"Open Letter" from Skate Canada re: Interim Judging

[Lee]

http://www.skatecanada.ca/english/new/openletter.html

Edited to provide a direct link

[Louis]

Quote from the article:

There has been no evidence presented to date to indicate that the accuracy of the results of the competitions held this season have been jeopardized as a result of the implementation of UP29.

Of course there's no evidence -- everything is secret. That's exactly the point of secret judging. I'm sorry to see Coburn backpedalling.

[Lee]

How do you figure she's backpedalling? I didn't see anything in this open letter that is inconsistent with the articles posted in the past week.

She says exactly the same thing here that she was reported to have said in the various articles -- there is a problem with the transparency of the current marking system -- people want to be able to match up the tech and presentation scores and see ordinals at the venues -- we already get ordinals on TV. Skaters and coaches also want a way to gain more specific feedback from judges.

The initial Skate Canada proposal (the 'interim' system) was accepted by the ISU Congress in Kyoto because the American contingent couldn't find a way to adequately explain their proposed system to the assembled delegates. Neither were the delegates prepared to accept the Aussie proposal. It wasn't until the Aussies -- and other feds -- looked to the SC proposal as a way to break the apparent deadlock, that it was even seriously considered. The Canadian proposal certainly had no mention in any of the articles leading up to Kyoto.

The interim system was brought in by a majority of members of the ISU, not by the ISU executive council itself. ALL the members who voted in favour of this current method hold responsibility for it.

The initial purpose of the proposal was (and remains) the protection of the judges to allow them to judge without undue pressure from any source. Those who claim all it does is allow judges to cheat assume that most of the judges ARE unethical. That is a crock of.... The vast majority of the judges are honest and do what they do for the skaters. It takes them a lot of work, time and dedication to get where they are and to denigrate the whole lot of them based on a couple bad eggs is just plain wrong.

The 'open letter' from SC seeks to see problems noted above resolved in time for this year's World Championships. Since SC people were the initial authors of the proposal, it seems rather fitting such 'amendments' come from them

As for your quote, Louis...if the results reflect the actual performances this year, how could there possibly be any suspicion of cheating????

Oh (not directed at anyone in particular)...and spare me the the song and dance about the 'randomness' by which judges' scores are selected. There is randomness every time a panel is chosen from those names submitted by various federations. There was even more randomness in the way the dance panels were selected up until this year. The only difference is that some of those judges whose marks aren't being used are actually AT the event -- and geez, maybe gaining even more experience at judging big events?

Back to the subject at hand -- the issues Coburn addresses are legitimate concerns: lack of feedback for skaters, and lack of knowing what ordinals are given within the venue. SC has approached the ISU with these concerns. What happens next is up to the ISU.

[Louis]

Originally posted by Lee

Those who claim all it does is allow judges to cheat assume that most of the judges ARE unethical. That is a crock of.... The vast majority of the judges are honest and do what they do for the skaters. It takes them a lot of work, time and dedication to get where they are and to denigrate the whole lot of them based on a couple bad eggs is just plain wrong.

The vast majority of judges I've talked to -- scratch that, ALL of the judges I've talked to -- welcome the opportunity to justify their marks and dislike the secret system.

As for your quote, Louis...if the results reflect the actual performances this year, how could there possibly be any suspicion of cheating????

Most would agree that the results of the 1999 Worlds pairs competition reflected the actual performances, yet there was definitely cheating there. The 1998 Olympics dance competition and the 2002 Olympics pairs competitions are other competitions where people have vigorously defended the results, yet again there was cheating going on. The ends DO NOT justify the means. And, under the present interim system, we do not see the means. That's the problem.

[Lee]

So...what would you have done differently? Left things as they were?

The media, the IOC -- everybody and their dog was clamouring for a quick fix to the problem. The delegates, in all their infinite wisdom, couldnt' get their collective acts together to decide what to do -- for crying out loud, the US presented a proposal regarding 'ethical' behaviour and then couldn't define what that was!!!!

