ISU, Get it Together and Verify Your Own Rules

Tony Wheeler said:

The Vise/Trent situation was at the 2007/2008 Grand Prix Bompard, so already over two full seasons ago. The option for the top six placed pairs in the World to do a third event was clearly stated in the ISU rules. THIS situation is not.

If anyone did a third event then it was already stated in the beginning of the Grand Prix series as to which event would not count for points. Remember the 2001 NHK Trophy (I know it was a long time ago too, but just an example) when Slutskaya and Butyrskaya both withdrew in the week before the event? Had they competed and assumingly finished 1-2, then Angela Nikodinov, who was also in the event and had it chosen as her non-scoring event, she would have made the Final. Without the Russians there, Tataiana Malinina won the event and qualified in front of Nikodinov to the Grand Prix Final. It happens. You can also look at that as Nikodinov could have won the event herself instead of finishing the 4th place she ended up, and then she would have protected her own spot.

Click to expand...

OK with the nonscoring entrants. You confirm that is the Rule, when there is a vacancy in a GP entrants, a top 6 skater or team can by Rule apply to fill it as a nonscoring event and knock out a would be bronze medalist so that the new entrant can have an extra session to see if their scores improved?

This could happen again as Pairs is not the most populated sport. I don't think this should be swept under the rug, as the topic of this thread is questioning the Isu to verify its own rules. What is the Rule on Filling the Gaps? Does it exist in writing?

The question to be put to the ISU is why fill the gaps with top 6 skaters or teams. Nikidinov at least was not put against a top 6 skater.

bigsisjiejie said:

Knowing the Chinese like I do, it would not surprise me if money passed hands in a back room--speculation. Money or no, unless ISU can point to a defined loophole or exception that the Chinese legitimately took advantage of, the Federation should be punished by the ISU nullifying all 3 Chinese pairs' results, and the standings and medals for the pairs events redistributed. And a one-year suspension from international competition. Yes, this sounds harsh and punishes the skaters, but this is the only kind of message the Chinese federation (and govt) will understand. .

Click to expand...

More racist rants. ISU screwed up and China should get punished? It's interesting how such an incident can expose the deep racist hatred embedded in the typical 'whites' just on one figure skating board alone. Maybe it's really true that most white female liberals are hidden racists. It won't surprise me that the majority of figure skating fans are white female liberals.

I'm counting to at least FIVE who have showed their racist bones.

The Chinese question will be ignored other than it is a top 6 team with special privileges. How much time is permitted for protests, and are all the teams advised before the competition?

and, btw, the Grande Prix questions should not be ignored. The question of the thread is about ISU rules.

Tony Wheeler said:

Yeah, let's not get off the topic because as I mentioned, the way the Grand Prix entrants are in no way similar to the system used for ISU Championships.

Hopefully Stevenson will get an answer out of somebody!

Click to expand...

Your topic, your topic, reads ISU Get it together and verify your own rules. I have not read that you changed your own topic to make discussion only on ISU championships excluding Grand Prix. If the GPs are not ISU championships, what are they?

Joesitz said:

OK with the nonscoring entrants. You confirm that is the Rule, when there is a vacancy in a GP entrants, a top 6 skater or team can by Rule apply to fill it as a nonscoring event and knock out a would be bronze medalist so that the new entrant can have an extra session to see if their scores improved?

Click to expand...

This rule has already been changed, Joe. The year that you are referencing (Pang and Tong) was the last year that top 6 teams were allowed to participate in a third event. Now teams can only do two events, period.

bigsisjiejie said:

Knowing the Chinese like I do, it would not surprise me if money passed hands in a back room--speculation. Money or no, unless ISU can point to a defined loophole or exception that the Chinese legitimately took advantage of, the Federation should be punished by the ISU nullifying all 3 Chinese pairs' results, and the standings and medals for the pairs events redistributed. And a one-year suspension from international competition.

Click to expand...

Wait a minute. The Chinese bribed ISU officials, so the ISU officials who took the money should punish the Chinese? (While keeping the money, of course -- I like it! It sounds like the Detroit City Council. :yes: )

Joesitz said:

Your topic, your topic, reads ISU Get it together and verify your own rules. I have not read that you changed your own topic to make discussion only on ISU championships excluding Grand Prix. If the GPs are not ISU championships, what are they?

Click to expand...

Joe, you need to read the ISU rules. They are available for anyone to read if you go on isu.org. ISU Championships are the Four Continents, Europeans, World Juniors, and World Championships. Sorry that I didn't clarify that completely. And-- what Mathman said. The rules you keep referring to were done away with a few years ago.

