Hi ISU_Figure

I read a worrying proposal in the SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS FOR A MAIL VOTE IN REPLACEMENT OF THE 58th ORDINARY CONGRESS 2021. I have yet to find the time to read the entire document, but what the representatives of Canada, China and Italy are proposing is something that goes against all principles of sports ethics. The proposal is this:

Rightly you adopted the Athletes’ Rights and Responsibilities Declaration. I remember to you that in the Declaration is clearly written that it’s a right to the athletes to Be part of a transparent, fair and clean sporting environment, particularly one that fights against doping and competition manipulation, and provides for transparent judging/refereeing, and that they has the right to Access general information on athlete and competition-related matters in a timely and clear manner.

How can not disclosing the names of the judges ensure the integrity of the event? How can the non-publication, or the delayed publication, of the protocols do this?

After the Salt Lake City scandal

a new system was worked out. There was to be no more subjective judging. Everything was to have points awarded […]

But the real goal was something else, and it was the most insidious element possible.

Everything was to be hidden from public scrutiny!

No longer would the press or anyone, including you and me, be able to uncover a scandal. No longer would anyone know what score a particular judge had awarded. No longer would anyone know which judge’s score had been counted, which also meant there was no way to know how each country had voted.(pagg. 180-181)

[…] the IJS does indeed succeed in keeping everyone from knowing what’s going on, and the press from celebrating another scandal. Unfortunately, it does not keep the judges from cheating. There are still frequent requests made of judges from judges to other countries! What the IJS does do is make it impossible for anyone to tell if cheating has occurred, which means OC’s [Ottavio Cinquanta] object to never have another public scandal like the one that happened in Salt Lake City has been accomplished.

Nice going! (pag. 190)

Am I pessimistic with these claims? When I’m not publishing stats, a lot of the stuff I write comes from books written by people who know figure skating a little more than I do. An episode that I have mentioned repeatedly is that of the exchange of signals between Sviatoslav Babenko and Alfred Koritek. The episode is quite famous, but since it dates back to the 1999 World Championship, the 6.0 scoring code was still in place. Among those who have talked about it is Joy Goodwin in the book The Second Mark.

I have already mentioned this book a couple of times, but when I find the time I will dedicate a third post to it. Babenko and Koritek were filmed, the ISU could not say that nothing had happened. What did the ISU do? He postponed the investigation.

The ISU would wait until after the World Championships to investigate wheter the pairs result had been tainted by cheating, so as not to “distract the athletes.” Someone pointed out that the athletes involved had already finished competing

This quote comes from Goodwin’s book, for a more complete story of the episode I refer you to the post of which I have inserted the link above. The investigation was postponed so that the press lot interest and the judges get away with smallest sanctions. Delaying the publication of information on the competitions does not ensure its correctness, it only ensures that the press gets distracted and starts talking about other things.

When faced with the 2002 Scandal of Salt Lake City and the need to create a new judging system, OC made secrecy the name of the game. His primary goal was to prevent further scandals. (pag. 229)

Of course, if the press cannot write anything because he does not have the information necessary to give information and can only make assumptions, and when the information is made available no one is interested in that information anymore and therefore no one writes anything anymore, there is no scandal. This does not mean that the competitions were fair.

For example, I looked at the protocol of the Ladies’ short program at the 2016 World Championships. It was still not possible to say which marks were awarded by each judge, as the marks were published in random order. I looked at a few marks, only those of three skaters, and I have some serious doubt. Did all the judges see the same programs? No, because for both Anna Pogorilaya and Ashley Wagner the difference between the highest and lowest marks is really big.

As for Mao Asada I would really like to know how a judge could give her a -3 on the triple loop. Go watch the video, and then ask yourself if that jump really deserved a -3. Or even a -2. Here, I would like to be able to go to those judges and ask them for an explanation of the mark. I can’t do this not only because I don’t know any judge, someone else could have asked the question … if only we knew who had awarded those marks.

