Controversial Olympic Competitons

Dee4707 · May 14, 2008

Mathman said:
Still...I think the question of whether Scott Hamilton is a good commentator or not

NOT!!!

cassieandcheetah · May 14, 2008

I read Christine Brennan's Inside Edge last year, and what really struck me was that bloc-judging and nationalism had been going on for a long long time. I don't think what happened at SLC was a novelty by any standards. The reason I keep bringing up the "north american media" is the way they portrayed the whole event as an outrageous act of injustice and Elena and Anton as the undeserved winners was just horrendous. It so happened that the good guys involved were Canadians, and few took the Russians' side other than the technical experts who acknowledged the superior difficulty and intricacy of B/S's program. Frankly, I think the result would have been a toss-up regardless. I'm not supporting one team or the other, but the way Bezic and Hamilton claimed S/P as winners even before they were done skating, I wouldn't call that professionalism at all.

hockeyfan228 · May 14, 2008

escaflowne9282 said:
I think it's 50/50
I wish the ISU had been able to stand up to the media, investigate the judges, determine guilt and accountability, and then award a second gold if warranted. They didn't ,and they buckled to public pressure, while also not investigating any of those who are alleged to have been corrupt. To me that is just plain illogical.

Cinquanta did not buckle to public pressure. He buckled to Rogge's injunction to resolve the issue, wanting to be Rogge's successor and important in the IOC (which he is now) -- i.e., not showing himself to be the head of a corrupt organization, which a propert investigation had the risk of showing -- yet simultaneously reteaining his support/votes among the ISU nations, which a reverse decision would have done. The two-medal solution would not have been an option had an investigation been done. The original results would have been certified or reversed.

If you look at the NJS closely, the "skating skills" component might just as well be called the "Berezhnaya Rule" and the "transitions" component might just as well be called the "Sikharulidze Rule," because under CoP, this might have given B&S rightly an insurmountable lead, had these been marked properly. (Under a properly marked CoP, S&P would have skated "Orchid" for better or worse.) -1 or -2 on the 2A would have been a blip in B&S's score.

escaflowne9282 · May 14, 2008

hockeyfan228 said:
Cinquanta did not buckle to public pressure. He buckled to Rogge's injunction to resolve the issue, wanting to be Rogge's successor and important in the IOC (which he is now) -- i.e., not showing himself to be the head of a corrupt organization, which a propert investigation had the risk of showing -- yet simultaneously reteaining his support/votes among the ISU nations, which a reverse decision would have done. The two-medal solution would not have been an option had an investigation been done. The original results would have been certified or reversed.

Yes , but it can be argued that Rogge was very motivated by the public outcry. So in that sense, it feels as though the ISU (and the IOC) buckled to public pressure. I suppose I should have included the IOC in my original paragraph.
.As to the two medal solution, my understanding was that ,unless an athlete themselves has done something wrong, it is virtually impossible under Olympic rules to strip them of their medals even if given out in error or corruption.
I think it was in 1992 with Sylvie Frechette vs Kristin Sprague where one judge admitted mistakenly entering the wrong number and the referee refused to change it. While this was eventually corrected with Frechette getting a gold medal, Kristin Sprague still kept her gold and is still named as Co -Olympic champion. The moment those medals went around B&S' necks , it was not possible to take them away. Based on that precedent, a two medal solution is the most that could have been done in favor of S&P.

Raatkirani · May 14, 2008

Ptichka said:
Actually, he did not whine about it at all. Quite the opposite, he immediately started explaining why this was the right decision - such as showing how Dmitriev came to a full stop after throw jumps, whereas Grinkov hardly lost speed. The argument was that Scott was invested in G&G - since they were in SoI, he wanted them to win and thus wasn't objective. Personally, I take a middle ground on this - I don't think it was a matter of "if-they-win-it's-better-for-SoI", but that as a personal friend of Katya and Sergei he just liked them better than M&D, and his commentary couldn't help but reflect that.

The question about who should have won that night has been dogging figure skating fans for 14 years now. If I can throw my humble opinion in...I always believed M&D deserved to win gold that night. While I adore G&G and I thought their performance was beautiful, M&D were extraordinarily special that night. Even the witnessing audience gave them a standing ovation (the only standing ovation of the night). And so many years later, their Rachmaninoff program still gives me the chills.

In the SP, G&G did have a minor slip up (lack of unison on the spins). I know it wasn't a huge thing, but when everyone else was spot on, there was literally no room for error. Also, the lack of unison warranted a .2 deduction, which a few judges gave them, but not all. I thought the American judge was pretty biased against M&D that night, giving them only 5.6 for both elements and presentation. Come on, a 5.6?

In the LP, G&G made two mistakes, both on jumps, while M&D had clean jumps that were more difficult as well (M&D executed a side by side triple toe loops, while G&G did not have any side by side triples). As far as Artur stopping to throw Natalia, that is true to an extent--but I wonder if it makes a difference as to what kind of throw jump is being done. Would you have to stop slightly with a toe-assisted jump (like a throw triple toe loop which M&D did) versus a throw triple salchow (and edge assisted jump) which G&G did?

Both teams were equally fast. Also, while I did like G&G's lifts best in the air, I think M&D had better exits from their landings and B&E definitely had the most unique and hardest lifts (blind entries, entries on one hand with no help from her, and they did have that triple lateral twist as well). I personally loved M&D's choreography and artistry--it was passionate, intense, melancholy, very different--and I think they deserved a 6.0 that night. Scott Hamilton was drooling over G&G because they were his friends and tourmates, but either of those three teams could have won the gold that night. It's not that G&G were heads above the rest and everyone else was nowhere near them. They made plenty of mistakes too, but I think it helped them that they were the sentimental favorites.

Someone once wrote that the 1994 Olympics were the "Olympics of the Seconds," meaning that the silver medalists all deserved gold and it was forces out of their control that kept them from winning. I can't help but feel that for the pairs, dance, and ladies results. (For me, I really though U&Z deserved gold over G&P, but we'll save that argument for a rainy day.)

Joesitz (RIP) · May 14, 2008

escaflowne9282 said:
I think it's 50/50
I wish the ISU had been able to stand up to the media, investigate the judges, determine guilt and accountability, and then award a second gold if warranted. They didn't ,and they buckled to public pressure, while also not investigating any of those who are alleged to have been corrupt. To me that is just plain illogical.

At the same time,I have to disagree with you on one thing, and that is about the "North American Media". Many of the members/pundits of the NA media were former skaters and people who worked in the sport. To me, those particular members of the media did have some professional responsibility to not be overly sensationalist in their coverage.

That is the one drawback in this conspiracy, and my only interest. Who was Didier working with?

Joe

Tonichelle · May 14, 2008

Mathman said:
But I think there is another way to look at it. The "North American Media" has no responsibility to protect the reputation of figure skating or to foster respect for it. The ISU does. In fact, the main job of "the media" is to sell newspapers and get people to turn on their television sets.

Ding Ding Ding!

As for Scott being a good commentator, he's no different than any of the other big name American Expert FS commentators. They all have skaters that they are blatantly biased for or against. It's like that in every sport. It's up to the color commentator to dial that stuff down. Unfortunately NBC has some of the worst color commentators on the planet, NBC pushes the American bias to the extreme, and seem to be stuck in the cold war.

hockeyfan228 · May 14, 2008

escaflowne9282 said:
.As to the two medal solution, my understanding was that ,unless an athlete themselves has done something wrong, it is virtually impossible under Olympic rules to strip them of their medals even if given out in error or corruption. .

