot at getting skaters like S&Z next year. I am not sure if S&Z are going to give up their eligibility or not.

    It could just be an attempt by the USFSA to put themselves into position to wring a few more bucks for themselves here and there.
    Last edited by SusanBeth; 05-01-2006 at 01:16 PM.

  13. #13
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by SusanBeth
    ... I was reading on different boards that COI isn't doing well. Since this is an Olympic year, that is scary. I was wondering how much this would benefit COI. With the admendment, they could have their pick of all the eligibles and pay them what they want. They would be the only game in town. However, they are, in effect, the only game in town anyway. So, how important would this be to them?

    They might have a better shot at getting skaters like S&Z next year. I am not sure if S&Z are going to give up their eligibility or not.

    It could just be an attempt by the USFSA to put themselves into position to wring a few more bucks for themselves here and there.
    S & Z are skating with Canadian SOI, not the US SOI; COI therefore has some competition when it comes to luring skaters who will want to compete the next season. Furthermore, other countries may start their own tours or shows that take place during the off season. I doubt that COI will benefit much.

  14. #14
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by attyfan
    S & Z are skating with Canadian SOI, not the US SOI; COI therefore has some competition when it comes to luring skaters who will want to compete the next season. Furthermore, other countries may start their own tours or shows that take place during the off season. I doubt that COI will benefit much.
    There's still next year's US SOI tour. If S&Z already have dealings with SOI, they are more likely to continue with them, if they can.

    Think how that competition would dry up if the USFSA got a say. The only skaters that could accept SOI might be the one's Collins doesn't want. (I said that I was cynical!)

    Edited: Just think of how many "Big Name" US eligible skaters (Those who do need permission from the USFSA) are skating with SOI. I am sure that SOI would not mind getting to employ Sasha or Michelle. Sarah went to SOI a few years after winning and after a problem with Collins. Todd and Mike weren't at their peak when they went.
    Last edited by SusanBeth; 05-01-2006 at 02:00 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •