What are the most glaring examples of cheating using the CoP within the last 5 years? | Page 2 | Golden Skate

What are the most glaring examples of cheating using the CoP within the last 5 years?

Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Cheating is such a loaded word. (One poster here used it to mean cheating on the jumps, which is an entirely different meaning: it just means under rotation. That's not cheating in the large sense of the word, doing something underhanded.) In most sports, scandalous cheating involves the athletes: did they fix the game, or take banned substances that give them an advantage in strength? This is not what happens in skating. The judging is out of the athletes' hands. If there is any chicanery, such as planning before a competition to favor one skater over another, it is on the part of judges (which is a very serious charge and not one any of us have proof of), or of federations. If that is going on in any unethical way, of course it must be found out and stopped.

But what we are talking about is a seemingly incomprehensible weighting of marks so that a u/r costs a skater more than an outright fall. This isn't cheating but a misapplication of scoring criteria (in my mind at least). Of course this should be rectified, but I can't see using the word cheating in the way it was used in baseball, for example, when several of the best home run hitters turned out to have built themselves up with steroids, or in cycling, when almost none of the major winners were riding clean. That's cheating. Dennis Ten getting a silver medal is not.
 

Poodlepal

On the Ice
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
I agree that cheating is the wrong word. However, I think it is still possible to cheat as well as it was before. You could still get a group of judges together to "prop up" a skater with + GOE's or with PCS marks. They could not check certain skaters on the replay to see if they rotate properly while nitpicking other skaters. Since the penalties for actually falling are rather slim, you could easily make up one or two points in fall deductions that way.

In other words, it's still subjective and political, but now there is all sorts of "hard data" to suggest that it isn't.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I agree that cheating is the wrong word. However, I think it is still possible to cheat as well as it was before. You could still get a group of judges together to "prop up" a skater with + GOE's or with PCS marks.

Yes, any judge or group of judges could intentionally inflate the scores of some skaters beyond what they honestly thought the skaters deserved, and intentionally lowball other skaters beyond what they thought they deserved.

Or any member or more effectively two or all three members of a technical panel could systematically always give benefit of the doubt to some skaters and never to other skaters. Or even, if at least two are colluding, decide to call incorrect levels and jump rotations on purpose, contradicting what they actually see and know to be true.

However, since we have no more way of knowing the officials' intentions in IJS than we did under 6.0, we have no way of knowing which decisions we disagree with were honest, considered decisions that just happened to value various aspects of the skating differently than we do, which were honest mistakes, and which were intentional attempts to manipulate the results.

"Glaring" examples of outright cheating would require evidence of intention, such as communication to that effect between judges (or tech panel members) before or during the event.

Without such evidence, all you have is "I don't agree with this result. I've heard judges sometimes cheat. Therefore they must have cheated this time." Really faulty logic.
 

Skater Boy

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
I agree. Those "invisible" errors shouldn't that harshly penalized. They don't ruin the program nearly as much as the falls. I personally don't even care if somebody flutzes of lips, as long as the jump is landed.


I think we have to look at edges otherwie someone can say hey I will just do a flutz because it is worth more than a toe loop or whatever.
 

mskater93

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
No one conciously decides to do a flutz (lip). Sometimes skaters learn borderline technique or are pushed through the ranks a little quickly by coaches without as strong a foundation as they need to have. Once the team (coach/choreo/skater) realize there is a problem (and sometimes they do before they get to that international level) they work on correcting it. Sometimes it becomes an issue after a growth spurt or injury where to hurry the jump back into the arsenal, the skater doesn't take the time to re-learn. Or sometimes (as is the case with Gold's 3F) it develops as an issue over time (she had no problems with the flip last season, but now it's gone from flat to outside edge)
 

Poodlepal

On the Ice
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
While I agree that nobody should get full credit for a jump that is not done the way it should, this type of error does not affect the overall performance. If two people skate clean, and their programs are well-interpreted and enjoyable, but one ur's or flutzes and the other doesn't, I have no problem with the proper jumper winning. He or she should, definitely.

People get mad when someone like Mirai does a really exciting program, then gets dinged on ur's (2010) or when someone likePatrick falls and still wins (several competitions), with the reasoning being that, well, at least he rotated his jumps completely before falling on his butt. Again, though, this is not cheating, just something about the code of points that is bewildering to non-skaters.
 

louisa05

Final Flight
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
I think there needs to be some balance in the system that seems to be missing. Suddenly (at least in the case of Chan) nothing matters but skating skills--edges, knee bend, etc... If that is what the ISU and the judging panels think should determine champions, why are the skaters even performing technical skills such as jumps and spins? Why beat up their bodies doing it when judges are just looking for something else? Why can't the system have a proper balance between rewarding basic skating skills and rewarding properly performed technical elements?