Error, yes. Corruption, there is no hard and fast rule, but there were a number of analyses done at the time, and based on case law in the Court of Arbitration, the results could be overturned in the case of corruption. There was also debate over whether the CoA would take the case, but there were precedents there as well as written standards to show that the case fell well within their guidelines.

jcoates · May 14, 2008

hockeyfan228 said:
If you look at the NJS closely, the "skating skills" component might just as well be called the "Berezhnaya Rule" and the "transitions" component might just as well be called the "Sikharulidze Rule," because under CoP, this might have given B&S rightly an insurmountable lead, had these been marked properly. (Under a properly marked CoP, S&P would have skated "Orchid" for better or worse.) -1 or -2 on the 2A would have been a blip in B&S's score.

I agree and have said for years that the Orchid program was the better choice for SLC. It did not have the bubbly romanticism of Love Story and was fairly abstract and reserved, but it was more complex choreographically and most importantly not recycled. Rightly or wrongly, I've always believe that some of the judges who voted against them might have voted differently if presented with an equally well skated "fresh" program rather than a three year old one.

Mafke · May 14, 2008

hockeyfan228 said:
If you look at the NJS closely, the "skating skills" component might just as well be called the "Berezhnaya Rule" and the "transitions" component might just as well be called the "Sikharulidze Rule," because under CoP, this might have given B&S rightly an insurmountable lead, had these been marked properly. (Under a properly marked CoP, S&P would have skated "Orchid" for better or worse.) -1 or -2 on the 2A would have been a blip in B&S's score.

More than one person has suggested that the original rules of CoP were written to retroactively make B&S the sole winners of SLC (just as for a couple seasons changes tracked the strengths of the leading Russian competitors). I also think that the underrotation rules were a way of making Slutskaya the winner over chronic underrotator Hughes.

mycelticblessing · May 15, 2008

escaflowne9282 said:
Scott and Sandra were hired to educate and inform the viewers, and analyze the competition as a whole, not publicly become cheerleaders for one pair over the next ,while also making outlandish statements. It would be one thing if they had disagreed, and pointed out what they felt S&P did better and explained which judging points they did not agree upon with the panel. The problem is they just kept getting more and more histrionic; first, they were prejudging the competition(if they just skate clean..., throw triple loop... etc). After the competition, they started going on and on about S&P's "magic", then implying that all of the Russian pairs in history had won unfairly. Then Bezic began surmising that B&S must feel so guilty for getting a medal that was not deserved. Then ,Scott described how tepid the audience was to them.Then ,Bezic's "I'm embarassed for our sport" proclaimation came about as B&S were taking their bows.Finally, when audience is asked to rise for the medal ceremony,you can hear Sandra Bezic shout "No!".

I don't think I've ever seen any commentators treat skaters so disrespectfully before and IMHO , that goes beyond simply giving an opinion.That was not commentary, that was a temper tantrum and they should rightfully be taken to task for it regardless as to if one judge(or even all nine judges) admitted to being pressured a day later.

That's terrible. And its sad to see how Bezic and Hamilton who have both skated at an elite level could be so insensitive and downright rude to B/S. :no: They, of all people should be the ones who most understand what a great moment it is for B/S. Bezic should have been embarassed that night. Of herself that is.

Ptichka said:
For some extra trivia. When the Russian anthem was played at the original ceremony, Elena mouthed the new words (words of the Russian anthem, only introduced in 2000), but Anton actually mouthed the words of the Soviet anthem (as president Putin, in his infinite wisdom, decided to keep the same music so beloved by the whole worldhwell.

An understandable mistake i suppose. Most people don't have to learn three different anthems in one lifetime. I'm glad they kept the old music though. The anthem they used during the Brezhnev era simply could not match up.

Ptichka · May 15, 2008

mycelticblessing said:
An understandable mistake i suppose. Most people don't have to learn three different anthems in one lifetime. I'm glad they kept the old music though. The anthem they used during the Brezhnev era simply could not match up.

