Was Czisny's Omission From The U.S. Team for The 4CC's A Snub?

Mathman · Feb 18, 2012

bigsisjiejie said:
Precedent and tradition do not equal what is in the rules and bylaws.

I am a little confused here. This sentence seems to be saying that the USFSA should follow its rules and bylaws. All the rest of your post says, no, they don't have to.

Here are the rules and bylaws:

Selection to the U.S. Four Continents Team will be based upon the results of the two most recent U.S. Figure Skating Championships, the most recent World Championship, the most recent Four Continents Championship and all other international events; however, the International Committee may consider extenuating circumstances.

How does Alissa's record stack up against the USFSA rules and bylaws?

Two most recent U.S. championships: 1st and 2nd.
Most recent World Championship: 5th
Most recent Four Continents Championship: 5th
Other intentional events: last years GP final, 1st. This years GP final, 5th (n.b., but she made the final)
2011 Grand Prix: Skate America, 1st; Eric Bompard, 3rd.

How does this compare with the international results of Caroline Zhang over the last two years?

Now, you can say (with hindsight) that sending Caroline was a stroke of genius on the part of the USFSA. You can also say many things about the rights of a private organization to run things in whatever fashion they wish.

But the one thing that you can't say is that the USFSA followed its own rules and bylaws.

Mathman · Feb 18, 2012

seniorita said:
!!!Is this real policy or you made it up? Cause I can actually believe it quoted like that

http://www.usfsa.org/content/International Competition Structure Policy.pdf

Last line.

If a skater cannot afford to buy the pants, we better hope they give her a l-o-n-g jacket.

drivingmissdaisy · Feb 18, 2012

Mathman said:
But the one thing that you can't say is that the USFSA followed its own rules and bylaws.

I guess it's how liberally you interpret "extenuating circumstances". Sending Caroline and Agnes could help them get international assignments that Alissa already qualifies for. To me, that isn't "extenuating circumstances" but does further the goals of the USFSA. I'm ok with the decision as long as they don't pretend like all the other factors they mention take precedence over "extenuating circumstances", because they don't. They use the criteria to exclude skaters they want to exclude (Armin) and then use the "extenuating circumstances" clause to put in whoever they want (Caroline). It's BS really.

R.D. · Feb 18, 2012

Didn't someone say they revised the selection rules this year and used that version to choose this year's team? Apparently this "new version" has not been made public yet?

R.D. · Feb 18, 2012

I could be wrong though. Thought I heard someone say something like that earlier.

fairly4 · Feb 18, 2012

first of all alissa stated in the skating magazine she might not have wanted to go to worlds due the fact she went to 4cc 3times and not medaled

1st with kimmie, emily and her
2nd time when she won her first title, with caroline zhang who finished 4th that year, alissa worlds finish was 11th i think she finished 9th at 4cc, rachel went to 4cc and i think finished 7th, went to worlds finished 5th went to world team trophy finished 4th-caroline zhang finished 3rd, caroline sent i think because alissa didn't finish in top ten at worlds in 2009 and caroline zhang was in top 10 in world rankings that year.
3rd time alissa went was in 2011 -national champ finished 5th, mirai, 3rd, rachel 4th and alissa 5th.
so why not send caroline zhang.
this is this year not the previous two years, alissa isn't a back end skater that much. she had 3 chances to medal -didn't why-she didn't fight understandable due to national champ, however you have to put the competition behind you and focus on the one ahead in alissa case that meant 4cc -3 times didn't focus on ahead but behind.

caroline zhang deserved her chance -why i think they overmarked and overlook agnes tad ur in short regarding her triple triple, too high of score in the short, overlook a few mistakes of agnes in the long, and a few of alissa, who to say caroline zhang wasn't undermarked beside her non fans on forum.
they overlooked ashley hughes mistakes on landing in 4cc and let her win. so why not zhang go -she has a habit of being, fighting for it after nationals to the competitions she goes versus, alissa, mirai, rachel who just skates and not try to medal

Serious Business · Feb 18, 2012

None of this excuses sending Dornbush over Armin.

Sylvia · Feb 18, 2012

R.D. said:
Didn't someone say they revised the selection rules this year and used that version to choose this year's team? Apparently this "new version" has not been made public yet?

That was me - post #65 in this thread.