While we may not know who awarded every mark, we do know the names of the judges who were in that panel of judges, and it seems fair to me to remember them.

Mr. Igor PROKOP, SVK
Ms. Na Young AHN, KOR
Ms. Eva SZILAGYI, HUN
Ms. Jana BAUDYSOVA, CZE
Ms. Nicole VAN GERWEN-MAAS, NED
Ms. Jean SENFT, CAN
Ms. Prisca BINZ-MOSER, SUI
Mr. Paolo PIZZOCARI, ITA
Ms. Leena KURRI, FIN

When the ISU decided to make the marks given by the judges public, it took a very good step towards transparency. Not the only necessary. We see too many absurd marks, and too few punishments, to be able to say that the competitions are fair. But it was an important step towards fairness. Other steps forward would be the disqualification of biased judges.

Neither judges nor countries were penalized severely enough for transgressions.

If you are a skating judge convicted multiple times of cheating, or if your country (Federation) is convicted of multiple offenses, you should both be out! (pag. 184)

I have already mentioned, in a post written in Italian, an episode from the past. I repeat it now, in English, but for those interested the old post contains all the names of suspended judges in the ’70s. And

in 1977 the Soviet Union (which at that time, incidentally, had the ability to control and did control many other countries and their Federations included in what was known as the “Eastern Bloc,” such as Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Rumania, et cetera) was suspended and for one year (1978) was not allowed to send any judges to any ISU event. One year was clearly not long enough […]

Even if it was too little, it was the way to control errant folks and Federations. (pag. 184)

Did the judges of a federation constantly vote in a biased way? The entire federation was suspended. Of course, in this way even honest judges could not judge the competition for a year, but it was a way of telling the federations that that way of judging was not acceptable and that in addition to having to train their judges better they could not afford to do pressuring them to vote in a certain way. Because who is it that pressures the judges. I? The fans? No, the federations.

It was also well known that many judges were honest but were totally under the thumb of their Federation, which could many times be under the thumb of their governement and had to bow when asked to bow. (pag. 184)

And if you don’t believe me, try reading Amy Shipley’s article Skating Judge Alleges More Misconduct. The article is mainly about Didier Gailhaguet, but it raises a number of unpleasant suspicions. We must remember that

judges are reluctant to speak up about pressure from their federations because their presidents control judging assignments.

It’s not me, it’s not the fans, lobbying the judges, it’s the federations, and they know who they sent to the competitions. They don’t need the information to be made public to lobby if they want to. Indeed, for those who want to cheat it is easier to do so if the informations are confidential.

An ISU official said that, even if Gailhaguet were guilty of pressuring judges in Salt Lake City, his behavior was not exceptional among federation presidents and therefore might not merit a major punishment. “Didier has been around so long — he isn’t any worse than anyone else. . . . He’s right in line with about 10 others.”

WHAT?

Therefore, if the unfair behavior of a judge, or of a federation, is unfair, there is no problem because his behavior was not exceptional? How about to punish them all? As Meri-Jo Borzilleri wrote in 2014, in her article Olympic Figure Skating Controversy: Judging System Is Most to Blame for Uproar,

The new scoring system, which was supposed prevent judging shenanigans, has, in one way, made cheating easier.

[…] Officials said anonymity would protect judges from retribution from their own federations for not favoring a home skater at a competition, or not agreeing to swap votes with another country.

[…] That’s a problem. Figure skating’s credibility suffers when its judges are not held accountable for the marks they hand out.

The judges must be accountable. We should be able to ask why a judge awarded Asada’s triple loop a -3, and we should be able to ask why each mark was awarded. If they have awarded the marks according to the rules, the judges should have nothing to hide. And even admitting a mistake … you can recognize a mistake and try to do better next time. At the very least, a better training of the judge may be necessary, there is nothing wrong with that. We all make mistakes and, with the right effort, we can improve. And if a judge is systematically wrong, he can be suspended. Anonymity, or saying only after the competition the names of the judges, publishing the protocol after some time, does not help. In the same article

[Ashley] Wagner said, “It’s confusing and we need to make it clear for people. I’m speechless. This sport needs to be held accountable if it wants more people to believe in it.”