Speedy has certainly pulled a fast one by claiming the new CoP will be implemented next season, of that there is no question. That being said, the CoP shows a great deal of promise in the initial trials it's been given at select events this year. There is certainly more objectivity involved than a personal/geographic preference for 'style.'

That an effective method of protecting judges from undue pressure is required is obvious.

What *isn't* obvious is that with all the yiping, yorping and complaining going on, what could have possibly been put in the place of the interim system to give the judges some security until something more long-term is created. I certainly haven't seen any proposals put forward.

I'm sure all the 'honest' judges would welcome the opportunity to explain their marks. But it's some of those same honest judges who came forward last spring talking about the pressures they faced to judge in a certain way. At least for the time being, they have the ability to judge without 'big brother' looking over their shoulders. Until the feds can collectively come up with a system that will effectively protect judges and allow them to do what they've trained to do, other means must be used. If that means you and I don't know which judge gave Sally Salchow her 5.4/5.5, so be it. I want the judges to feel they can judge the performances. I don't know most of those people from Adam to begin with, and if they're all ISU judges, they've all passed the ISU judging exams (which are NOT a 'walk in the park'), and are therefore completely qualified to judge the events, regardless of their country of origin.

If you asked the judges from specific countries, I bet they'd say the 'anonymous' system beats the daylights out of having their every score questioned, analyzed and suspected.

But, Louis...you still haven't explained how you though Coburn was backpedalling...

[Wind]

Protect the judges? Come on, these volunteers need to get backbones and need to stand by their marks. Protect them from what? This is a sport not war. They are not weapons inspectors and this is not the UN, however you might think so given how self-important some judges and the ISU have made themselves. If you get the boot because you did what should be done, so be it. The athletes and the sport need the protection. Bad judges need to be exposed. It only takes a few to spoil the whole bunch and everyone is starting to rot. Reform the system if you must but make the judges accountable and make reform or new systems transparent. The athletes deserve nothing less. The public won’t accept anything less. The sport will continue the downward spiral otherwise.

[adrianchew]

Can someone clarify if the interim system is exactly as per the original SC proposal or is it an altered format? IIRC - the original proposal was for the judging panel to be randomly selected prior to a competition beginning, but I doubt if it began at first with wanting the marks to be anonymous?

[Lee]

The current system in use is as Skate Canada proposed it; a panel of 14 judges would judge the skaters, but for each phase of the event, up to 9 of those judges' marks would actually be used to calculate the results. The selection of the 9 used would be made randomly by the computer software. OBO is still used to calculate the results and the 9 judges' marks do result in ordinals (just curious how one would gain access to hack into the event computers, since they are not connected to computers outside the venue??????).

The anonymity of the procedure was a response to the outcry from any number of judges who said the pressures from either federations, other judges or coaches were almost impossible to deal with. Until a more objective, less manipulatable (is that even a word???) system could be developed, Skate Canada officials felt this the best way to ensure the judges' ability to do their best jobs for the skaters. By keeping the judges' marks 'anonymous,' no retribution from outside could be applied.

The judges' marks/performance is still reviewed by the ISU, and those who are out of line will be dealt with. Some would have us believe that there are conspiracies and dirty deals behind every judge; however this is far from the truth. Most would prefer to be left alone to judge the events using the expertise they have gained over many years.

As with any hastily-adopted system of doing anything, quirks and bugs may be found. SC has called for a couple of these things to be addressed by the ISU, hopefully in time for Worlds. Whether or not that will happen, only time will tell.

[Aaron W]

Originally posted by Lee
The judges' marks/performance is still reviewed by the ISU, and those who are out of line will be dealt with. ]

That's laughable. :roll: What has the ISU done to give the skaters, the federations, and the public any reason to trust it? Does anyone honestly think much would have been done by the ISU about the judging situation in SLC? Had it been up to them, they probably would have been just has happy to sweep it under the rug and not admit that improper things were happening behind the scene. It was only through public pressure that the problems couldn't be swept under the rug.

I want accountability and not just by an organization (the ISU) that has given me no reason to trust its leadership capabilites in the past.