Mathman, per his screen name alone, is probably better qualified than me to evaluate this and has offered suggestions. Bottom line is that the scoring system is out of balance to the side of rewarding edges and knee bends and ignoring blatant technical errors. And I am sick of the defenders all over the web saying that a fall doesn't disrupt a program. Because it does. Whether it is one second or five, a skater on his or her butt is not pleasing choreography and does not reflect a successful element.

Random thoughts related to other discussions of the matter--

--I've often seen defenders say that falls cannot be penalized more because it would negatively impact scoring on the lower levels. Why does scoring have to be exactly the same on every level? Rules differ for younger athletes in most sports. Lower baskets for kids in basketball; two serves for volleyball in most leagues for kids under 12 or so; Little League doesn't play nine innings; and the list goes on and on. Why not have harsher penalties for falls on the senior level and leave the current deductions in place for lower levels?
--Can't the ISU take a look at gymnastics scoring? I know their system is far from perfect. But one positive is that while it rewards difficulty it also seems to have enough penalty for blatant errors that falling off the beam will not result in a medal regardless of difficulty.
--If a skater lands on his or her butt at the end of an element, how is that demonstrating brilliant edge work? Isn't part of basic skating skills being able to land on your blade from a jump and control it during footwork/spins (thus remaining vertical)? Sorry, but any time skaters are on the ice on their butts or hitting the ice with their hands, they aren't demonstrating perfect blade work. There is no logical reason that should not be reflected in the PCS scores.
--As to the original question: if judges are really cheating, we will never know. That was Cinquanta's big fix--don't eliminate cheating, create a complex and anonymous system to ensure that it cannot be publicly discovered.
 

Bluebonnet

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
I think there needs to be some balance in the system that seems to be missing. Suddenly (at least in the case of Chan) nothing matters but skating skills--edges, knee bend, etc... If that is what the ISU and the judging panels think should determine champions, why are the skaters even performing technical skills such as jumps and spins? Why beat up their bodies doing it when judges are just looking for something else? Why can't the system have a proper balance between rewarding basic skating skills and rewarding properly performed technical elements?

Non-sense! What makes you say that the judges care nothing but skating skills?! Have you actually looked?!
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
--I've often seen defenders say that falls cannot be penalized more because it would negatively impact scoring on the lower levels. Why does scoring have to be exactly the same on every level? Rules differ for younger athletes in most sports. Lower baskets for kids in basketball; two serves for volleyball in most leagues for kids under 12 or so; Little League doesn't play nine innings; and the list goes on and on. Why not have harsher penalties for falls on the senior level and leave the current deductions in place for lower levels?

My solution to this would be to make the fall deduction subtract a percentage of the total segment score rather than a flat 1.0.
This would be easier than having different flat amounts for each level and each discipline.
 

louisa05

Final Flight
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
My solution to this would be to make the fall deduction subtract a percentage of the total segment score rather than a flat 1.0.
This would be easier than having different flat amounts for each level and each discipline.

Very workable. I saw your idea in another thread after I posted. And that would help create more balance in scoring. If it were the total segment score. If it were only applied to the TES and not PCS, we might see more PCS inflation to cover.

As to bluebonnet's comment, perhaps familiarize yourself with a literary term: hyperbole. I used a bit. Unfortunately, I think only a bit as every time Chan has a technical meltdown and wins anyway, we are told "SKATING SKILLS!!!!" as if it is indeed all that matters.
 

gmyers

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Joe Inman and his email which may have only been the tip of the iceberg in what was going on against plushenko!
 

plushyfan

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2012
Country
Hungary
Joe Inman and his email which may have only been the tip of the iceberg in what was going on against plushenko!
and 2 judges, who scored Plushenko's SP at 22nd and 23rd places in Vancouver.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
and the 2 judges, who scored Plushenko's SP at 22nd and 23rd places in Vancouver.

No one scored his whole SP in 22nd or 23rd place -- if you could separate out a single judge's column of GOEs and PCS, add those scores to the technical calls, and figure out rankings, all of the judges would have had Plushenko in the top group, if not all in first place.