That is the music they kept! The anthem was first introduced in 1944 (before that, Internationale was used). The original words mentioned Stalin; when that became a no-no in 1953, the anthem was just played without words until 1977, when Mikhalkov (author of the original words) changed the words around to eliminated the mention of Stalin along with the more belligerent references to WWII. When Putin decided to keep the music of the Soviet anthem, he pretty much ignored the contest for the best lyrics, and went back to the same old (literally) Mikhalkov to write yet another version of the words, this time not mentioning either Lenin or the unbreakable Soviet Union, but actually mentioning God instead! BTW, the Mikhalkov in question is he father of Nikita Mikhaklov who won the best foreign movie Oscar in 1994.

mycelticblessing · May 15, 2008

Ptichka said:
That is the music they kept! The anthem was first introduced in 1944 (before that, Internationale was used). The original words mentioned Stalin; when that became a no-no in 1953, the anthem was just played without words until 1977, when Mikhalkov (author of the original words) changed the words around to eliminated the mention of Stalin along with the more belligerent references to WWII. When Putin decided to keep the music of the Soviet anthem, he pretty much ignored the contest for the best lyrics, and went back to the same old (literally) Mikhalkov to write yet another version of the words, this time not mentioning either Lenin or the unbreakable Soviet Union, but actually mentioning God instead! BTW, the Mikhalkov in question is he father of Nikita Mikhaklov who won the best foreign movie Oscar in 1994.

Oops. silly me

, I meant the Yeltsin era (The Patriotic Song) The one that was played during G/G's medal ceremony in 1994. That one didn't match up. I am glad that Putin decided to keep the old anthem, now called 'Hymn of the Russian Federation'. And the new lyrics are fine, really.

fairly4 · May 15, 2008

In respones to Gkelley statements about Michelles mistakes and still won.

Yes, but she made fewer. Everyone else made more.

for example Michelle made 1 , everyone else made to and still won or Michelle made two bobbles and everyone fell she won. However if she made 1 bobble skated over time (when wasn't definite rule) they marked her the maximum points down, when russian skaters did it --nothing happened. also , two bobbles and everyone else either underrotated and jumped low she won even though michelle jumped cleanly. michelle skated not fast, but not slow she didn't win, sarah skated slow jumped somewhat low and won, helped by michelle and irinas mistakes,
canadian open josee fell twice and won over michelle clean skate. canada stated something dumb like josee did a new program, michelles was old. convenient since S\p skated an old program in the 2002 olympics (used it twice)
sasha 2006 olympic was two -three years old.
michelle had to skate better, the reason she basically won those is because she made the fewest mistakes.
irina 6th european win only landed 3 jumps and won. levels counted more.
if 1995 worlds michelle skated cleanly nicole , surya, lu chen fell they won and medaled. michelle fell once and hand us judge gave her third, sasha did same thing gave her second. michelle bobble landings instantly 5.6 fall automatically 3 points off unless a pro am event. irina only 2 points off.
your skaters saying it is okay to Cheat and Overlook mistakes if skate fast.
Baloney it makes the skate look messy, unfinishied and not polished.
sasha 2006 worlds and caroline k 2005 worlds.
mike ando quad at jw. the skaters the judges want up there to win they will overlook anything, because Michelle wanted Fair judging they gave it to her at her expense. so they could cheat for there own.
skating started that way why, human error, humans can't help but be prejudice.
but for examples
irina , sasha, caroline , tara

ManyCairns · May 15, 2008

Mafke said:
More than one person has suggested that the original rules of CoP were written to retroactively make B&S the sole winners of SLC (just as for a couple seasons changes tracked the strengths of the leading Russian competitors). I also think that the underrotation rules were a way of making Slutskaya the winner over chronic underrotator Hughes.

Yes, indeedy, COP was formulated so that B&S's original win would have been undisputable (is that a word?) and there would have been no need of the duplicate golds.

Raatkirani said:
The question about who should have won that night has been dogging figure skating fans for 14 years now. If I can throw my humble opinion in...I always believed M&D deserved to win gold that night. While I adore G&G and I thought their performance was beautiful, M&D were extraordinarily special that night. Even the witnessing audience gave them a standing ovation (the only standing ovation of the night). And so many years later, their Rachmaninoff program still gives me the chills.

