Marie-Reine Le Gougne for President

Joesitz said:

Hi TV = I'm aware of what you wrote. However, I disagree with you on keeping the judging secret. If the judging is fair, and you seem to go along with that, why not let the public know who scored what for whom?

As to reprimanding judges who do not conform with the average judging, what are the penalities for ineptness? for collusion? for patriotic or ethnic bias? Are there different penalties or is that they all get a wrist slap?

I don't see a disadvantage of open judging. Apparently, you do. Could you list the disadvantages? I'd appreciate it., and will admit that I am wrong.

Click to expand...

The ISU gave a reason for shielding the marks. It is to alleviate any undue pressure that the judges may incur from outside sources. That is their reason and I see it as just. My stand though, is that it doesn't matter if the marks are public. I think the only thing that matters it that the ISU knows which judge gave what since they are the ones with the abilities to punish wrong doers.

IIRC, I remember reading that judges who show repeat incompetance will be subject to, reprimand, suspension, further training, demotion, dismissal, etc. It's case by case I believe. I don't have a defenite answer as we have not yet seen the system in place. We will next season though.

There are disadvantages to open juging. Judges would be under pressure from the media, officials, etc of those who may want to place undue pressure on them. My point though is that making who gave what is irrelevent. It does not matter if we know, only that the ISU knows. The public does not have an understanding of figure skating, so for the most part, they have no fuction with regards to judging. The media has proven time and time again their ignorance in the judging proces, so again, open marks do nothing.

Open marks will not prove cheating or corruption. SLC is a perfect example. Le Gougne (of whom wrongdoing was not yet proven) gave marks perfectly in line with the rest of the panel. Many believe she was cheating, but the marks do not prove this. Benoie Lavoie of Canada gave marks most out of line with the panel. Does that mean he cheated? No. The only reason Le Gougne came up at all was because she was accused of admitting unethical practices by others. Thusly, open marks prove nothing but perhaps bias and incompetance. This is already being monitered by the ISU with their system of deviation. So, one is left with what are the advantages of open judging in the big picture. My opinion, nothing. Would I love to see who gave what? Yes, but that is more curiosity than an advantage. People fear what they don't konw and understand. If you would just read the process, I'm sure you would be more open to the ISU's new system of judging. It has not yet proven it doesn't work, so one can hardly claim so (this is not to you Joe, but to others).

TV

hockeyfan228 said:

What LeGougne reportedly said to Stapleford & Co. in front of the elevators and repeated in front of all of the other judges and the referee in the post-competition meeting was that she was pressured to vote in a certain way by Gailhauguet, not that she, personally, colluded with another judge.

Click to expand...

She also claimed that it was Stapleford who confronted her about her marks and coerced her into admitting something she didn't do. Whom do you believe? Stapleford was the woman who didn't speak out against the ISU until she lost her position as head of the Technical Committee. Pfenning was the one who plotted to destroy the ISU while still being an active part of it, etc. It would be difficult to decide whom to believe as it is all he said she said.

TV

Re: Marie

Scenario A: She lets her boss bully her into voting a certain way. This IMHO makes her incompetant at her job.

Scenario B: She doesn't let her boss bully her, but she lets someone else bully her into admiting to a crime she didn't commit. IMHO, this also makes her incompetant at her job.

I fail to see how any version of the story makes her worthy of still being involved in skating decisions.

Mathman said:

Think about the uproar that will ensue if the next Olympic gold medal is decided by the luck of the random draw and does not go to the skater who got the highest scores from the majority of the sitting judges.

Mathman

Click to expand...

As long as they use the scores from the same set of judges through out the competetion for each decipline, which I blieve is the case used in current interim system and CoP system, the end result would be the same as the old system.

I believe in old system, judge panel was also decided by the draw (manually?) before the competetion. Both draw method could end up with the same panel.

Quite true, MZheng. I was talking about the public perception of the effect of the random draw, not it's actual effect.

I hate to be a cynic (well, actually I like to be a cynic), but I think the purpose of the whole CoP push was not to achieve better judging but to make people think that the ISU is trying to achieve better judging. I still believe that the random draw has the potential to put the ISU in an uncomfortable position as they try to explain to an outraged public, "No, no, the random draw is fair, it really is, it really is!"

About the procedures for the ISU to review the performances of judges at the end of the season, I have two nagging doubts. The first is, the judges are still put forward by the member federations. So even if the ISU says naughty, naughty, so what?

Secondly, as far as I can tell being "an incompetant or corrupt judge" means scoring differently from the majority of the panel. Legitimate differences of opinion will still persist. We don't want a system where judges feel pressured into trying to guess what the other judges are going to do, in order to make sure that they fall into the majority, rather than judging what they actually see.

Mathman

hockeyfan228 said:

The Russian judge on the SLC pairs panel was Marina Sanaia, Piseev's wife. However, the alleged deal was not between the Russian judge on the pairs panel and LeGogne. It was supposedly to ensure that Anissina/Peizerat won the gold in dance, in exchange for B&S winning the gold in pairs.

Click to expand...

sanaia wasn't piseev's wife. piseev's wife judged the dance.

berthes ghost said:

Scenario B: She doesn't let her boss bully her, but she lets someone else bully her into admiting to a crime she didn't commit. IMHO, this also makes her incompetant at her job.

I fail to see how any version of the story makes her worthy of still being involved in skating decisions.

Click to expand...

Whose to say Didier tried to bully her? They both deny this. On the other point though, I see your point. Either way, she has shown she may have a weak will. If she is to be believed, Le Gougne could be easily intimidated because Stapleford was powerful and she was supposedly being pressured by a group.

Tv

From what I am reading about the Pairs and dance competition is that LeGougne and Didier, are both guilty - one for Life and one for 3 years.and there was no Russian involved in the conmspiracy

My main question. Was there an implication of Russia in this matter, and who was he. If he does exist (no one will mention the name), then he, Didier should also be banned from skating for life.

From what I read previously, Didier got a 3 year suspension, and then by his own choice decided to retire. (This may be true or false) He may be back for the Olys.

Now if there is no Russian involved then pray tell me where the conspiracy is at? Only two French persons deciding to throw the Olys Pairs and Dance without a 3rd party?

I contend that if there is no Russian involved, there is no case against Didier and LeGougne and Stapleford was way out of line.

Joe