 |
Return to Writings
index
Cost savings at ISU events
by Sonia Bianchetti
May 2009
ISU Communications numbers 1561, 1562 and 1563, containing the
decisions of the Council taken during their winter meeting held in Los
Angeles on the occasion of the 2009 World Championships, have been
published a few days ago.
I am shocked and appalled by the irresponsible actions taken by the
ISU Council under the pretext of cost cutting measures, in view of the
difficult economic situation which, while not meeting the purpose will
only bring long term damage to the sport.
Communication 1562 announces the reduction of the number of skaters
who qualify for the final free, as follows:
- World Senior and Junior Championships: first 24 Men and Ladies, 16 pairs and 20 dance couples;
- European Championships: first 20 Men and Ladies,16 pairs and 16 dance couples;
- Four Continents: first 20 Men and Ladies, 12 pairs and 12 dance couples.
Besides, the host Member will not have any longer the right to enter
their representatives in case they did not otherwise qualify them. I
wonder what will the reaction of the Members be when they realize all
this.
When Cinquanta announced in Los Angeles that he planned to reduce
the number of competitors at the Worlds by establishing tough new
qualifying standards because “If the standard of skating is so poor,
the ISU should change.... This is a championship, not a festival”, I
applauded to his decision. But it seems to me, that with the decision
in Communication 1562, the ISU is going in the opposite direction.
Instead of cutting the number of skaters among the weakest ones, they
have cut four or more skaters among those who, in principle, are at
least of an acceptable standard.
The alleged money saving is really absurd, while the damage to the
skaters and the Members is enormous. The national federations will be
burdened with nearly impossible travel arrangements, particularly for
the athletes who do not qualify for the free skating and the free
dance and are supposed to leave immediately after the event. Has
anybody considered the problem of who will accompany these young
skaters, perhaps only 16 or 17 years old, who have to leave by
breakfast the morning after the short program or the original dance?
Are they supposed to travel alone, as by flying overseas with
connecting flights, example ? Who will be responsible for them?
Not to mention that all these excessively severe restrictions will
totally spoil the atmosphere of the championships for the skaters as
well as for the officials.
The ISU has “no money”, true. There is an economic
crisis, true. But perhaps there was a better and more logical way to
cut the costs, while waiting for a qualifying system.
Since the ISU Council has often taken unpopular decisions without
consulting the Members, to me a better way would have been, for
instance, to decide that the board and lodging expenses for the
skaters would only be paid for the competitors who placed, let's say,
among the first 30 or so.. I am pretty sure that in this case the
national federations, who are perfectly aware of the skating standard
of their representatives, and therefore are sure that they will not
meet the minimum standards, would not enter their skaters and if they
did enter them, the cost would not be carried by the ISU The number of
entries would surely be reduced, as well as the costs for the ISU and
the Members; and the general standard of the events improved.
But even more shocking for me is the decision that, in the final, the
first group to skate (starting numbers from 1–5 or 1–6 depending
on the Championship) , in all disciplines and all championships, will
skate in a separate session in the afternoon, while the other groups
will skate in the evening!!! I have no words to express this horror.
I just feel embarrassed thinking of a group of five or six poor young
boys or girls skating alone in the afternoon, in front of an empty
arena. It is just outrageous to me.
How is it possible that any responsible leaders of the international
governing body for figure skating could conceivably decide to divide a
competition, relegating half of the free skating and free dance
competition to a separate and earlier performance time, under
different conditions, with no audience at all? And what about the
officiating ? Can anyone call this a fair competition?
Cinquanta claims that "Judging is absolute", but this is just
ridiculous. You can bet that the skaters from the separate and earlier
sessions will have little, or no chance at all to move up under this
disastrous scenario. One positive aspect of IJS is that skaters have
moved up seven or more places in the Free Skate after a poor Short
Program. Thus, skaters in the earlier session had, up until this
change, the possibility to move up. This is likely to be lost if the
competition is held in two separate pieces. The ISU Council also
decided to reduce the number of judges in the panels for the Olympic
Winter Games in Vancouver officially to bring them in line with the
provisions applicable for the ISU Championships. The panel of judges
for each discipline will consist of 9 judges per segment ( ISU
Communication 1563). Under the current system , after the random draw
of two judges and the deletion of the highest and lowest marks, only 5
judges will actually decide the outcome of competitions. With five
judges instead of seven the importance of each mark is increased by
40%. Each judge's mistake has more influence on the final result and
also increases the opportunity for improper influence through the use
of PCS scores. The number of judges for the ISU Championships was cut
in October 2008 to save money. But for the Olympic Games the problem
of costs does not exist. The judges are at the expense of the
International Olympic Committee. Question: does the decision to cut
the number of judges in such an important event just to conform with
another questionable decision make sense? The Olympic Games have
always been, and are, governed by different rules than the ISU
Championships. The qualification of the skaters is different, the
draws of the panels of judges are different, so what if the number of
judges is different but gives better guarantees of fair judging and
results? What is sure is that the reputation and the integrity of the
sport will suffer. Never before have such important decisions been
taken outside the Congress, without even consulting the Members. How
can all this occur? At the top of each of these Communications it is
written: “The Council, after consultation with the ISU Legal
advisors, decided, based on the powers granted to the Council in the
Constitution Article 17 paragraph q) (i) ”. Article 17 of the
Constitution, “Functions and Powers of the Council” includes
paragraph q) (i) which reads: “In case that exceptional circumstances
so require and warrant, modification of any rule in the General
Regulations, Special Regulations and in all Technical Rules;”. The
Council, therefore, has the power to adopt any changes to the
Regulations if “exceptional circumstances so require”. Frankly
speaking it seems to me that the conditions under which the Council
has acted hardly qualify as exceptional circumstances. But how could
it happen that the Members handed over to the Council all their rights
and powers? This rule was proposed by the ISU Council to the Congress
in 2006. The President, Ottavio Cinquanta, reassured the Members that
it would be applied only in case of extreme urgency. The Members
accordingly approved. The Congress was fooled. And it was not the
first time that this has happened. I am sure that the Members this
time will react appropriately. There is a saying: "You can fool
some of the people all of the time; you can fool all of the people
some of the time; but you can not fool all of the people all of the
time."
At the next Congress in 2010 the Members have two options: either to
propose to cancel all future Congresses, because they will be totally
useless or to cancel this infamous rule.
I am confident that the second option will prevail.
|