Peter Krick is the same guy who made an innocent draw for the Olympic CD look like it might be crooked.. The ISU should consider replacing the idiot.

Apparently counting to 13 is beyond him-probably because he would have to take off his shoes to keep track of the count.

dorispulaski said:

Peter Krick is the same guy who made an innocent draw for the Olympic CD look like it might be crooked..

Click to expand...

You mean when the CD drawn was the very dance that favored Domnina and Shabalin (who couldn't have done the Golden Waltz on his bad leg) ?

But Frick did not conduct the draw alone. He was assisted by a Russian judge and an official of the Russian Olympic team, plus a small child who actually reached in and drew out the marker.

Mathman said:

Wait a minute. The Chinese bribed ISU officials, so the ISU officials who took the money should punish the Chinese? (While keeping the money, of course -- I like it! It sounds like the Detroit City Council. :yes: )

Click to expand...

Did not mean to imply limiting the consequences to the Chinese. Whoever screwed up (whether by carelessness, malfeasance or some other reason) on the ISU side should of course not be exempt from punishment and banishment. Now, if the ISU would just come out and point to the appropriate regulation which permitted the extra pair in this situation, then everything is cleared up and no harm, no foul.

I will ignore watchvancouver's comment, who is either a Chinese apologist, or who doesn't have to deal daily with the realities of scruple-less people.

bigsisjiejie said:

Knowing the Chinese like I do, it would not surprise me if money passed hands in a back room--speculation. Money or no, unless ISU can point to a defined loophole or exception that the Chinese legitimately took advantage of, the Federation should be punished by the ISU nullifying all 3 Chinese pairs' results, and the standings and medals for the pairs events redistributed. And a one-year suspension from international competition. Yes, this sounds harsh and punishes the skaters, but this is the only kind of message the Chinese federation (and govt) will understand. Ignoring "the rules" (age rules) worked for them in more than one Olympics for gymnastics, so why not bend them for figure skating too? If allowed, they WILL take unfair advantage of the rest of the world if it benefits them.

Click to expand...

So in effect you are advocating punishing the skaters, for something that the federation is responsible for? That's ridiculous. Even if corruption is at work here, just as with judging, the skaters are the innocent victims in these things, why on earth would you think stripping medals, scrubbing them from the record books and banning them for a year would be a suitable punishment for the federation?



Ant

antmanb said:

So in effect you are advocating punishing the skaters, for something that the federation is responsible for? That's ridiculous. Even if corruption is at work here, just as with judging, the skaters are the innocent victims in these things, why on earth would you think stripping medals, scrubbing them from the record books and banning them for a year would be a suitable punishment for the federation?

Click to expand...

Because in the ISU, responsibility flows downward. Rules are for the little people (i.e. skaters) not important ISU officials.

(nb the above is sarcasm tinged with disgust, all the more so because I can't find any indication it's not what ISU officials actually believe).

Tony Wheeler said:

Joe, you need to read the ISU rules. They are available for anyone to read if you go on isu.org. ISU Championships are the Four Continents, Europeans, World Juniors, and World Championships. Sorry that I didn't clarify that completely. And-- what Mathman said. The rules you keep referring to were done away with a few years ago.

Click to expand...

Hey, Tony - I do read the blogs which may or may not be true on the Rules. I promise to read what the ISU says more closely.

What bothered me about this case, was that it came out of nowhere (not even the rules, I believe). There was never any apology for Vise and Trent, and the new rule of next-in-line finally came into being. It's like 'Oh, that was a mistake, we'll fix it and move on' Nothing for the victims. It's somewhat like Cinquanta just eliminated the individual scores of the judges in 2003 which just came not so much of nowhere but from what I believe was fear. He even stopped the investigation and let France be the only one at fault. Again, let's fix it and move on.

I realize most fans are not that concerned about the ISU as long as they can watch figure skating somehow, and talk about the sport and are oblivious about its administration.

Just one more thing, Tony, if I may. That meeting they have in May to discuss changes; is their agenda ever published and if something was not taken up the reasons why would be given? The results of changes would, of couse become new rules. (Can't help but think about the US Supreme Court's dissenting opinions.)

Joesitz said:

What bothered me about this case, was that it came out of nowhere (not even the rules, I believe). There was never any apology for Vise and Trent, and the new rule of next-in-line finally came into being. It's like 'Oh, that was a mistake, we'll fix it and move on' Nothing for the victims.

Click to expand...

