THEY CHOSE "ZERO TOLERANCE" !
The bi-ennial Congress of the IAAF today chose to give all athletes no "second chance", particularly when competing in non-Combined Events sprints. In spite of a number of exhortations from the floor to reject the proposal at this time, it was passed by approx. 2 : 1.
Unfairly, comparisons were made with Swimming starts, although it is largely an indoor sport with fewer distractions and does not even use the same starting instructions or position.
Other reference was made to the use of zero tolerance on starts in the NCAA (US College system). But of course they have not travelled half-way round the world to compete, and are unlikely to have the prospect of being on their blocks with the world record-holder in the next lane !
UNFAIR CHOICE of QUOTES.
To make his point more strongly, the main proposer used quotes from athletes and coaches generally arguing FOR a change. But the magazine "Spikes" from which he was quoting actually had a majority of quoted contributions AGAINST the proposal.
NO ALLOWANCE for BEGINNERS or NERVES !
When the proposers say they are only thinking of making it fairer for the bulk of athletes, removing the possibility of some "cheats" using the first chance (current rules) to make their opponents more nervy or slower to react, what about the majority of competitors who get an adrenalin rush at start time, or are trying to gain experience and improve performance ?
Certainly in many countries the bulk of their athletes are of school-age and are NOT experienced. Is the expectation that we will change the rules for them, i.e. use the current wording and not heed the proposal ?
WHERE FROM IS THE PRESSURE ?
The combination of the Technical Commission plus Promotion and Marketing virtually gave the game away ! The point is to make the sport (at the HIGHEST LEVEL ???) more attractive to TV, i.e. tightly scheduled with no possibility of delays plus a package of continuous activity to keep the audience interested and entertained. And so a blanket decision is made to facilitate this in the hope of generating more income.
The sport, as was argued strongly earlier in the day, is supposed to resist outside pressures. So why did no-one suggest changing some of the rules ONLY FOR TELEVISED COMPETITIONS ??? Thus the zero tolerance on false starts could be used only at SPECIFIC MEETINGS, together with a reduction to 3-4 attempts in throws and horizontal jumps, and to 7-8 attempts in vertical jumps ??? In addition, maybe a maximum of EIGHT competitors in any event ? And deliberate pace-making, etc. BUT DID THEY HAVE TO CHANGE THE BASIC CURRENT RULE TO ACHIEVE THIS ? Of course not, but as was observed by an IAAF Council member after the vote, "the decision has been made" !
MONEY ? From where ?
It is totally understood that TV puts huge sums into Athletics, and all the 213 Member Federations benefit from this annually. The point is, in this case, that it was NOT NECESSARY to change the rule in order to create a more attractive (and lucrative) package.
AND THE IMPLEMENTATION ?
This is meant to be implemented as soon as Jan. 01 2010. But how much latitude can be used by the MFs or Areas ? If we continue to use the current rule in domestic competition, how can we expect our international athletes to be ready for the change they will experience overseas ? But of course we need to stick with the current rule to enable our young athletes, the next generation of stars, to gain experience and confidence at home first.
TWO SETS of RULES ?
There is talk of the official possibility of two sets of Rules, one set to be applied at the highest level, and a different set to be used at lower level Meetings. This surely is an admission that maybe zero tolerance was NOT the way to go for the majority. But now we are all stuck with it !
IMAGES.
The images are of the Congress Hall in Berlin, OAA Executive Director Yvonne with three new OAA shirts,
and others from OAA enjoying the Congress Dinner.
Last Modified on 03/09/2009 21:29