In the SP, G&G did have a minor slip up (lack of unison on the spins). I know it wasn't a huge thing, but when everyone else was spot on, there was literally no room for error. Also, the lack of unison warranted a .2 deduction, which a few judges gave them, but not all. I thought the American judge was pretty biased against M&D that night, giving them only 5.6 for both elements and presentation. Come on, a 5.6?

In the LP, G&G made two mistakes, both on jumps, while M&D had clean jumps that were more difficult as well (M&D executed a side by side triple toe loops, while G&G did not have any side by side triples). As far as Artur stopping to throw Natalia, that is true to an extent--but I wonder if it makes a difference as to what kind of throw jump is being done. Would you have to stop slightly with a toe-assisted jump (like a throw triple toe loop which M&D did) versus a throw triple salchow (and edge assisted jump) which G&G did?

Both teams were equally fast. Also, while I did like G&G's lifts best in the air, I think M&D had better exits from their landings and B&E definitely had the most unique and hardest lifts (blind entries, entries on one hand with no help from her, and they did have that triple lateral twist as well). I personally loved M&D's choreography and artistry--it was passionate, intense, melancholy, very different--and I think they deserved a 6.0 that night. Scott Hamilton was drooling over G&G because they were his friends and tourmates, but either of those three teams could have won the gold that night. It's not that G&G were heads above the rest and everyone else was nowhere near them. They made plenty of mistakes too, but I think it helped them that they were the sentimental favorites.

Someone once wrote that the 1994 Olympics were the "Olympics of the Seconds," meaning that the silver medalists all deserved gold and it was forces out of their control that kept them from winning. I can't help but feel that for the pairs, dance, and ladies results. (For me, I really though U&Z deserved gold over G&P, but we'll save that argument for a rainy day.)

Ooh, ooh, YES, everything you said, especially, "I always believed M&D deserved to win gold that night. While I adore G&G and I thought their performance was beautiful, M&D were extraordinarily special that night. ... And so many years later, their Rachmaninoff program still gives me the chills."

I, too, feel that M/D gave the magical performance of the night, not G/G. Although overall I am much more of a G/G fan than M/D. And, of course, M/D didn't have the bobbles - the old preference for a clean skate - but it was more than that. M/D were ON.

And Nancy/Oksana shouldn't have been a contest. I just don't see Oksana's artistry being that notable. Those performances, as I said in another thread, were to me like: SP -- looked like a young kid overdoing it at a local fair talent or beauty contest. LP -- wear fugly headpiece and use balletic-looking moves to claim "artistry" (nevermind the low tech content and two-footing of jumps). Nancy was no great artist, either, but at least she laid down the goods, and had music that wasn't hackneyed, and a kind of pure, elegant "look" that gave her something of a style -- at least as much of a style as Oksana -- again, IMO.

"Olympics of the Seconds, for sure." (Totally agree on G/P, too, Raatkirani.)

Mathman · May 15, 2008

rallycairn said:
Yes, indeedy, COP was formulated so that B&S's original win would have been undisputable (is that a word?) and there would have been no need of the duplicate golds.

OK, but seriously...are you all saying that the ISU went to the trouble of inventing a new scoring system just so they could look back years later and say, "nyah, nyah, everybody, if the new system had been in effect the result of the 2002 Olympics might have turned out differently?"

faily4 said:
canadian open josee fell twice and won over michelle clean skate. canada stated something dumb like josee did a new program, michelles was old.

That was a humdinger, all right! I think what the judges said was that Josee's interpretive program "told a story to the music," whereas Michelle's was just plain old skating. Since this was the "interpretive" part of the competition, Josee's Harlequin program was more what that phase of the competition was inteded to be. Something like that, LOL.

Anyway, I remember that Frank Carroll was livid -- and Michelle never skated in Canada again, except for Skate Canada in 2001 when she couldn't get out of it.