Huh? It didn't come out of nowhere. I thought there weren't enough pairs for the GPs, so the ISU allowed seeded pairs to compete for a 3rd time. Vise & Trent knew the rules, why should they get an apology? The rule changed the following year and has remained the same. Perhap others can explain why (economic reasons? enough pairs?).

antmanb said:

So in effect you are advocating punishing the skaters, for something that the federation is responsible for? That's ridiculous. Even if corruption is at work here, just as with judging, the skaters are the innocent victims in these things, why on earth would you think stripping medals, scrubbing them from the record books and banning them for a year would be a suitable punishment for the federation?



Ant

Click to expand...

You're confused or think my original comment is ridiculous, because you are coming at this from a Western point of view, in which the individual is more important than the organization. I'll try to explain this from a completely different angle:

1) In China, skaters on the national elite team (also applies to many other sports) are an arm and tool of the State. This is not a secret here. With the exception of high achievers on the international stage over a long period of time (such as a Shen/Zhao and that only in the last several years), Chinese skaters are means to national glory rather than individual glory. They are "owned" and they do know this--their training/housing/eating/all aspects of life are strictly controlled, in return for complete financial support from the Federation, and for some skaters...also their families...for as long as they continue their usefulness/achievement in the sports world. The closest similar model would be the former East German or Soviet sports training systems.

2) It is a sad fact that many things in China don't change except with some huge "loss of face" that can't be hidden from the public, and some resulting outrage. Stripping medals and titles, and/or banishment for a year, would definitely cause more national embarrassment in China than in most other countries. It would also produce sympathy for the skaters themselves, and a search for the head of the rotten fish, and possibly some positive change at the Federation level. Which is ultimately what one is after for the long term. I agree that the skaters as individuals would be "collateral damage" in the short term. This is a very tough and seemingly heartless stance to take, but it is likely the most effective.

3) The concept of "right" and "wrong" in the Western sense is not widely present, as the cultural underpinnings of society are completely different. The best way I can describe it (oversimplifying for brevity) is:
"right" = something that produces the result you wanted, and "wrong" is the opposite. Grand principles of morality don't exist so are irrelevant. So entering three pairs if you aren't entitled to it, but you get away with it, is Right. But if you get caught out and shamed, and other material consequences follow, is Wrong.

The ISU side of the equation is a related but separate matter. Again, if the ISU would only come out with which rule, regulation, communication, etc. authorized the legitimate inclusion of a third Chinese pair, then this would go away.

Tesla said:

Huh? It didn't come out of nowhere. I thought there weren't enough pairs for the GPs, so the ISU allowed seeded pairs to compete for a 3rd time. Vise & Trent knew the rules, why should they get an apology? The rule changed the following year and has remained the same. Perhap others can explain why (economic reasons? enough pairs?).

Click to expand...

No one is saying it hasn't changed, but was there a rule to begin with? And no one has said why this fill in changed. You seem to be guessing.

You didn't explain why they used seeded skaters who already had qualified for the Finals who were permitted to knock off other skaters after the entries were completed.

You do not explain why the rule changed. Was there a guilty feeling among the ISU voters? Do you know? I can guess too.

What was the real reason to use seeded skaters, and what was it about a Rule change when there was no rule to begin with? Do you know?

Well if it makes anyone feel better, in 2008 China qualified for 3 at the 2009 World JRs but only 2 skated.

http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=1048

I don't recall seeing board members making such a fuss about that.

I know you can't bank skaters from one year to the next but maybe it's to make up for an ISU mistake?

For those of you so adamant that the Chinese Federation is behind this, can you imagine China giving up an opportunity to skate 3? Especially when the pairs program is all they got. Perhaps they get 3 in 2010 because of injury last year or another special rule us common people don't know about.

Unless you are an ISU official you are just speculating.

Anyhow I feel some members feel too strongly about this for whatever reason (whether prejudice or not). Please relax. Thank you.

That was China's decision to only have two pairs teams compete in 2009. It happens all the time with Federations. Georgia and Switzerland almost instantly gave back their second ladies spots this year for the Olympics, and there were even countries that didn't use their full spots in the pairs competition in this very event (such as Switzerland, who was allowed to send two pairs teams but sent none).

I'm not saying anything about the Chinese Federation nor have I the entire time. I have a feeling someone in the ISU sent paperwork saying three pairs could compete and they just went along with it. I mean, who wouldn't? The final call is obviously that of the ISU and not a skating federation.

If you're saying that I feel too strongly for wanting to know why the rules were broken, I don't know what to tell you. The ISU publishes EVERYTHING on their website as far as rules go, so there's no "common rule" that we don't know about.

Joesitz said:

No one is saying it hasn't changed, but was there a rule to begin with?

Click to expand...

