ISU vs. Joannie Rochette

[Isk8NYC]

I don't understand: why won't the ISU sanction Joannie Rochette's tribute television show to her mother?

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/vancouver/blog/fourth_place_medal/post/Skate-officials-may-not-allow-Rochette-to-skate-?urn=oly,227991

Is it the last vestiges of "amateur" versus "professional" skating?

Not for nothing, but Yu-Na Kim had a skating special in Korea last season - Michelle Kwan even skated in it, so I don't get this move on the ISU's part.

[Skittl1321]

I think it's wrong, but not surprising.
Joannie is skipping World's. The ISU is always harsh on skaters who don't do events, but then skate elsewhere.

[Artemis]

Sanctioning Joannie might be moot. She's 24, I had just assumed she would retire/go pro after Worlds anyway. So any sanction from the ISU, though petty, could be meaningless.

But sanctioning Skate Canada? That seems even more pointless. They should pressure her to skate when she isn't physically or emotionally fit? :roll:

[madame x]

Being an avid fan of "The View" show on ABC, I seem to remember Elizabeth Hasslebek saying she was co-hosting the show and Joannie was mentioned as one of the skaters....and I'm pretty sure this was way before the Olympics.I believe now the show is promoting Joannie's performance as a tribute to her mom's memory, maybe ABC is looking for higher ratings with Joannie's inimaginable loss of her mother. Anywho, wouldn't someone have known way back then that a sanction was needed? Either ABC, Skate Canada, Joannie or her coach, etc...someone?

[sk8rdad59]

A sanction is always required for an amateur skater to skate in any show that makes money, even a club ice show must obtain a basic sanction for their members to skate in it if there is an admission involved and additional sanctions for any amateur or pro skater that they pay as a guest.

It is Skate Canada's decision regarding a sanction for a Canadian Skater to participate in an otherwise unsanctioned event not the ISU's. Hersh's article clearly quotes the ISU representative stating that. The ISU actually appears to have simply informed Skate Canada that they had not sanctioned the show therefore making it Skate Canada's responsibility to sanction Joannie's skate.

Mr. Hersh seems to insist on turning everything the ISU does into a conspiracy theory and frequently uses the un-named sources card to "support" his reporting.

[Isk8NYC]

I think the ISU sanction for the event was being withheld deliberately. That's why I didn't understand why they didn't just give their blessing and move on instead of making a deal out of it, especially in this case. Competing is far more stressful than doing a televised show with retakes and the ISU is stupid if they can't figure out why Rochette would choose to skip Worlds at this time in her life.

My link doesn't mention Hersh, but I don't think it's unfair to point out that the ISU pressures skaters to participate in their Grand Prix and Worlds competitions. In this case, Rochette was choosing another event over going to Worlds. That's the same thing Lysacek chose, yet he wasn't given any backlash. They used it against Asada with the 4CCs preceding the Olympics.

To me, that smacks of just wanting big name skaters to sell tickets for the ISU events. That's really not what they should be focused on as an organization for athletics.

In any case, the ISU backed down, rightfully so:
http://www.canada.com/health/punish+Rochette/2692709/story.html

[sk8rdad59]

The article you link referred to an article published by the Chicago Tribune which was written by Phil Hersh. Thus my comments. Lysaceks choice to do DWTS is different it is not a skating event a thus is outside of the ISU's control.

The ISU wanting to protect it's financial interests is directly related to is ability to support it's athletes as an organization. I fully understand their concerns but someone was definitely being overly officious in this particular case.

[rvi5]

It is Skate Canada's decision regarding a sanction for a Canadian Skater to participate in an otherwise unsanctioned event not the ISU's. Hersh's article clearly quotes the ISU representative stating that. The ISU actually appears to have simply informed Skate Canada that they had not sanctioned the show therefore making it Skate Canada's responsibility to sanction Joannie's skate.

