Looking back to SLC and pairs event

janetfan said:

I like your take on this. Tara won in '98 but I preferred Michelle then and I always will.
I think Hamilton got it exactly right and as you stated it is not about who is best when they are on but about who skated the best that evening.

Click to expand...

What about those of us who genuinely were not blown away by S&P's performance? Likewise, I was not that impressed with Tara at the time, I thought she had a lot of energy and excitement and skated well, but she lacked polish and maturity and just looked completely juniorish to me as an amateur competitor. While I like her in retrospect, that "it" quality that so many saw in that performance just never was that apparent to me.
There were still three judges who thought Kwan deserved the nod despite Tara's performance.

The problem with Hamilton's statement is not only that it completely ignores and oversimplifies the many thousands of variables that go into judging, but that it also assumes that there is a genuine unanimity in what the judges see and consider to be the best performance.

As for Clean vs Unclean, in pairs, the cleaner simpler performance almost never won over the more tentative and jam packed.

seniorita said:

Is there a person who can wish this for another person? Please tell me you are joking or I missed the translation of it. It really ruined my night. Does she belong to another species? Cause she doesn't remind me of an animal and she is certainly not a human being. Maybe a plant.

Click to expand...

I had never heard that comment before. It's deeply disturbing. How could anyone even think such a thing? I will never think the same way about Rosie O'Donnell again. Good for Jamie and David for not going on her show, if that story is accurate.

One of the worst temptations of sports fandom--and the media that covers a sport--is how enticing it is to attribute some awful motive to the rival competitor. I've felt that temptation myself: I was so peeved at Tara when she won the Olympics in 1998. But then I realized that I was angry at a girl who was barely out of middle school. All Tara was "guilty" of was trying her best to do the same thing Michelle was trying her best to do. Why else would anyone compete?

To see Elena and Anton villified as though they were somehow trying to "sabotage" Jamie and David's victory is in the same vein. If there was cheating going on behind the scenes, these two certainly didn't set it up. All they did was train and practice and prepare--the same thing Jamie and David did. I'm kind of glad for the tie for that reason. But what I'm most glad for is that both pairs skated so well that week, and that we got to see their programs.

I always wonder what would have happened if B/S were the clear winners due to a slip up by all the other teams and then the judge's cheating had still come to light. Would they have retained the Gold?

They did retain the gold. They weren't stripped of their gold medals. So, yes... I think they would have had to fail a doping test or been guilty of some other wrongdoing ,themselves, to have their medals stripped.

I'd like to think that even if they'd been undisputably ahead ,there would still have been the same shake up in the system once Le Gougne broke down. But then, would she have broken down if the competition had not been close enough to provoke controversy ?

escaflowne..The difference is that the two were judged fairly equally..in spite of how any fan would have judged them..But then, the French judge admitted wrongdoing, and implicated at least the Russian federation as well as her own. That threw all the variables under suspicion...

What about those of us who were not blown away by one couple or the other ? Our preferences and opinions don't count.

Tonichelle said:

(Actually the one person that went above and beyond disgusting was Rosie ODonnel saying she wished that Elena's injury a few years prior - a former partner put his skate into her forhead or something like that - had been worse so that she couldn't have skated in SLC... I was so disgusted at that comment, and Jamie and David then decided not to go on her show after they'd already agreed to come on...)

I agree with scott as to who should have won - I don't agree with how the media attacked the SKATERS on both sides... and poor Shen and Zhao were completely forgotten.

Click to expand...

Elena's injury was actually more severe than that. She was training with her former (abusive) partner and his blade indeed went into her head during a SBS spin - it went deep enough into her skull that she suffered an injury to her brain that required emergency surgery, and lost the ability to speak for a while. When Moskvina and Anton came to Latvia to help her get back home, nobody knew if she'd ever be able to skate again, let alone compete. If anyone wished that she'd not made a full recovery, that person is sick.

Shen and Zhao didn't go to the second medal ceremony. I don't think they wanted to be part of the media circus.

I don't think it was ever made clear what exactly went on with Marie Reine La Gougne. After the event, she was confronted by Sally Stapleford who allegedly accused her of being unfit to judge. Stapleford was head of the ISU technical committee at the time, and extremely powerful; La Gougne did eventually claim she had judged fairly. I have no idea what exactly went on, but it's too bad the allegations weren't properly investigated. Of course, four other judges felt B/S deserved the gold - this wasn't, as others have noted, an easy call.

BTW, B/S did not get a 9-0 decision for their vastly superior (and clean) SP. Two judges went with S/P.

colleen o'neill said:

:
escaflowne..The difference is that the two were judged fairly equally..in spite of how any fan would have judged them..But then, the French judge admitted wrongdoing, and implicated at least the Russian federation as well as her own. That threw all the variables under suspicion...