Bottom line: Whatever the selection policy was that was used for 2012 4 Continents, there is still subjectivity involved when weighting the various criteria and events/competition results of the chosen skaters and alternates.

drivingmissdaisy · Feb 18, 2012

Sylvia said:
That was me - post #65 in this thread.

Bottom line: Whatever the selection policy was that was used for 2012 4 Continents, there is still subjectivity involved when weighting the various criteria and events/competition results of the chosen skaters and alternates.

I'm curious to see a policy that allows a silver medalist to not get one of three slots but allows an 11th place finisher to go as a first alternate. It's stupid to have a policy when subjective factors outweigh any reasonable criteria.

Mathman · Feb 18, 2012

Sylvia said:
That was me - post #65 in this thread.

I repeat my question from the Dornbush thread.

Are you saying the the USFSA has an undisclosed selection policy that is different from the one published in the official 2012 USFSA figure skating rule book?

I would have thought the publicly published "official rules for the 2011-2012 season" would constitute a legal contract between the federation and the skaters.

Sylvia · Feb 18, 2012

Mathman said:
I repeat my question from the Dornbush thread.

Are you saying the the USFSA has an undisclosed selection policy that is different from the one published in the official 2012 USFSA figure skating rule book?

I would have thought the publicly published "official rules for the 2011-2012 season" would constitute a legal contract between the federation and the skaters.

My answer as posted in the Dornbush thread:

"Yes. My understanding is that if the USFS Board of Directors had voted to approve a new 4 Continents team selection policy before 2012 Nationals, then I think it would have been in effect by Nationals. But I can't confirm any of this at the moment."

ETA: From the The USFS Board of Directors Report of Action for November 5. 2011 at http://www.usfsa.org/content.asp?menu=leadership&id=443

3. ADOPTED the revised figure skating World Team Selection Procedures.

Mathman · Feb 18, 2012

Sylvia said:
"Yes. My understanding is that if the USFS Board of Directors had voted to approve a new 4 Continents team selection policy before 2012 Nationals, then I think it would have been in effect by Nationals. But I can't confirm any of this at the moment."

I wonder if the Board of Directors consulted the membership. Or was this considered to be a matter of such urgency that the board had to rush a new policy into place without informing local clubs, the skaters and coaches, and without inviting discussion from interested parties?

Sylvia · Feb 18, 2012

My assumption (based on how things appear to work within relevant USFS committees) is that skaters and coaches most likely were consulted and feedback/comments were invited regarding any selection policy changes, but I have no way to "prove" to you that it happened.

Mathman · Feb 18, 2012

It is hard to get any concrete information. According the Phil Hersh, Alissa was "shocked" not to be invited to Four Continents. (This might be an exaggeration by Hersh, but anyway she expected to go.) Jason Dungjen, who is not only Alissa's coach but also the director of skating at a large and influential local club was "not given any reason" for the choice. (Hersh kind of implies that Dungjen asked, but doesn't actually say that he did.)

If in fact there are new rules in place, why wouldn't the USFSA tell Hersh about them when he called?

For that matter, why doesn't the USFSA post the new rules on Golden Skate and save us all this wear and tear on our keyboards? :biggrin:

bigsisjiejie · Feb 18, 2012

Mathman said:
I am a little confused here. This sentence seems to be saying that the USFSA should follow its rules and bylaws. All the rest of your post says, no, they don't have to.
<snip>

But the one thing that you can't say is that the USFSA followed its own rules and bylaws.

That is not what I am saying at all. The USFSA did follow its own rules and bylaws as far as we know them, and the secret is in the final part about "...may consider extenuating circumstances." Those crucial four words pretty much give wide latitude for the International Committee to take other factors into consideration. Seems like a lot of people on the forum either ignore them, or downplay them as not as important as the preceding parts listing out the roster of competition results taken into account. I beg to differ--I consider them the most important part of these rules. And I see nothing anywhere that "extenuating circumstances" is defined only as illness or injuries, though many have assumed they are equivalent definitions with respect to these four words.

To dispel further confusion about what I previously posted: In the past, the USFSA decided most of the time not to exercise the wide latitude allowed by this clause, and just go with the easy flow of assigning international major competitions in order of Nationals finish except where an ISU age rule pre-empted the list--this is "precedent and tradition" I am speaking of. But again, nobody should confuse "precedent and tradition" with "rules and bylaws." Just because one is in the comfortable habit of expectation that a certain thing will happen, doesn't mean it automatically will again.