Still, as much as I love Michelle, I couldn't find it in my heart to be mad that Josee won. She worked that victory (over the World Champion!) into her motivational speech that she gives to young skaters -- dream big, you never know what you might accomplish, etc., etc.

ManyCairns · May 15, 2008

Mathman said:
OK, but seriously...are you all saying that the ISU went to the trouble of inventing a new scoring system just so they could look back years later and say, "nyah, nyah, everybody, if the new system had been in effect the result of the 2002 Olympics might have turned out differently" ENDQUOTE

Not at all. Simply to set the stage so the circumstances wouldn't be repeated.
So that the judges would have explicit rules they could point to in defending their decisions. (Their SS's were so much better, yada yada yada.).

So now we have this system that supposedly awards all these very specific skills (I say supposedly because I don't think the PCS, for example, statistically explain enough independent portions of variance to be valid, and I also don't think they have validity in that I don't believe it's possible for the judges to accurately judge all those skills truly independently, while also keeping up with scoring the technical elements, all at the same time).

And the anonymous judging helps hide cheating and avoid controversy, too.

But, hey, except for the anonymous judging, none of this is necessarily completely bad. I do think judges now have more explicit justification for placing unclean skates over cleaner ones, via GOEs and PCS, than they did when they simply assigned one technical and one artistic/presentation mark based on what you might call their general impression or general evaluation of the skater's performance.

And that, I believe, is what the ISU bigwigs were seeking in response to the outcry over the original placement of B/S over S/P.

For some reason, this makes me wonder if we have any data on errors in technical scores? We've had some instances of incorrect button pushes a la Caroline having a detrimental effect -- how often is that happening? Or incorrect calls by the technical caller? Compared to how often did it happen under 6.0 that a particular judge failed to take off a supposedly "required" deduction for a particular error, for example? ... But I digress.

Joesitz (RIP) · May 15, 2008

Michelle skates a beautiful routine each time she skated. her closesy competitors did big tricks. That is the enternal dichotomy of figure skating.

Get rid of the music and you will get rid of Michelle. With it you have to put up with her.

Joe

attyfan · May 15, 2008

hockeyfan228 said:
Error, yes. Corruption, there is no hard and fast rule, but there were a number of analyses done at the time, and based on case law in the Court of Arbitration, the results could be overturned in the case of corruption. There was also debate over whether the CoA would take the case, but there were precedents there as well as written standards to show that the case fell well within their guidelines.

Would the Court of Arbitration be able to penalize the people who actually made the deals/pressured the judges, etc.? I know that, in cases of cheating, some innocent athletes may lose their medals because a team-mate cheated (as when an entire relay team is stripped of their Oly medals in a specific relay event because one member used steroids), but at least the cheater gets stripped, too. I think it would be simply wrong to let the CoA strip the innocent unless it also had the power to punish the guilty.

Buttercup · May 16, 2008

Joesitz said:
Michelle skates a beautiful routine each time she skated. her closesy competitors did big tricks. That is the enternal dichotomy of figure skating.

Are you serious? MK is a great skater but there is no need to disparage her competitors in order to make your point. Technical content is not "big tricks" - skating at its best should combine great choreo and expression with difficult content. Looking at some of Kwan's contemporaries, I don't think Sasha Cohen, Shizuka Arakawa or Maria Butyrskaya (to name a few) skated ugly, boring routines with nothing but "tricks" to help them keep up with Michelle. Irina Slutskaya, whom I suspect this may be referring to, is debatable. Personally, I liked her skating.

Controversial Olympic Competitons

Dee4707

Ice Is Slippery - Alexie Yagudin

cassieandcheetah

hockeyfan228

escaflowne9282

Raatkirani

Joesitz (RIP)

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll

hockeyfan228

jcoates

Mafke

mycelticblessing

Ptichka

Forum translator

mycelticblessing

fairly4

ManyCairns

Mathman

ManyCairns

Joesitz (RIP)

attyfan

Custom Title

Buttercup

Similar threads

Connect with us