- Joined
- Sep 24, 2003
USFSA and WSF
- Thread starter thisthingcalledlove
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2003
How legitimate would the complaint have been? I don't remember how well they skated, so I am asking in earnest. If there was no possibility that the outcome would have been affected, then is it possible that she supported them, but was going to get the support that she needed? It sounds like a diificult decision to make, and if it would have not been upheld, we would have looked pretty whiny. Unless there is additional information that I am missing?
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Glacier - Howard did not even consider the legitimacy of the complaint. She saw it as a political question. Whether some fans thought they deserved third or not is irrelevant here.
How difficult would it be for her to do her job? Who cares if a skater seems to be whining? The point is she refused to look into a complaint and then got herself elected to the ISU Council. Whether it would have changed the result is also not relevant. It's the principle of the thing. :sheesh:
Joe
How difficult would it be for her to do her job? Who cares if a skater seems to be whining? The point is she refused to look into a complaint and then got herself elected to the ISU Council. Whether it would have changed the result is also not relevant. It's the principle of the thing. :sheesh:
Joe
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
As I recall, it was a real toss-up whether Ina & Zimmerman or Petrova & Tikhonov should have gotten the 4th place; personally, I prefered I&Z. Honestly, I can understand Howard -- a medal was in no way in contention (Shen & Zhao earned the bronze without a doubt), and the sport was still reeling from B&S vs. S&P scandal, so any protest was likely to be seen in this light. While I agree that she had a clear conflict of interest, perhaps in this particular case her decision was justified.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Pitchka - Again, I am speaking of Howard's job not the end result of the competition. IMO, Howard is now a member of the ISU Council because of her laxity in taking up a complaint, and she will do whatever is necessary to keep that position and maybe rise to the Chairman of the Council. In other words, she is, imo, capable of skirting a position. Do you trust her?
Joe
Joe
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2003
I wonder if she had backed them up with their protest, and if the "drug test" had not been so shady...would they still be eligible skaters today...
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Well, we haven't heard Ms. Howard's side of the story yet.
Before we rush to judgment I think we have to take into account the source of this article. The WSF was founded upon idealistic and unobjectionable defining principles, but basically it exists to hector, annoy, and be a thorn in the side of the ISU. I'm sure that we would come away with a different slant on this news story if it were written by officials of the USFSA or the ISU. Or for that matter, by a dispassionate and neutral observer, if such a thing exists.
There was a long feature about the WSF in the latest issue of International Figure Skating. The interviewer tried in vain to get the WSF people to mention anything they had ever done or plan to do. The article was not pro-ISU in any way, but it came to the conclusion that the WSF is extinct, except for an email address for Rod Pfenning, and an occasional blowing off of steam like this article appears to be.
Goodness knows the ISU has many faults and we need to address them as vigorously as possible. But diatribes like this shed more heat than light on the subject, IMHO.
There is also an excellent interview in the latest Spotlight on Skating magazine with Sonia Bianchetti. Bianchetti was chairman of the ISU Figure Skating for twenty years, was "ousted" from the ISU council in 1994 (I don't know on what grounds), and served as vice president of the WSF until her resignation this year. Ms. Bianchetti, too, says that the WSF is dead, essentially because the ISU just stomped all over it, punishing everyone associated with it and threatening any skaters who might have been in sympathy with it's aims. Because of this, Bianchetti says that "there was no possibility at all that the WSF could start working, because without the skaters, without the judges, what could it do?"
Bianchetti is writing a book that will be out later this year in which she promises to detail many of the scandals and skulduggery of the world of figure skating judging. She recounts a conversation with Didier Gailhaguet, when Gailhaguet first ran for the ISU council. She accused him of always trying to get "favors" for French competitors, "and you know this is wrong. "
Gailhauget responded, " I had to do it because otherwise the French team would not get the marks."
Anyway, I look forward to the publication of this book by a fierce ISU critic who has been behind the scenes for four decades.
Mathman
PS. Also reported in Spotlight on Skating: After Gailhauget stepped down as president of the French federation, he changed his mind at the last minute and ran for re-election. Marie-Reine LeGoungne was also competing fot the job. But instead the French federation elected a speed skater named Norbert Tourne.
The French Ice Sport Federation oversees both figure skating and speed skating, as well as bobshed, curling, luge, hockey, etc.
Before we rush to judgment I think we have to take into account the source of this article. The WSF was founded upon idealistic and unobjectionable defining principles, but basically it exists to hector, annoy, and be a thorn in the side of the ISU. I'm sure that we would come away with a different slant on this news story if it were written by officials of the USFSA or the ISU. Or for that matter, by a dispassionate and neutral observer, if such a thing exists.
There was a long feature about the WSF in the latest issue of International Figure Skating. The interviewer tried in vain to get the WSF people to mention anything they had ever done or plan to do. The article was not pro-ISU in any way, but it came to the conclusion that the WSF is extinct, except for an email address for Rod Pfenning, and an occasional blowing off of steam like this article appears to be.