ETA: Even if the USFSA came up with a new 4CC policy before this competition, I would be surprised to find out that they did not have these same words or similar, somewhere in that policy. Anyone familiar with legalese, especially in the USA, knows you always put this sort of thing in to cover your future decisions.

Mathman · Feb 18, 2012

^ You must be a lawyer. :biggrin:

Say what you mean. Mean what you say.

If the USFSA lists first the criteria of placements and results in specific national and international competitions, then mean it.

If instead the de facto criterion is, we will do as we please and chalk it up to the weasel words "extenuating circumstances" -- then say so and leave out the other stuff.

drivingmissdaisy · Feb 18, 2012

bigsisjiejie said:
That is not what I am saying at all. The USFSA did follow its own rules and bylaws, and the secret is in the final part about "...may consider extenuating circumstances." Those crucial four words pretty much give wide latitude for the International Committee to take other factors into consideration. Seems like a lot of people on the forum either ignore them, or downplay them as not as important as the preceding parts listing out the roster of competition results taken into account. I beg to differ--I consider them the most important part of these rules. And I see nothing anywhere that "extenuating circumstances" is defined only as illness or injuries, though many have assumed they are equivalent definitions with respect to these four words.

To dispel further confusion about what I previously posted: In the past, the USFSA decided most of the time not to exercise the wide latitude allowed by this clause, and just go with the easy flow of assigning international major competitions in order of Nationals finish except where an ISU age rule pre-empted the list--this is "precedent and tradition" I am speaking of. But again, nobody should confuse "precedent and tradition" with "rules and bylaws." Just because one is in the comfortable habit of expectation that a certain thing will happen, doesn't mean it automatically will again.

ETA: Even if the USFSA came up with a new 4CC policy before this competition, I would be surprised to find out that they did not have these same words or similar, somewhere in that policy. Anyone familiar with legalese, especially in the USA, knows you always put this sort of thing in to cover your future decisions.

Most of us did not ignore those words or deny they are important. We are not saying any laws are broken, or that they violated the letter of their rule. We are questioning whether they broke the spirit of the rule, which is that those factors they list should play an important role in assignments. Precedent and tradition are important because they show how the rules have been interpreted in the past; "extenuating" has meant very unusual circumstances. Yes, the clause is meant to provide some latitude but if that is how it is going to be interpreted it's a waste to have the other rules that makes skaters think a silver medal and the best international results will get you one of three spots on an important international competition with prize money, or that someone finishing 7 spots behind you won't get picked before you for a competition. Should skaters have some sort of expectation of fairness when they train so hard and devote their entire young lives to the sport?

lilicedreamer · Feb 19, 2012

chuckm said:
Anyway, past history shows it's probably better that she didn't compete at 4CC. She went to 4CC in 2011 and (when she won the US Championship) and finished behind two US skaters she had beaten at Nationals each time.

If I had to guess what the US officials might have been thinking, is that they need to deepen the talent field of the US team, and for some reason Czisny didn't do well at Four Continents two times. A fluke perhaps, but they are thinking about the whole team. I love Czisny's skating, she's awesome. BTW.

R.D. · Feb 19, 2012

Well, to be fair it's not like they skipped over Czisny and picked someone else for WORLDS...

The way I see it, Wagner definitely earned her trip with the Nationals win and later the 4CC win. Czisny at least qualified for the GPF- but has been lackluster ever since. CZhang looking really strong after a good Nationals/4CC. Zawadzki, well she had a great SP at Nationals but otherwise has been underwhelming. Who should the team be/have been?

We'll see how Czisny does at this other fluff event- it may be to her benefit to stay in Europe until worlds, actually.

sky_fly20 · Feb 20, 2012

the reason was imo,
they wanted to test wagner with the international judges and see how she would do also at Worlds

Was Czisny's Omission From The U.S. Team for The 4CC's A Snub?

Mathman

Mathman

drivingmissdaisy

R.D.

R.D.

fairly4

Serious Business

Sylvia

drivingmissdaisy

Mathman

Sylvia

Mathman

Sylvia

Mathman

bigsisjiejie

Mathman

drivingmissdaisy

lilicedreamer

R.D.

sky_fly20

Match Penalty

Similar threads

Connect with us