Debbie Wilkes Article

bleuchick,


Not only should she have left skaters names out of the article, but she should not have gone out of her way to deliberately mislead readers. At first I thought she meant that Sasha never competed under COP then I looked back and saw that she used the word "officially" which is true because COP wasn't official until this year. But it does lead one to believe that Sasha has avoided COP altogether.

Also, I did mention that the USFSA could not implement the COP this year because it wasn't the official ISU method at the time the 2004-2005 rules were set in place for the US. Our congress met before the ISU's. Timing had a big part to play in when the US could even begin to setup COP and there wasn't much that could be done about it. A lot of organizations have very strict rules in the bylaws about when you have to meet and how many times within a set time frame. It is highly possible that the USFSA couldn't wait for the ISU's official scoring method because of a rule in the bylaws. I don't have the USFSA bylaws in front of me, but I would suspect that there is something to that effect in them.

Why wasn't Evgeny Plushenko lumped in with the "evil" Michelle and Sasha? Wasn't he the one planning on skating in a show for money at the same time as one of the events he was originally scheduled to compete in? Didn't it take a threat of losing eligibility to force him back into competition? Which, BTW, I completely disagree with for all the reasons that Mathman has stated earlier in this thread. I don't like force, threats and tantrums from people who are supposed to be the adults in charge. The ISU should be trying to figure out why the GP isn't popular as it stands now instead of forcing people to support as is.

In short, Debbie has a whole mess of poor logic and reason going on in that article along with a lot of attempts to mislead readers who aren't looking closely enough. That's enough for me to say that there's very little that's trustworthy from her at this point. She's shown her colors and they're not pretty.

Mathman said:

Jaana, to me, this is exactly the mentality that is so objectionable on the part of the ISU. Ban this, forbid that, do not allow the other, and punish everyone who disagrees with me about how they should live their lives.

If someone wants to skate, let him or her skate. If someone wants to stay home, let him or her stay home. It's a free country. (Oh, wait...)

Mathman

Click to expand...

Who can do exactly what one wants to? As long as one is working there always are some rules one needs to watch, what ever one´s work, etc. might be. After the skaters turn pro, there are more possibilities for them to do what they want to. But that freedom of course depends on other matters like popularity, etc....

Marjaana

Jaana, this almost sounds Marxian. A quote from him is: Necessity is blind until it becomes conscious. Freedom is the consciousness of necessity. In other words, skaters a free as they are conscous of the necessity of their responsibility before the ISU.

My problem with the whole ISU arrangement is that ISU makes a contract with member nations, who in turn make contracts with the skaters. Therefore, we're talking about three distinctly different sets of interests: ISU's, member nations', and skaters'. In theory, I'd like to see the ISU make direct contract with skaters. Of course, that would mean a skater would need a seperate contract with their federations - the federations need their piece of the prize cake as well. I have no problem with the skater signing a contract that for a certain guaranteed amount of money (regardless of placement), they agree to abide by certain rules. Breaking a contractual obligation, even for a perfectly good reason, would incure a financial loss. What I do not like is a nebulous set of rules that the member nations are suppsoed to enforce on their skaters. I understand that the current system was the attempt to stem the tide of skaters leaving for the proffessional ranks, and at the time it did the trick. Now, though, it's time for a new approach.

Nicely put Pitchka, and a good suggestion, but I think the two contracts would have to be spelled out clearly for skater's rights, and any financial arrangements by the ISU should be made to the skater and the Federation separately.

Joe

bleuchick said:

Now, does this article means she is therefore going to be a biased caller?

IMO, one can't tell 100% for sure.

Click to expand...

I think that's the problem right there. As you say, based on this article no one can say whether Ms. Wilkes will be a biased caller or not.

As Joe said previously, we expect our sports writers to be strongly opinionated and to use colorful language (Michelle and Sasha skipping the Grand Prix is like "the inmates running the asylum"). A fair and balanced marshalling of the facts is boring; no one would read your column if you didn't sling around exaggerated and ill-supported opinions now and then.

From ISU officials involved in the judging process we expect just the opposite. We expect and have the right to insist that the technical specialists will exhibit judicial temperament and professional detachment.

It is certainly possible to play Jekyll and Hyde and wear two different hats as appropriate. Still, if I were a pairs skater at Worlds facing Ms. Wilkes as the technical specialist to judge my elements -- and if I had skipped the Grand Prix series due to injury -- and if I had read that Ms. Wilkes pretty much interprets this as a personal slap in the face and feels that I ought to be thrown out of the competition forthwith -- well, I think I could be forgiven for wondering "whether Mr. Wilkes will be a biased caller or not."