What about those of us who were not blown away by one couple or the other ? Our preferences and opinions don't count.

Click to expand...

What does this have to do with my post ?
My post was in response to the posters (Janetfan and Joesitz) supporting Hamilton's idea that you must unequivocally judge the night and go with the best performance. I was pointing out that there is a huge level of subjectivity as to what the best performance is and varied opinions as to what carries the most weight when evaluating performances .
Therefore , having such a matter-of-factness when discussing results is extremely misplaced. What puts a tear in your eyes may do nothing for the person sitting next to you, and what judge A gives more importance to, may be completely irrelevant for judge B. This goes for any competition, not just the one discussed here, and that is really why I object to Hamilton's comment.

I have never found myself feeling there was a clear winner in either case discussed (B&S/S&P or Kwan/Lipinski) .

:disapp: Sorry, buttercup , that's not the way it went. Le Gougne spontaneously and loudly came forward to, or in front of , a number of people in a fairly public place. Sally Stapleford did go and confront her. Up till then, no-one had accused her of anything . Everyone was stunned. Her own federation said she was hysterical , practically called her crazy, and hustled her back to France ASAP before people could go into it with her too deeply.

We're all entitled to our opinions of skaters and performances in a sport that will always have a subjective element , even with CoP. But if we all really want the best for the sport , it helps no-one to misrepresent events that have been well documented.

Unfortunately, the ISU itself doesn't help by keeping much regarding it's own investigations private and insisting on the anonymity of judges. If this had not happened at an Olympic Games , if the IOC had not been breathing down their necks, one wonders how much more would have been covered up , or allowed to fade away. :think:

*** escaflowne - If I seemed a bit harsh , I didn't mean to be . But the Judges must judge the performance on the night, and the commentators are there to help the audience understand the judging...and to give their "expert" opinions. Having said that , their reaction was extreme..(I think they really were shocked). In fact , I think they reacted more strongly, initially, than the Canadian network ( that was probably being a bit cautious for fear of being accused of homerism.) So Scott's apology was apros pos.

The whole episode has had an adverse effect on commentary as well , it's very seldom nowadays that you hear a commentator point out any faults, or weaknesses. They search for whatever positive things they can point out and keep fairly silent on the rest, unless there's something obvious like a fall or a missed element. I think this is pretty ridiculous. It makes the commentary pretty bland and predictable ( and very unlike other sports commentary)....Surely we can take it ? If we can sit at home ,or in the stands, and disagree with the judges , why not the commentators ? I don't want to hear them rant, but I don't mind hearing them say where their opinion might have differed on a given mark...(Idiocy such as Rosie's is another matter)..
As for us ,even if we might have called an event a different way , we have to live with the judges decision. Our opinion doesn't count in the awarding of hardware. Especially since there's always going to be a certain amount of subjectivity involved, we need at least be able to feel confident of the judges' honesty.

[

colleen o'neill said:

:disapp: Sorry, buttercup , that's not the way it went. Le Gougne spontaneously and loudly came forward to, or in front of , a number of people in a fairly public place. Sally Stapleford did go and confront her. Up till then, no-one had accused her of anything . Everyone was stunned. Her own federation said she was hysterical , practically called her crazy, and hustled her back to France ASAP before people could go into it with her too deeply.

Click to expand...

Not So. According to the Second Mark, Stapleford confronted LeGougne after the competition in the hotel lobby and vocally tore her apart and called her an unfit judge. This was also after judge Britta Lindgren had (allegedly) told her off on the bus ride back to the hotel. It was at this point LeGougne broke down and made her admiissions. Stapleford then returned with more people and told Le Gougne to repeat her admissions.
Her spontaneous outburst did not take place until the next day at the judge's meeting. It also is not quite true that her Federation hustled her back to France ASAP, she remained in SLC for a few days after the competition , at which point she met with Cinquanta personally and recanted her statement saying she was under duress in making it.

No, none of this was ever even remotely investigated, and IMO the ISU and IOC had a duty to follow through and determine what occurred. This is really where I find the most frustration. Neither the French nor Russian Federations were even remotely examined, and the ISU just never followed through on anything

escaflowne9282 said:

colleen o'neill said:

:disapp: Sorry, buttercup , that's not the way it went. Le Gougne spontaneously and loudly came forward to, or in front of , a number of people in a fairly public place. Sally Stapleford did go and confront her. Up till then, no-one had accused her of anything . Everyone was stunned. Her own federation said she was hysterical , practically called her crazy, and hustled her back to France ASAP before people could go into it with her too deeply.

