More ISU Hearing Articles [Archive]

Eighteen

05-05-2002, 11:02 AM

Thanks for the links. The articles are very interesting.

My random thoughts ...

There was probably enough "evidence" to suggest that Didier has been applying pressure on his judges for some time, but judges can chose to succumb to the pressure or not - and to some extent pressure is a subjective thing. Unless he threatened some consequence for not voting a certain way, or the pressure was extreme I wonder about the penalty.

Part of the challenge of being in the spotlight relates to your ability to ensure your actions are above reproach and are seen to be above reproach. I don't think the the head of the French Federation was successful in this regard. I have no doubt other federations do this, but haven't gotten caught yet. The current system encourages this behaviour by its very structure. Until judges are independent of their federations, I think it will continue.

There was also probably enough "evidence" to suggest that the French judge used Didier as an excuse or a rationale for voting for the Russians. She may have felt pressured to vote for the Russians, but she may also have felt pressure to provide a rationale to anyone who may have challenged her decision. Again, pressure is subjective. She had no obligation to respond if someone was hounding her. The bottom line is that had she not cried "fragile", there would have been no duplicate medal, no investigation.

I think it is unfortunate that I have to be sceptical about the process, even though my gut tells me the ISU may have made a reasonable decision. Generally I take what the ISU has to say with a grain of salt. Speedy has been IMO spectacularly unimpressive and evasive. It makes me really wonder.

I think it is interesting that the hints around vote-swapping with the Russians weren't addressed. Perhaps there wasn't enough rumour and inuendo about it to justify the ISU taking that step. In some ways, the French are being scapegoated, if the investigation begins and ends with what they "seem" to have done, as opposed to the problems endemic to the system, including an investigation into the broad issue of vote-swapping, in this, or other events.

The Canadians and the British have been accused publically by LaGrange. I wonder if they will do anything to clear their names up. I doubt that they are evil doers, but their names have been put out there...

Finally, and I really hope someone responds to this, cause it has been bugging me. Everyone seems focused upon the French judge. This is understandable because she was the one who blurted something out. I think her marks were justifiable (although I would have placed S&P first). What I don't get are the marks of some of the other judges. Technically most judges put S&P first, and rightly so given the bauble on the jump and the insecure landings of the throws. Artisically, more judges gave it to B&S - arguable but justifiable. What lost it for S&P IMO was the fact that three judges tied them with the Chinese pair for presentation! As much as I enjoy this pair, I cannot justify them receiving the same artistic mark as S&P especially given their performance at the Olyies. Had those judges given S&P higher artistic marks than the chinese - we may not have had this contraversy. Regardless, I'd love to hear what the rationale for that is!