Does a tech panel really solve the old cheating federation problem? 
I think the issue is whether the tech panel was fair with everyone. If they were fair with Rachael, but lenient with everyone else, than that would not be fair.
It's weird, but sometimes being fair ........ is not fair.
I was just wondering if there was any reason to suspect Rachael was not treated fairly in Vancouver?
If anything I think we saw that Rachael and Miki might have been cut a little slack in the SP.:yes:
)
By "fair" I meant, applying the same standards to all skaters. At Vancouver, to my unpracticed eye it looked like almost all the competitors underrotated almost every jump. Yet only Rachael's were downgraded and everyone else caught a break.
To be sure, I am not a tech specialist.
Still, I feel more confident that the tech specialist's call is correct when all the judges agree with the call. When all the judges disagree with the call, this raises suspicions that maybe the call was wrong. (Tech specialists are only human.
Sometimes it's a mixed bag. At Nationals I thought Mirai's triple Lutz was OK. But the tech panel said no, it was under-rotated. Who is right, me or the expert? IIRC the NBC commentators agreed with me, as did almost everyone in the audience. The judges chimed in with GOEs of +1 +1 +1 0 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2. Some thought the jump was fine, others didn't. This makes me more likely to give the caller the benefit of the doubt, since the majority of the judging panel evidently agreed with the call.
I was just wondering if there was any reason to suspect Rachael was not treated fairly in Vancouver?
If anything I think we saw that Rachael and Miki might have been cut a little slack in the SP.:yes:
.