We're all entitled to our opinions of skaters and performances in a sport that will always have a subjective element , even with CoP. But if we all really want the best for the sport , it helps no-one to misrepresent events that have been well documented.

Click to expand...

Not So. According to the Second Mark, Stapleford confronted LeGougne after the competition in the hotel lobby and vocally tore her apart and called her an unfit judge. This was also after judge Britta Lindgren had (allegedly) told her off on the bus ride back to the hotel. It was at this point LeGougne broke down and made her admiissions. Stapleford then returned with more people and told Le Gougne to repeat her admissions.

Her spontaneous outburst did not take place until the next day at the judge's meeting. It also is not quite true that her Federation hustled her back to France ASAP, she remained in SLC for a few days after the competition , at which point she met with Cinquanta personally and recanted her statement saying she was under duress in making it.

No, none of this was ever even remotely investigated, and IMO the ISU and IOC had a duty to follow through and determine what occurred. This is really where I find the most frustration. Neither the French nor Russian Federations were even remotely examined, and the ISU just never followed through on anything

Click to expand...

Thank you, escaflowne9282. I have no doubt that La Gougne was under intense pressure, and like you, I think it's a shame neither the ISU nor the IOC made a more serious effort to determine if it was just the usual skating politikking or something more serious. It's also too bad that the media, for the most part, lost interest once the second gold medals were awarded and allowed both organizations to get away with it.

Colleen, I recommend that you check out The Second Mark, which does a good job laying out the events of SLC and the experiences the three medal winning pairs went through to get to that point. The sections on Shen and Zhao are particularly strong. I would also suggest that you make sure your own information is correct before criticizing others for making supposedly inaccurate statements.

I haven't read The Second Mark ( yet ), but that account doesn't quite jibe with the accounts I read given by people involved at the time.... However, who approached who first is splitting hairs a bit....Would a completely honest judge have been so easy to intimidate into making a false confession..? What kind of thugs could Stapleford and Lindgren be , to be able to accomplish that ? But could someone already susceptible to pressure by her federation ( knowing there was controversy, and knowing she would have to account for her marks )first confess thinking the jig was up, but then be convinced to recant to Cinquanta ( during the 2 or 3 days he gave her to collect herself ), and then be whisked back to France ?..( This was pretty ASAP , since she would have had to meet with Speedy first )..That seems more likely to me.

I agree completely that too much dirt has been swept under the rug ...particularly on the part of the ISU. The IOC was probably limited as to how far they could delve into the ISU's internal workings..but they needed assurance that the ISU would meet their standards going forward (They were still recovering from their own scandals , leading up to those games. ) They mostly wanted to stop the bleeding, I think...The ISU was put on short notice. It may still be there ,to some degree.

Everyone wanted to run away from the Russian Mob phone call investigations...

I don't know if we'll ever know the full story , or if enough has been done to clean everything up.. Somehow I doubt it.

BTW, I didn't totally mean to make an accusation ( maybe a bit of a correction)..because one runs into many people on these forums who didn't follow the story at the time, and seem to think that it's open to question that there was something fishy going on. My apologies to you, buttercup if I misjudged or offended you.

I 'm always open to correction , myself, if new information has come to light. I'll be looking for that book. But I think it may be a long time before we have the definitive account.
Here's another perspective among those to be considered :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot.../Staplefords-case-puts-scandal-on-agenda.html

When I first watched the 2002 Olympics I thought that S&P deserved the gold BY FAR and were robbed. However, now after seeing the programs in not such an emotional state a few years later, I still think S&P were a bit better than B&S, but B&S were not as inferior as I'd previously thought.

Buttercup said:

Thank you, escaflowne9282. I have no doubt that La Gougne was under intense pressure, and like you, I think it's a shame neither the ISU nor the IOC made a more serious effort to determine if it was just the usual skating politikking or something more serious. It's also too bad that the media, for the most part, lost interest once the second gold medals were awarded and allowed both organizations to get away with it.

Colleen, I recommend that you check out The Second Mark, which does a good job laying out the events of SLC and the experiences the three medal winning pairs went through to get to that point. The sections on Shen and Zhao are particularly strong. I would also suggest that you make sure your own information is correct before criticizing others for making supposedly inaccurate statements.

Click to expand...

The problem with all this is that the die-hard fans of B/S find it very difficult to accept that there was a conspiracy admited to by one of the parties involved, but that is fact. Unfortunately, the other conspirator did not come forward as did the first, and the ISU ceased the investigation with a plea to the OIC for an unheard of awarding two gold medals. it was given by the OIC with a stern warning for the ISU to clean up their Act. Hence Secret Judging and the CoP.

(I believe Cinquanta did know all about the conspiracy, but chose not to enlage on it. JMO.)

