Originally Posted by Mathman
Whereas I think she is a brilliant writer she really is a jerk
YES, he should give it up even if it's not "official."
NO, it's his. He won it fair & square.
He should wait and see what transpires over the next few days as officials sort out the mess.
I don't know enough to render an opinion.
Originally Posted by Mathman
Whereas I think she is a brilliant writer she really is a jerk
The FIG has refused from the beginning of this controversy to even consider awarding a second gold medal because the rules forbid changing results after the competition has ended. If the results don't show Yang won, then he is not entitled to a second gold medal.Originally Posted by mzheng
It's too bad for Yang, but he should realize that this whole mess wouldn't have happened if the Korean coaches had done their job and protested the PBar SV during that rotation. The coaches were well aware about the rules and procedures concerning protests because they had protested other gymnasts' SVs during the preliminary rounds. They probably didn't bother challenging Yang's Pbar SV because they thought Yang was far enough ahead of Hamm in points that it didn't matter. Their mistake, and Yang's tragedy.
This is only one side story being repeated by NA media and some posters over and over again. According to other sources, I read in another board, Korean said otherwise. The fact that 3 judges had been suspended for this supposedly common judge error during this competetion, just tell you something really wrong.Originally Posted by chuckm
Now according to the info I read in another borad, the same SV of Yang's routine had been PROTESTED by Korean during team competetions earlier and the SV had been corrected then. It was hard to believe the judges got it wrong again in AA. Now I come to think what FIG had been doing possibly to protect the judge scandels. And actually save the face of the athelete and related parties.
Now let's wait and see what CAS have to say about it.
According to the text you posted from International Gymnast, which purported to tell the side of the Korean head coach and delegate, the Koreans did not say otherwise. According to their account, the only person who spoke to the supervisor during the competition was the Korean judge on the "B" panel, who had no standing to make a protest of any kind. The head judge/delegate admitted that they saw that the score was wrong on their way to the high bar routine, yet they did nothing until after the event was over, and only when the Korean judge on the "B" panel went to the delegate and told her to protest. (And only when Hamm was declared the winner.)Originally Posted by mzheng
As far as the suspensions were concerned, this well may be standard procedure for FIG, just as the rules state that only SV scores can be protested. Hopefully, if CAS takes the case, this will be cleared up.
In that article Korean also said they made the protest and was told to wait. And it also mentioned that two A panel judges addmitted right there before the whole competetion ended that they made a mistake. Intentionally or not we don't know. But considering the same SV had been successfully protested by Korean in team round, it is hard to believe the same mistake again.
This is the other thread I refered to.
CAS is taking the case.
Notice that techniquely Korean made the 'INQUERY' not PROTEST about the SV after the round. FIG must feel something terribly wrong then they go against the rule to review the tape. It was only after FIG's review and addmitted a mistake was made and suspended 3 judges and coincidantly 2 of them live in US, that Korean now files an official PROTEST with CAS.
I found this is a much similar case with the sychronize swimming. Where rule also states that the result can't be changed, even there was a typo error. But through the late protest the Canadian got the second Gold late on.
I really hope CAS dose the right thing for Korean.
Going back to the post you made on another thread (http://goldenskate.com/forum/showthr...6&page=6&pp=15);, the delegate did not begin a protest until after the high bar had ended, and she found that Hamm had beaten two of her athlethes.Originally Posted by mzheng
That is, she went to the A judges -- not the proper way to make a protest -- and only after the B panel judge (Kim) went up to her after the competition ended.After the high bar, judge Kim came to Yoo and told her that the judgment on the Start Value was wrong. Then Yoo rushed to find the A-panel judges. She asked 'Why is it 9.9?' While she was writing the objection, the two judges opened their notes from the competition. Upon discussing the Yang's routine, they suddenly realized that they had made a mistake. Near the end of Yang's routine when he did the giant tuck double back (Belle) which is an E move, they incorrectly gave him credit for a tuck double back from support (Morisue) which is only a D move. The judges immediately admitted their error, and advised Yoo to quickly go to the technical chairman and apply for a written form for a correction. Other coaches were present when the two judges admitted that they had made a mistake.
That the FIG made numerous errors is pretty evident:
a. Why Yoo was told by three different people to file a written protest the next day, even though it was too late by FIG rules.
b. Why FIG reviewed the videotape at all, if the judges confirmed from their notes that the SV was wrong. Why didn't they just use the judges' notes or the judges recollections, since their post-competition admission had been witnessed and could be confirmed? By opening up the videotape, and breaking their own rules, they opened themselves up to objections about the extra hold and the execution scores.
c. The official website doesn't list the officials, but I've read that the judging panel for the prelims was different than the judging panel for the individual all-around. (I can't remember where, and I'm having no luck finding it.) If this is true, then they didn't require adequate preparation on the part of the second panel, since there were many protests filed in the prelims. If the same judges misscored the same routine twice in a competition, and FIG had no one watching, then FIG is pretty incompetent as a governing body. The diving Federation responded immediately to what they considered bias when they removed a Chinese judge who was to have judged the Men's 10M platform finals.
The case with synchronized swimming is not the same. There the judge in question said that his intention at the time of the competition was to give Frechette a 9.7 instead of an 8.7. The same thing happened to US skater Timothy Wood, but the score was never changed, and he has not received a duplicate medal. The A panel judges in this case intended to give Yang a SV of 9.9 at the time of the competition, and changed their minds when it was too late to protest or to change the results.