Goodness knows the ISU has many faults and we need to address them as vigorously as possible. But diatribes like this shed more heat than light on the subject, IMHO.
There is also an excellent interview in the latest Spotlight on Skating magazine with Sonia Bianchetti. Bianchetti was chairman of the ISU Figure Skating for twenty years, was "ousted" from the ISU council in 1994 (I don't know on what grounds), and served as vice president of the WSF until her resignation this year. Ms. Bianchetti, too, says that the WSF is dead, essentially because the ISU just stomped all over it, punishing everyone associated with it and threatening any skaters who might have been in sympathy with it's aims. Because of this, Bianchetti says that "there was no possibility at all that the WSF could start working, because without the skaters, without the judges, what could it do?"
Bianchetti is writing a book that will be out later this year in which she promises to detail many of the scandals and skulduggery of the world of figure skating judging. She recounts a conversation with Didier Gailhaguet, when Gailhaguet first ran for the ISU council. She accused him of always trying to get "favors" for French competitors, "and you know this is wrong. "
Gailhauget responded, " I had to do it because otherwise the French team would not get the marks."
Anyway, I look forward to the publication of this book by a fierce ISU critic who has been behind the scenes for four decades.
Mathman
PS. Also reported in Spotlight on Skating: After Gailhauget stepped down as president of the French federation, he changed his mind at the last minute and ran for re-election. Marie-Reine LeGoungne was also competing fot the job. But instead the French federation elected a speed skater named Norbert Tourne.
The French Ice Sport Federation oversees both figure skating and speed skating, as well as bobshed, curling, luge, hockey, etc.
Last edited:
Mathman said:
If you want to hear the USFSA's side of the story, why don't you read the testimony of the USFSA's own witnesses at the grievance hearing? The complete transcript is on the WSF web site. Then you can form your own conclusions about what they say. You can also read the decision of the hearing panel who are supposed to be "dispassionate and neutral". At least, since the panel was appointed by the USFSA, they probably weren't biased in favor of the WSF.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
Instead of going into direct competition for control of the eligible sport, they could start an organization for professionals -- skaters who don't need the ISU -- and provide an alternative to sticking in the eligible ranks for a decade and an infusion of new talent into the professional ranks. The theory goes that interest in figure skating took a dive along with TV revenues because of the perception among NA audiences that judging was corrupt. A perfect way to launch an alternative pro competition is to show that the competitors will be judged fairly.Mathman said:
I don't know whether they'd be interested in competing in an WSF competition, but there's no love lost between sporting authorities (Federations and/or ISU) and Kyoko Ina, Todd Eldredge, Shae Lynn Bourne (post Oly bid), Surya Bonaly, Nicole Bobek, etc. I suspect that some of the European skaters would drop ISU competition if they could make a living doing professional competitions and get exposure, and the WSF could make it so that citizenship doesn't matter for Pairs and Dance. None of these are coaching, as far as I know, so the ISU's potential big stick in stigmatizing their pupils in eligible competition wouldn't be an issue.
Why would the WSF want judges beholden to Federations anyway? If they're so concerned, they could train their own judges. Surely there are qualified judges mired in regional competitions who would like better assignments and feel the Federations won't ever give it to them.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Hockeyfan, the fact that the WSF has not tried to do any of those things is, I think, why everyone is saying that the organization is dead in the water. Maybe they lack the resources.
The big knock on the WSF -- maybe this is ISU propoganda, I don't know -- is that it is in the pocket of IMG. (The WSF does not disclose it's sources of income.) Anyway, Scott Hamilton , Kristi Yamaguchi, and that crew were early supporters, so I had hoped at first that that connection would lead to some kind of WSF sponsorship of professional competitions. But it hasn't. Again, maybe the money just isn't there.
Dr. Frog, thanks for pointing me toward the actual transcripts of the hearing. Here is the (presumably neutral and unbiased) conclusion of the hearing officers, if anyone wants to read the result without inflamatory editorial comment. (Beware, it's in stupid PDF format -- why does PDF even exist?)
http://www.worldskating.org/news/Decision-of-Hearing-Panel.pdf
This report does seem to be written without predudice or off-putting rhetoric. It makes the USFSA look like total idiots. Which I think they were, in this instance.
Mathman
The big knock on the WSF -- maybe this is ISU propoganda, I don't know -- is that it is in the pocket of IMG. (The WSF does not disclose it's sources of income.) Anyway, Scott Hamilton , Kristi Yamaguchi, and that crew were early supporters, so I had hoped at first that that connection would lead to some kind of WSF sponsorship of professional competitions. But it hasn't. Again, maybe the money just isn't there.
Dr. Frog, thanks for pointing me toward the actual transcripts of the hearing. Here is the (presumably neutral and unbiased) conclusion of the hearing officers, if anyone wants to read the result without inflamatory editorial comment. (Beware, it's in stupid PDF format -- why does PDF even exist?)
http://www.worldskating.org/news/Decision-of-Hearing-Panel.pdf
This report does seem to be written without predudice or off-putting rhetoric. It makes the USFSA look like total idiots. Which I think they were, in this instance.