Mathman

Mathman said:

I think that's the problem right there. As you say, based on this article no one can say whether Ms. Wilkes will be a biased caller or not.

As Joe said previously, we expect our sports writers to be strongly opinionated and to use colorful language (Michelle and Sasha skipping the Grand Prix is like "the inmates running the asylum"). A fair and balanced marshalling of the facts is boring; no one would read your column if you didn't sling around exaggerated and ill-supported opinions now and then.

Click to expand...

Frankly, I was suprised to read "inmates running the ayslum". It is not something that I expected from Debbie let alone any journalists. This kind of writing always leads to trouble. I guess, I am in the minority. I just don't like it. Stick to sport and all that is boring.

Mathman said:

From ISU officials involved in the judging process we expect just the opposite. We expect and have the right to insist that the technical specialists will exhibit judicial temperament and professional detachment.

Click to expand...

ITA.

Mathman said:

Still, if I were a pairs skater at Worlds facing Ms. Wilkes as the technical specialist to judge my elements -- and if I had skipped the Grand Prix series due to injury -- and if I had read that Ms. Wilkes pretty much interprets this as a personal slap in the face and feels that I ought to be thrown out of the competition forthwith -- well, I think I could be forgiven for wondering "whether Mr. Wilkes will be a biased caller or not."

Mathman

Click to expand...

Debbie is a caller and not a judge. All she is going to do is identify a triple twist or triple throw etc and pass that information to the judges who then determine what points to give. Supposed she tries to be biased. She will need the help of a judge who also feels the same way about skaters skipping the GP. Since we have not heard from any judges, I doubt it is time to worry.

bleuchick said:

I agree with fans of the skaters mentioned that this article is harsh.
However, I do not agree with those raising the issue of conflict of interest or how Debbie cannot be a journalist and caller. It is not as if the ISU has a large pool of pairs experts to choose from when selecting callers. She just happen to be one AND a journalist. Now, should she have given up her television job? I say no. This is a woman who completed a Masters degree in Communications or something similar to that for a career in television. That takes years, investments and alot of hard work. One does not just walk away from it.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's a problem of giving up one or the other, it is acknowledging a conflict. Her article doesn't mention that she is involved with the ISU; that is a mistake.

bleuchick said:

Plus, before anyone mentioned conflict of interest(fans and Hersh), she addressed it in a article at her site. She clearly mentioned the steps that she took in order to address the conflict of interest BEFORE taking on the ISU's job.

Click to expand...

Are readers of her articles expected to visit her website in order to find out that she is associated with the ISU, and what she has done about it? I don't think so. It is her responsibility, as a journalist, to let people know that; yes, in virtually every article that she writes. That would be the ethical stance in this kind of situation.

People often make the kind of mistake she is making, that ethical conflicts are either impossible, because "I'm a good person," (good people get into ethical conflicts all the time!) or that they can be addressed once, then put aside as resolved. That's not how conflict of interest and ethically sticky situations work. You must confront it over and over.

bleuchick said:

My opinion about the article - I agree and disagree with her. Most of all, she should not have mentioned skaters names because it only make matters worse.

Click to expand...

Amen! The article reads very much like its purpose is to add fuel to the fire. Another strong objection I have to it, even as I agree somewhat with the argument. (In tennis, as a comparison, top players have an obligation to appear at top tier tournaments. This guarantees organizers a draw, and sponsors more viewers. Some of the differences, of course, are that the main tour of tennis has by far the most prize money, and players have strong representation in the tour organizations.)

I don't really see this as a fault of individual skaters. If they have (more) lucrative opportunities, particularly with less demanding schedules, they will gravitate to those competitions. This might work in ISU's favor eventually, by giving other skaters the opportunity to actually make some decent money competing, and giving them air time in front of TV audiences. If they can promote a wider field of stars and contenders, it will help the sport.

ISU should do away with the entire distinction between "amateur" or "eligible" status. Open the doors wide open, then promote your system- judging system, format, requirements- as the most interesting and competitive (it pretty much is already, as evidenced by Ice Wars- I'd much rather see Grand Prix). Aggressively pursue sponsors and TV audiences as the "real" skating tour; organize exhibition tours or something to keep hold of the skaters during the "off" season.

An incentive approach will work much better than a punitive one.

I gotta say the issues raised on this forum are . The more I read the more I want to come back to GS and read more.

Great job!

OK, first of all, getting past the fact that she misspelled "Maranin" (tho that may have just been a typo....) --

If you apply Ms. Wilkes' logic to previous eras, then Torvill & Dean shouldn't have been allowed at the Worlds, either, given the fact that after 1981 they didn't do anything but the British Nationals, Euros, and Worlds. Granted, the GP wasn't in place then, but there were still plenty of minor competitions available, they just didn't get the publicity they get now.