Some of them did score him that low just on Transitions, if that's what you're referring to.
 

plushyfan

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2012
Country
Hungary
No one scored his whole SP in 22nd or 23rd place -- if you could separate out a single judge's column of GOEs and PCS, add those scores to the technical calls, and figure out rankings, all of the judges would have had Plushenko in the top group, if not all in first place.

Some of them did score him that low just on Transitions, if that's what you're referring to.

Right. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbbfflDE4PE look at please..

and read this, please https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yUX4w1PelTSc08lLfuHUXjxgx2ZnmPijEy7FZ2nxIQQ/edit
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
He was scored pretty harshly on Transitions, but to be fair, he really doesn't have the transitions that most of the field has if we're being completely honest. He even said that himself. The fact that Inman sent that email though is shady and yes, it likely did compromise Plushenko's scores. But not so much out of the realm of reason. 6.00 is harsh for TR for Plushenko, but anything above an 8.50 is too generous and something he usually only gets when he jumps clean (because a clean skate translates to high PCS across the board if you're a top skater anyways).

I wouldn't say there's blatant cheating but we could name a million GOE examples that are questionable... e.g. Mao getting positive GOE for her clearly two-footed 3A in the SP, or Kostner getting mainly -2's for a fall (that wasn't even called as UR'ed), or Chan getting a +3 on his less-than-ideal 4T-3T in the SP.

As with Chan, the Germans and Kostner, it's evident that judges will use good PCS to prop up skaters, even with errors. This can be construed as cheating if they're deliberately exhibiting favouritism and not penalizing these skaters, while holding down cleaner skaters who might not be as artistically developed but still skate lights out.
 

mskater93

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
My solution to this would be to make the fall deduction subtract a percentage of the total segment score rather than a flat 1.0.
This would be easier than having different flat amounts for each level and each discipline.

I suggested something similar last year (and the year before) when there was the hoo-ha about winning with 5 falls. It should be a % off the TSS not just the TES because if you are doing a bucketload of transitions into and out of elements, you should suffer on both marks because more than likely the transitions into/out of your elements made you do it (fall)....:biggrin:

Also, I suggested such because it should be a risk-reward proposition. If you are going to risk going after the bigger elements, you get a bigger score but if you FAIL at them in some way, you should lose more. It's like gambling: if you play a nickel slot and you lose, you only lose a nickel and if you win, your winnings are moderate but if you play $100 slots and you lose, you lose $100 ($100 >>>>> $0.05) but if you win, your winnings will be much considerable. It still becomes your choice on how much and what to pack in the program.

AND a percentage is scalable. 1% of a 200 point program is 2 points (which is a Senior Men's World podium program score, let's say) and 1% of 100 points is 1 (which is a final round Senior lady's FS program at Worlds) and 1% of 50 points is 0.5 (which is about an average US Intermediate FS score) and 1% of 25 is 0.25 (which is about an average US Adult Gold FS score). Now, the Intermediate is less disadvantaged when trying that 2A for the first time in competition if she falls (only losing about 1/2 what was being lost before) and that Gold level skater is less disadvantaged when putting that 1A back in their program.
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
That % thing sets up a double standard though. It essentially means that falls should be more severe if the skater performs better overall, but for an inferior skater the falls are less of a deduction.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
That % thing sets up a double standard though. It essentially means that falls should be more severe if the skater performs better overall, but for an inferior skater the falls are less of a deduction.

This pinpoints what is wrong with the CoP. If we stick strictly to the principles on which the CoP was founded, we get screwy and unacceptable results. The only way to avoid this seems to be to compromise the CoPs basic idea.

To me, the conclusion is that the culprit is the basic idea of the Cop in the first place. Tinkering and tailoring will not make the problems go away.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
That % thing sets up a double standard though. It essentially means that falls should be more severe if the skater performs better overall, but for an inferior skater the falls are less of a deduction.

True, but the counterargument is that the better-performing skater can afford it better. The reason for proposing this change is that the 1.0 deduction is negligible at the elite level, especially for senior men, because the scores for everything else are so much higher at that level. At the upper end of the PCS range, the gaps between the best and the next-best skater can be large enough to cushion the skater with 9s against a skater with 8s so that falls won't have much if any impact on his placement. Even among the lower-ranked senior men, if a skater with PCS in the 5s falls a couple of times, he will be more likely to lose placements because the next-best skater with comparable technical content and no falls is likely to be closer in the PCS range.

Plus it makes the size of the fall deductions more commensurate with the points available for elements and PCS at lower levels, as mskater93 points out.
 
Top