This is a very interesting question. I just spent an hour researching it on the Internet as best I could. Unfortunately the official ISU Grand Prix Announcement for that year (2207-08) is missing from the archives on the ISU website. However, the official rules for each event separately are still there. Here is Skate America, for instance.

http://www.usfsa.org/content/events/200708/skateamerica/Skate America announcement 2007.pdf

If you scroll down to the last paragraph on page 7 you will see the rule that says, if a team is skating in their non-scoring event and finishes higher than someone else, the lower-finishing skater (like Vise and Trent) does not move up and get the points for the higher finish. So this was an actual rule for 2007-08 (and also for 2006-07).

This article from the Golden Skate archives mentions that

Pair teams can compete in a third event if there is an open slot, however, it is considered "non-scoring" in terms of points. Prize money still applies according to placements.

Click to expand...

http://www.goldenskate.com/articles/2007/sa_1.shtml

From what I have uncovered, I think the rules were gradually changed over a three or four year period to give the ISU greater and greater control over the Grand Prix series, vis-a-vis the organizers of the individual events. In 2006-07, for instance, the rules permitted any skater to skate in a third, non-scoring, event, if he/she was invited. (Sasha Cohen did so, for instance.) The reason for this is that the individual event organizers wanted to make money from television and the live gate, so they wanted to be able to invite the top draws in all disciplines.

By the 2007-08 season, the ISU was tightening its control and they changed the rules to prohibit singles skaters and ice dancers from doing more than two events. Pairs were allowed an exemption to the new rule because there were not enough top-flight pairs teams to go around. This loop-hole for pairs was closed by a rule change the following year (2008-09).

There were a bunch of other rules changes during those years, all designed to require skaters to toe the line laid down by the ISU and correspondingly restricting the rights of the event organizers to do whatever they wanted to, as had been more-or-less the practice in the past. Some of the individual events pre-dated the Grand Prix series, and the organizers of Skate America and Skate Canada, at least, dragged their heels as much as possible in complying with the new rules.

Some of these new rules were that skaters could not skip Grand Prix events and appear in shows and cheesefests instead, that skaters could not appear in the exhibition if they didn't skate in the competition, that skaters who performed in the gala must do a real exhibition program, not just repeat their short program, etc.

So if you ask why the rules were changed several times. I think the answer is only partly to make the competitions more fair. It was also part of the ISU consolidating control.

The issue that Tony Wheeler, Watchvancouver, Gsrossano, Nylynn, etc., are raising on this thread is quite a bit different from the question of why the ISU changed the Grand Prix rules in 2006 and and again in 2007 and again in 2008. In the case of the 2010 Junior Worlds, the rule is clear and as far as anyone can tell the ISU violated its own rule.

bigsisjiejie said:

3) The concept of "right" and "wrong" in the Western sense is not widely present, as the cultural underpinnings of society are completely different. The best way I can describe it (oversimplifying for brevity) is:
"right" = something that produces the result you wanted, and "wrong" is the opposite. Grand principles of morality don't exist so are irrelevant. So entering three pairs if you aren't entitled to it, but you get away with it, is Right. But if you get caught out and shamed, and other material consequences follow, is Wrong.

Click to expand...

OT, and I know you live in China and know far, far more about the culture than I ever will.

Nonetheless, I find this statement very hard to believe.

But you've inspired me to explore the question a little. Starting here...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-chinese/

^^ Remember that much of ancient and traditional Chinese philosophy, including about responsibilities, obligations, honor, and behavior towards others, has in the PRC gone mostly out the window in the last several decades, at least towards strangers and towards the public/society at large. And there's somewhat of a vacuum now as far as replacement philosophies go. So the academic stuff is nice but is just that...and not much apparent in the current reality. Mostly as individuals, groups, organizations, governmental entities, etc., the attitude is either overt or stealthily pushing at all costs, to get what you want. The ends is what matters rather than the means.

That's why it is not surprising to me (or to most Chinese citizens) when they hear of sporting scandals that involve high officials, such as the falsification of age records for Olympic gymnasts, etc. Which involved collusion on the governmental side not just the sports federation. The truth is out about 2000 on that one, and eventually 2008 will come home to roost as well (not sure about 2004). What's surprising (to the Chinese) is that nobody else (Intl sporting bodies, etc.) is willing to put the hammer down with meaningful sanctions and punishments, which is a language the Chinese can absolutely understand. Absence of thi is the same as giving them the green light to continue. Should the ISU have purposely or inadvertently allowed the third pair against their own regulations, I have no doubt Chinese sports-meisters are laughing their heads off--which will embolden them even more, as they see that they are able to bend rules with impunity, to their benefit.