If the CAS finds evidence of collusion or bias among the judge and supervisor based in the US, or between the two judges, then they should rule for a change, even to the final results. However, I don't think either of the judges or the supervisor is likely to say that they made anything but an honest error, one that another panel of judges made earlier in the competition, so it was understandable. Particularly when the odds were very slim that Hamm could have medalled, let alone beaten Yang after the parallel bars.
As far as the suspension goes, it's likely that the CAS may have egg on its face again if it had discretion in applying their own rules. But it's not surprising: FIG was in a highly visible and embarrassing position. One of the few times that policemen or teachers get suspended is when the Department feels it must look responsive to a higher authority.
She asked 'Why is it 9.9?' While she was writing the objection, the two judges opened their notes from the competition. Upon discussing the Yang's routine, they suddenly realized that they had made a mistake.
See the A panel judgers realized their mistake before the medal was hand out. To me it was much similar a case to synchronize swimming than SLC. However the similarity to SLC can be found earlier/before the competetion. In SLC NA media went all about 'Canadian S/P will end the Rusian dominate in Olympics pair'. During Athen NA media went all about 'American Paul will win the first men's AA OGM'. The poster in the second link, who had been followin gymnastics for a long time, said actually what he saw FIG had been doing was try to save the faces or protect judges and athletes. I tend to agree with him.
It was reported there had been a lot mistakes of SV in this competetion, but only these three had been suspended.
1. That doesn't mean the judges' mistake was pointed out to them during the protest period.Originally Posted by mzheng
2. That doesn't mean the judges' mistake was pointed out to them before the results were certified--i.e., right after the AA event was over with the conclusion of the high bar.
3. The Korean head judge/delegate admitted that they realized the score was wrong in time to make a protest, but did nothing.
4. The Korean head judge/delegate admitted that they only tried to protest after the high bar routine when the Korean "B" judge prodded them and only after the score made a difference to their athlete.
5. From their earlier protests during the quali round, it was clear that the Korean team knew the appropriate form (written request) and time period in which a protest was allowed.
It seems to me that the Korean team, having passed up every opportunity to protest by the appropriate means in the appropriate time frame and knowing for the duration of the entire next event that the SV was wrong, used a technicality to gain a CAS hearing: i.e., FIG broke its own rules in reviewing the videotape the next day to verify whether there was a legitimate protest outside their normal protest procedures. Whether CAS will allow other objections that are also outside FIG rules -- i.e., whether the execution judging should be reviewed as well -- is to be seen. It certainly makes sense for them to support their athlete by any means they can, especially to make up for the fact that they hung him out to dry during the competition, by their own admissin.
FIG had no reason to save face for Paul Hamm -- he fell on the vault, and he expected to be out of the medal running at that point (12th going into his fifth routine). Just as they had no reason to save face for Yang Wei, who scored a 8.987 on the parallel bar. If Hamm had won silver, bronze, or no medal at all, the networks would have played the vault over and over to explain why he didn't win, and that explanation was not only telegenic, it put the result squarely on Hamm's shoulders. There was no similar mistake by Sale and Pelletier to explain why they were in second place after the LP.Originally Posted by mzheng
If anyone needs to "save face," it is the Korean officials who should have protected their athlete in the appropriate manner. Had they done so, Yang would have been the only gold medallist and Hamm the only silver medallist. Yang would have had his moment at the top of the podium, with the Korean anthem playing in the background. Instead, even if a second gold is awarded to Yang, his moment was stolen, and both he and Hamm will endure years of second-guessing. (That is assuming that if the protest was made in time, the results in the high bar would have been the same, which is not a certainty.)
Your suspicions could be right, but there are several other possibilities:Originally Posted by mzheng
1. In swimming, the person who makes the second false start is disqualified, even if s/he didn't make a first false start. Arbitrary to some people, necessary to others. But that is the procedure. There could be a similar guideline for judging.
2. These judges made the same error that the judges in the prelims made, and the reasoning could be that they should have been prepared.
3. The FIG behaved stupidly under pressure during the entire meet. This could have been a knee-jerk "get tough"/"look like we have things under control" reaction.
It's now in the hands of the CAS. Their normal procedure is to depose the main players within 24 hours of the incident, so that the people involved can't create an air-tight story; in this case, the hearings will be a month later. It's up to CAS now, though.
Last edited by hockeyfan228; 09-03-2004 at 11:37 AM.
I totally supported (and still do) the introduction of start values as part of gymnastics judging. In concept, this change specifically rewards gymnasts who compete more difficult routine elements. But it's still subjective, just like the old system.
I hope we don't see these same types of disputes with the COP. Sorta scary.
I feel bad for Paul having to deal with all the fallout. All HE did was get out there and do his best. The most nauseating aspect of this debate is the idea that he should somehow resolve it. Talk about the Blame Game at it's worst!
I totally agree with Doggy Girl.
Paul Hamm relinquishing his gold medal would be to clean up other peoples mess and won't solve the problem.
As far as he is concerned Paul won the medal fair and square - he went out there, performed and was awarded the godl medal.
Paul Hamm should never relinquish his Gold Medal. It is not his fault that the judges messed up. There were 2 more rotations and no one knows how the judges would have ranked them anyway.
Paul you keep your medal, you earned it!!!!!
I already posted a reply, but I just wanted to say WOW, talk about a lopsided poll! Seems like there is a pretty strong majority here!
I don't think he should have to give back the medal.
IF anything should happen the should have two Gold Medals. That's a Big if too.
CAS will decide within two weeks.