Going back even further, I wonder how Ms. Wilkes would have responded to this type of attitude had this all been in place in the early 60s, when she skated.

bleuchick said:

Debbie is a caller and not a judge. All she is going to do is identify a triple twist or triple throw etc and pass that information to the judges who then determine what points to give. Supposed she tries to be biased. She will need the help of a judge who also feels the same way about skaters skipping the GP. Since we have not heard from any judges, I doubt it is time to worry.

Click to expand...

Breaking my code of silence (ie coming out of lurkdom/hiding) to comment on this thread and to clarify the CoP for myself, but doesn't the caller also determine the Level of spins, lifts, footwork, etc, which, despite the efforts of the ISU to make objective are still at least slightly subjective? In other words, the caller still makes important determinations that count toward the final scores of these pairs skaters who may or may not be getting a fair look. Really, we don't know how objective she (or anyone else) will be as a caller; we have no way of ever really knowing, but I still wouldn't be eager to have her as the caller if I were a pairs skater, especially if I had (legitimately or not) skipped the GP after reading that. Just MHO.

hmmph

Ms. Wilkes' clearly needs a mental enema.

Now that she is a flunkie for the ISU, I don't take anything she says at face value. Perhaps $peedy will generously compensate her for trashing Michelle and Sasha, two top elite skaters from the U.S. The article looks to me like someone is "streetwalking." The fact that the absense of Kwan and Cohen might make it much easier for certain other skaters from certain other countries to get on the Worlds podium has not been lost on me.

People are absolutely correct that it is ridiculous to change the rules in the middle of the season. Not that the ISU has been known for fairness in the last couple of years.

Her facts are wrong. Sasha has several years of experience under CoP. Now she basically accuses Sasha of lying, and Kwan of hubris and greed simply for listening to her body. If I were Michelle, I would have lost all respect for the GP after the 2002 GPF.

Perhaps if skaters could selectively compete in GP events rather than being hamstrung by the entire run of competitions, they might be more likely to do so and there would be fewer injuries.

Her bias is brazen, blatant and totally inappropriate for a so-called judge. And a technical specialist is a judge. Deciding if an element is a level 1, 2 or 3 is just as important as assigning GOE.

I am not impressed by her bowel movement of an editorial and I fear for the future of amateur skating.

bleuchick said:

I gotta say the issues raised on this forum are . The more I read the more I want to come back to GS and read more!

Click to expand...

Me, too! Thanks especially to you, to Skatefanconvert and to Princesse (keep on postin', Princesse! LOL)

Certainly it is dead easy for the technical specialist to call a footwork sequence a level two rather than a level one, or to say that a triple jump was cheated 5/16 of a turn (so it's a double, and a bad one at that) rather than only 3/16 of a turn (so its a triple). In fact, one of the purposes of the CoP was to take decisions like this out of the hands of the judges (who might show nationalistic bias) and leave them to the technical specialists (who work directly for the ISU, so they are supposedly free of national Chauvinism).

In this vein, another red flag in Debbie Wilkes article is her praise for the Canadian skaters and the Canadian Association for getting the jump on having their programs judged under the new judging system this year. She stops barely short of calling Michelle and Sasha stupid for not doing the same.

No matter how hard a person tries to be fair, if he/she comes in with the feeling that the wonderful skaters from my country are so much better prepared than everyone else to score high, it can become something of a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Mathman

Whether Ms. Wilkes will be biased or not, she has left the door wide open for criticism anytime a fan feels she has miscalled a jump/element. She'll have to deal with it & explain herself. No hiding, Debbie. You're too easily recognizable!

We have seen comments and often made them ourselves about skaters with dragon lady mothers. (i.e Ann Patrice forced to compete, etc.) Many have often said they don't enjoy those skater's programs or skating style because it appears forced and is lacking something.

It seems since 2000 on that the ISU has been adding multiple restrictions and new rules each year to the GP series and taking all of the fun out of it for the skaters. Of course the rules are different for seeded and nonseeded; this mostly applies to seeded skaters. They can't choose which event they want to compete in, they can't choose which ones will be scoring events and nonscoring events for themselves, etc. (BTW, doesn't it seem like the ISU can just rig the final based on those two restrictions alone?) They can't just choose to do one event, it's 2 or 3 and the GPF is mandatory if you qualify. The list goes on.

If we can't enjoy the type of skaters I mentioned in my first paragraph, why would we enjoy a whole series of skaters forced to toe the party line and do whatever the organization deems fit for them. The skaters are losing their right to voice their own opinions and needs each year and I feel like the GP series will end up reflecting that to some degree. I think it's the lack of choice or freedom that will kill your love of something faster than anything else. Having to do something is very different from wanting to do something.