Are you saying Skate Canada has the authority to override ISU rules without ISU consent? As I understand it, Skate Canada was waiting for the ISU to first clearly indicate they are willing to waive the rule. Otherwise, Skate Canada would be afoul of the rules themselves.

[sk8rdad59]

Are you saying Skate Canada has the authority to override ISU rules without ISU consent? As I understand it, Skate Canada was waiting for the ISU to first clearly indicate they are willing to waive the rule. Otherwise, Skate Canada would be afoul of the rules themselves.

Rule 102
2. Definition of an ineligible person
A person becomes ineligible to participate in ISU activities and competitions by:
i) skating or officiating without the prior express authorization of the respective Member, in any capacity in a Skating competition, exhibition or tour in any of the sport disciplines of the ISU;
ii) skating or officiating in a competition conducted by Officials (Referees, Technical Controllers, Technical Specialists, Judges, Starters, Competitors Stewards, etc.) not on the approved list of the respective Member or on the ISU approved list;
iii) skating or officiating in an event not sanctioned by a Member and/or the ISU; or
iv) otherwise violating this Rule 102.

Member in these rules mean the member fed (Skate Canada in this case). This isn't overriding the ISU but the normal process. That being said:

Rule 136
6. Members with Skaters who place within the first ten places at any ISU Championships and who continue in the following season to participate in Skating competitions and/or exhibitions as eligible Skaters, shall have the obligation, when entering or authorizing the participation of such Skaters in Skating competitions and/or exhibitions, to give first priority to participation of such Skaters in those ISU Events which are the subject of ISU television and commercial contracts as notified to Members. Members who fail to comply with the above obligation, and Skaters who refuse to participate in such ISU Events, without medical or other justified reasons, shall be subject to sanctions under the relevant rules.

"Sanctions under the relevant rules" could be interpreted as loss of eligibility as per rule 102. This is likely were the concern really lay and since the original report came out over a weekend it was likely that Skate Canada had hardly had time to clarify the issue with the ISU. Likewise the ISU would be concerned that a skater whom they consider a drawing card was going to do an unsanctioned event over an important ISU event. The implication was that the ISU may have originally thought that Joannie was an actual competitor in "Thin Ice" not simply an exhibition skate.

[rvi5]

iii) skating or officiating in an event not sanctioned by a Member and/or the ISU;

Does this line indicate 'the event must be sanctioned by both Skate Canada "AND" the ISU, or the ISU alone'? The line seems to imply a "member" can not sanction an event on it's own. If the "member" "OR" the ISU could sanction the event, the use of the word "AND" would be irrelavent. Also, I can not envision the ISU giving up power to the members. What would happen if the member never said "no", and sanctioned everything in sight?

According to articles I have read, Skate Canada indicated the ISU had not clearly said they would waive the rule until recently. Unfortunately, the story hit the media before everything had been clarified.

[sk8rdad59]

Does this line indicate 'the event must be sanctioned by both Skate Canada "AND" the ISU, or the ISU alone'? The line seems to imply a "member" can not sanction an event on it's own. If the "member" "OR" the ISU could sanction the event, the use of the word "AND" would be irrelavent. Also, I can not envision the ISU giving up power to the members. What would happen if the member never said "no", and sanctioned everything in sight?

According to articles I have read, Skate Canada indicated the ISU had not clearly said they would waive the rule until recently. Unfortunately, the story hit the media before everything had been clarified.

I'm not a lawyer so will not comment on the symantics of how and/or is used here. I do know that a Member Federation does not have to get the ISU's permission on any and every event that a skater skates in. Skate Canada regularly sanctions it's skaters for club Ice Shows and the ISU does not get involved in these.

The issue that concerned Skate Canada was that the ISU could have used rule 136 to implement sanctions (which presumably include making a skater ineligible) because if Skate Canada gave a sanction for "Thin Ice" it would be not be giving priority to participation of such Skaters in those ISU Events which are the subject of ISU television and commercial contracts