In my opinion B/S were not treated fairly in SLC Olympics. In 2001 Worlds they lost to S/P, because S/P had a more difficult freeskate programme (with some mistake, I believe) against an easier and faultless programme skated by B/S.

In SLC Olympics B/S had a more difficult programme (with a just little mistake) and S/P were faultless, but with an easier programme. In my opinion B/S were as good as S/P in presentation. S/P should not have gotten the second gold medal.

By the way, I don´t understand why Stapleford chose to "attack" LeGougne, because other judges chose B/S as well. Or maybe she knew LeGougne as a mentally weak judge, who says anything if the opposition is strong? If there really was a conspiracy, I have always felt, it was for the Canadian couple.

Joesitz said:

The problem with all this is that the die-hard fans of B/S find it very difficult to accept that there was a conspiracy admited to by one of the parties involved, but that is fact. Unfortunately, the other conspirator did not come forward as did the first, and the ISU ceased the investigation with a plea to the OIC for an unheard of awarding two gold medals.

Click to expand...

Many of the die-hard fans of B&S fully accept that there was a conspiracy admitted to. The problem is, the judge involved then took everything back and pointed the finger at her accusers and nobody was able to corroborate her original story one way or the other. This leaves some of us asking well what did actually happen? There was definitely something fishy occurring, but what are the specifics?

I'd rather all of this were questioned at the time, before re-awarding medals. We likely never will know for sure, since so much time has passed. And that concludes our quarterly beating of the dead horse.

I can't wait until we discuss Baiul vs. Kerrigan ...

Jaana said:

By the way, I don´t understand why Stapleford chose to "attack" LeGougne, because other judges chose B/S as well.

Click to expand...

I think it was because everyone already knew how all of the other judges were going to vote. Obviously, Russia, China, Poland and Ukraine would vote for the Russian team, and Canada, USA, Germany and Japan would vote for the Canadians, which is just what happened. So France was the swing vote.

By the way, after first "confessing" that Didier Gailhaguet had pressured her to vote for B&S, LeGougne later said, no, it was the Candians that had been pressuring her all fall to vote for S&P.

OTOH, I think that we're only likely to come closer to the truth with the passage of time , after the people at the center are no longer vying for power within the ISU , and after ( if ever) the sport achieves an open judging system.

Let's not forget there was a confession and it was not the result of any torture.
As happens frequently, a person gets home, lawyers up and then changes their story in order to try and save a tattered reputation.

The odd thing is that this was nothing new and had been going on for about as long as there have been skating competitions.:yes:

I have no doubt that we as fans believe our own trusted sources and it is natural for certain N. Americans to believe one thing and for European fans to believe a different story.

There is probably some truth in both sides of the story.

Both of the suspended French officials vowed to fight this - but apparently decided a three year ban was preferable to digging further into what really happened.

My then boyfriend is not a skating fan, but he is a athletic and artistic. He watched both programs and felt that B&S should've won because their program was more difficult from an overall perspective as comapred to S&P. SHould 1st place go to a clean simple program or a 1 bobble complex program? It's easier for the audience to meld into the clean program wins, but then we would only see safe programs.

Can't say what the perspective is of someone who watched live? I think RealtorGirl attended and said that B&S had very scratchy blades that night, etc. and she went with S&P.

I pretty much agree with most others. With or without the judging scandal, I could easily understand the voting being split. So, if S&P truly won the free program, which counts more than the short program in old scoring, then S&P would've won. However, the split went to B&S which gives them the gold.

Unfortunately, Scott & Sandra's biased commentary and the North American media made this into a circus. I do think S&P were somewhat villlified as they were not the one's crying out for gold. Jamie has said in interviews that she was disappointed to not have won, but was proud of her silver medal. She didnt' want to give it back and she said it wasn't the same to have the gold awarded so many days after the competition. Both pairs handled it with as much grace as possible.

Without Le Gougne , it would have been just another in a long line of scandals. Whatever the circus atmosphere...we'd all seen circuses before. They'd always come and gone , but no-one before ever came so close to revealing how all those clowns got into the car in the first place.

heyang said:

However, the split went to B&S which gives them the gold.

Click to expand...

According to the ISU rules, in the case where one judge cannot complete her assignment, the scores of the alternate judge are substituted. There are no "ties."

Buttercup said:

BTW, B/S did not get a 9-0 decision for their vastly superior (and clean) SP. Two judges went with S/P.

Click to expand...

Those two judges being Canada's infamous wheeler-dealer Benoit Lavoie and the German judge, Sissy Krick, well known even to this day for never giving s top score to any Russian skater no matter what.

By the way, the names and nationalities of the judges have been removed from the event results available on the ISU's Icecalc site. The nationality was replaced retroactively with "ISU judges."