- Joined
- Mar 23, 2010
You haven't really explained why you think the old rules were better besides you think the timing of the rule changes hurts Yuna. But taking Yuna out of it for a second, do you like the old rules better, if so, why? Do you think an excellent 2A should be worth more than a 3Lutz; or a mild UR should be worth less than a double? These are issues that many skating fans have brought up in the four years prior to the rule changes. I have read discussions of all of these issues by skating fans long before the rule changes were implemented.
I am not disagreeing about whether there should be rule changes and in fact acknowledge there are pros and cons to every rules changes 'for the good of the sport'. However I am also politically sensitive and shrewed enough to read between the lines, to know well enough it is entirely down to ISU's administration and their perogative of the time. TIMING and the IMPLICATION are the keys. All changes in the rules are not equal, just as there are some legitimate rules changes for the good of the sport, but there are also changes due to what is good for ISU and its confederates.
It is not so unlike how political party campaigns runs for the 'interest' of the people. There are always positive issues like: improve health services, improve social benefits, cut taxes for the 'general good of the people', reduce unemployment rates, reduce crime etc but while the causes themselves sound good, it is just as much about satisfying political party's sponsor's interests and agendas. Why do you think bankers, the big conglomerates and the super rich continues to be under taxed? What do lobbyist do all day in Washington while getting paid considerably for their 'persuasion'?
Hence goes back to the questions I pose to you, do you think these particular set of changes would have happened post Olympics in exact timeline and specific categories regardless of whether a Mao and Yuna are competing today? The evidence is in the sum of its effect and the timing. Do they result in better skating? Up the technical content? etc.. Things are not always in black and white. Why do you think people say it helps to come from a strong skating federation, and admire those who won despite a weak federation like Yuna, Denis and Javier?
To further answer your question, actually the flutz issues is indeed good for the sport and is not solely changed to benefit Yuna, or hurt Mao - unlike many of the Mao rules today which is there solely to benefit Mao. However, with that one Flutz rule changes, ISU practically had JSF at their door to win favours with resources so they are in a good influential place to sway their own set of rules and agendas, which they got their way as seen in recent years. The influence is visible in many instances such as rule changes passed before it even went to be assessed or debated. How about Cinquanta letter to pressure Yuna to do 4CCs in Korea where Mao is also competing is unprecedented. His apparent distain and disregard for Korea as possibility venue after the Japanese Tsunami disaster as possible alternative veues shows clear biases he doesn't even bother to hide. He could have said, we will consider or discuss all possible options and venues until we found one that will be agree by all, he didn't.
As a sporting governing body that is suppose to govern the sport with integrity and impartiality, has it really achieved these with all these 'incidents' and strategic rule changes? While any good organisation can have bad apples, any bad organisation can have its own heroes, but ISU is an organisation that is currently headed by someone who proved to be unprincipled and obtuse as its leader. He even prolong his own reign by changing the rules he suppose to be govern and uphold, or is the correct term more like 'abuse' of these privileges.