Most probably want to skate at least 2 events each year and make the final. But what if someone is having a bad year (for any reason) and would rather just do one to get their program out before the judges and skip the final. Why should they be restricted from doing that?

I do so much better at my own job when I'm enjoying my day at work rather than when I feel like I have to be there and I have a million other better things to do. I don't see why the skaters would be any different.

Wilkes article and suppositions

My oh my, this thread introduced one article from a particular former skater, coach and judge, from a particular country, writing for a particular audience in an editorial manner. It is meant to be her opinion expressed to a circulation that probably has a majority of like-minded people. It raised so many questions about the actions of the skaters and their motives.

In all other sports where money is an issue (Which professional sport isn't about the big money?) the money matters are scrutinized in public, such as how much players make on their tours (there are lists run routinely), their salaries (entire team salaries in MLB, NFL are published) and their contract negotiations. We hear very little in FS about the money, because it is to be "Olympic Eligible". "Eligible" means that the ISU and IOC have control over what the skaters make for appearance fees and prize money and what events they may take part. It is a professional sport, but the finances are glossed over and rarely discussed in detail.

The path of least resistance ideology may prove beneficial here if we apply the concept of making the best living and quality of professional life to the behaviors of the skaters, federations and the ISU. Fact: The ISU cut appearance fees for GP events and lowered prize money. Campbell's and Marshall's applied the prior standard of appearance fees and bigger prize awards. Tours also invited skaters and probably promised to compensate them very well for tour skating (less demanding in regard to quad jumps). Fact: The big name champions, like Kwan and Plushenko, opted out of the GP events (more on that later) and decided to perform in pay day events (winning both Campbell's and Marshall's would be $100,000 plus appearance fees, which is nearly triple that of winning two GP events at 18,000 each) or tour/show skating. Fact: The ISU reacted harshly with threats of sanctions on Members with assigned skaters who opt out without legitimate injury or circumstance. Here the problem appears to be the attitude of the ISU; however, the problem truly lies with the Member Federations (USFS, Russian Fed., etc.) who assign placements after being told by the ISU how many places they have to fill at each event. The Members select the skaters, not the ISU; and it seems that the ISU is really ticked off when a Member Federation sends in the names, they are accepted, then the skater backs out. The USFS wants to send its best skaters, so it assigns the best teams possible. Maybe better communication between the highest ranked skaters and their Member Federations is needed to avoid them being assigned to events they would rather not do. Why do the GP when there are "eligible" ways to make a better living more comfortably?

Maybe money is at the root of every group's view and behavior. Kwan and Plushenko are champions and maybe they do deserve to work for better pay under better circumstances and a bit more at their own discretion. But, they should be respectable in their appearances at their home country's events, Nationals, Europeans, Worlds, 4 Continents and Olympics.

The GP Events are certainly not new events. Skate America is 25 years strong, NHK is about the same and the Nations Cup goes way back. Trophee Lalique is also much older than the GP Series. These were all smaller events, often without the top ranked skaters and with little or no publicity or significance, as they happened early in the season. The GP Series grew out of the spike in popularity of skating in the 1990's, and now the ISU wants to hold onto it, but it may not be possible. These events may retreat to their original importance in skating if the tide takes it that way. Thus, losing money related to the Series drives the ISU's actions.

This turned out to be a long post! But maybe the simple explanation of all these topics and events is based in financial gain. Skaters, Member Federations and the ISU all have differing agendas regarding the monies involved, and thus the conflicts and reactions and events.

It's not personal, it's business.

I've read quite a bit of this thread but I can't get it out of my head that Ms Wilkes is a Canadia, a Journalist, an ISU Official, and all too human.

There is inbuilt bias in every journalist. The sportspages in NYC are full of it. They write nothing good about any team other than the Yankees and certainly not very complimentary about the Mets. So be it, there's an ounce of truth in everything.

Canadian judges have never favored US competitors. There is always the rivalry about the rich province below or for the US, the reluctant state above. I would not say that Canadian judges have not given the US skaters their due, but they do not give them the edge in a close contest unless they really believe they deserve it. There is nothing in either country regarding the importance of winning for the STATE. Neither country claims to be the Master Race, and for political reasons, they can hold their own.

Canadian and American skaters want to win for themselves. In defence of Ms Wilkes, she is doing her job. The article could have been written better without reference to the two American divas. Perhaps she should have wrote in the posititve vein about Sandhu and Buttle, who always skate the GPs. But she didn't, so let's move on or say something really valid in this discussion.

Joe