Mathman
S
SkateFan4Life
Guest
Joesitz said:
From reading this thread, it's crystal clear to me that Howard is woefully lacking in leadership skills - i.e. - she doesn't have the courage to take a stand when a stand needs to be taken. She's like so many "leaders" who just follow along and play up to the boss. Don't rock the boat, etc. People with that attitude should NEVER be in leadership positions, IMHO.
- Joined
- May 2, 2004
proceeding
If you look at the rules in the USFSA rulebook under grievance committee, it says the USFSA is to report the findings, who the grievant and grievance were against, and the "punishment"---it NEVER talks about showing the COMPLETE transcript which is not ethical in my opinion----NO grievance thus far has been open to the transcript to all---why---it is like a grand jury, not a court of law-----
also, the TEAM LEADER is supposed to make ALL PROTEST within 24 hours of the event in question-----not the PRESIDENT of the organization. READ THE RULES------when will all of you get the rules of procedure correct---reading rules DOES help---where does it give permission to give a transcript of a grievance proceeding??? I find this all about propaganda on the opposite side of the fence---so be fair in your analysis-----READ THE RULES
If you look at the rules in the USFSA rulebook under grievance committee, it says the USFSA is to report the findings, who the grievant and grievance were against, and the "punishment"---it NEVER talks about showing the COMPLETE transcript which is not ethical in my opinion----NO grievance thus far has been open to the transcript to all---why---it is like a grand jury, not a court of law-----
also, the TEAM LEADER is supposed to make ALL PROTEST within 24 hours of the event in question-----not the PRESIDENT of the organization. READ THE RULES------when will all of you get the rules of procedure correct---reading rules DOES help---where does it give permission to give a transcript of a grievance proceeding??? I find this all about propaganda on the opposite side of the fence---so be fair in your analysis-----READ THE RULES
On pages 232-234 of the Hearing Transcript, there is a discussion of the respondents' right to a copy of the transcript and what they may do with it. The chair of the hearing panel *explicitly* ruled that there were no restrictions on what Pfenning and Jackson could do with the transcript once the grievance proceedings were concluded. In other words, GCR 8.01 puts restrictions on what information the USFSA may reveal about grievance proceedings, but not the respondents' rights of free speech.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Well, as a skating fan who is not a lawyer (nor a hothead, I hope), I will let you all wrangle about THE RULES!!!!! What I am more concerned about is that the USFSA apparently just wasted $200,000 (I am a contributer) that could have been spent in ways more in keeping with the mission of the organization.joesk8judg said:
As the commission concluded, the case against the two respondants failed to meet the burden of proof and leaves the impression that it was based on nothing more than a petty and personal vendetta.
Mathman
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2003
Joesitz said:
Hmmm...I think that it is relevant whether it would have changed the end result or not. As far as how difficult it would be for her to do her job, I am not sure. I have not skated a lap in her skates. Backatcha :sheesh:
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Glacierskater said:
I love that backatcha. :agree:
You won't mind if I use in the future. :yes: I see the matter as being whether or not an official is obliged to take up a complaint regardless of how difficult it is as part of the official's duties. Why then, should there be such a post for an official? I don't see this as an outcome of the complaint unless there is hanky panky. There is a principle here for all complaints.
Hypothetically, if you had a complaint and went to an official, and the official said I can't consider this complaint and not give any explanation, would you be satisfied with that response?
Joe
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2003
Joesitz said:I love that backatcha. :agree:
Hypothetically, if you had a complaint and went to an official, and the official said I can't consider this complaint and not give any explanation, would you be satisfied with that response?
Joe
Joe,
Of course you may use it. And I love your quote at the bottom. I love the song, and I love the adaptation for skating.
Yes, to answer your question. I would be upset if I was told that a complaint would not be investigated, and there was no reason given. I also understand that sometimes you have to choose the battles that you fight wisely. However, we have a repsonsibility to be ethical as well. Self servitude is not ethical. I still don't know that this is the case though.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
To me the scandalous thing is not the handling of the "we wuz robbed" protest. In every competition there are skaters who believe they should have been placed higher by the judges. That is the nature of a judged sport.
What bothers me a lot more is the continued effort of the USFSA to press the totally discredited case against Pfenning and Jackson. The USFSA has already spent more than $200,000 on this silly and vindictive affair, and the most recent news is that they have decided to appeal the verdict of the commission that went against them.
The moribund WSF poses no threat to the USFSA. The USSFA should just forget it and get on with the business of promoting fingure skating.
Mathman
What bothers me a lot more is the continued effort of the USFSA to press the totally discredited case against Pfenning and Jackson. The USFSA has already spent more than $200,000 on this silly and vindictive affair, and the most recent news is that they have decided to appeal the verdict of the commission that went against them.
The moribund WSF poses no threat to the USFSA. The USSFA should just forget it and get on with the business of promoting fingure skating.
Mathman
Similar threads
- Locked