This sport needs to be held accountable if it wants more people to believe in it. All information relating to the judges or the evaluation of the competitions must be made public. Let’s look at this scene.

This is the kiss & cry after the short program of the 2017 World Championship. If we look at the video we can clearly see the moment when Brian Orser notices that there is a deduction point. His expression changes, he is perplexed. Hanyu made a mistake on the combination, but nothing that can be considered a fall. So where does that deduction come from? He doesn’t understand, and Hanyu, when he tells him, either, you can see it clearly on their faces. We know that that deduction is due to a late start. The deduction is correct. I can be sorry but Hanyu made a mistake and was rightly punished for that mistake, the rules are clear. The reason for the deduction is clearly indicated on the protocol. But if we hadn’t known why he was assigned that deduction point, would we have accepted it with the same ease or would we have wondered about the fairness of the competition?

All information relating to competitions must be made public as quickly as possible, and if a judge is pressured his federation must be disqualified. The problem cannot be discounted as Ottavio Cinquanta did when, as reported by Borzilleri in the article to which I have inserted the link, affirmed

“I can’t suspend a person for life for a minor violation. (Balkov) is a matter for the Ukraine federation, because they chose to send him. “

A minor violation? Let’s be clear. The minor violation to which Cinquanta refers is to falsify the result of a World Championship. For a judge, only distorting the result of the Olympic Games is worse, and the problem concerns not only his national federation but also the ISU and the IOC. I know,

It was not easy to control the judges and difficult to thoroughly educate them (pag. 154)

Judging a skating competition is difficult, the judges know it and I know it too. It would require a greater use of technologies in order to simplify the work of judges. This is the priority, to make it easier for the judges to judge the competitions, not to hide their work. One of my latest posts is about the use of technology. I haven’t written everything I wanted to write, there are too many things to say on the subject, so I plan to write about it again in the future. On Twitter several people liked what I wrote. Not one person, and I’m sorry I didn’t take a screenshot of his tweet as long as I could.

[edit: two days after the publication of this post a fan, who had taken the screenshot before whoever wrote it deleted it, sent a screenshot to me, so I add it].

According to this person my post might have deserved to be taken seriously if it weren’t for one detail: I hadn’t written anything about Hanyu’s underrotates. For him not having talked about this error was enough to brand me as a fanyu and therefore to invalidate what I had written. Since there are more skaters I haven’t talked about than those I’ve talked about, noticing the absence of one means little, but that’s not the point.

Am I a fanyu? Yes, without a doubt. Does the fact that I’m a Fanyu make what I write less valid? No. My words should be judged by what I write, not by the name of the athletes I support. To say that my post can’t be taken seriously just because I cheer for a specific skater is to discriminate against an entire category of people without even trying to listen to their reasons, and this kind of discrimination is always dangerous. It’s not that I don’t like it, it’s just dangerous. This discrimination is at the root of racial, or religion-related, discrimination, or any discrimination that is a plague on humanity. It is not that the fact that they are just words related to a specific context makes the attitude less serious. The effects of his words are less severe, not the attitude.

Technology, when used correctly, does not favor one skater or another, it is fair. If Hanyu makes a mistake, he should be sanctioned. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with the one point deduction at the 2017 World Champioship. I have problems when his quadruple Salchow and his combination in the short program of the 2021 World Team Trophy don’t get a unanimous +5.

That person deleted his tweet. I really should learn to take screenshots of everything right away, even if I’m clogging up my computer. In 2004

the purpose of this new system was to try to solve the frequent judging disasters, such as cheating and “block judging,” (multiple judges from different countries voting as unit). Everything was to be based on points and little on subjectivity. The real purpose, however, was to make everything as secret (invisible) as possible and thus prevent the occurrance of another scandal like one in 2002 in Salt Lake City. (pagg. 154-155)

A few years ago the ISU realized that it was right to make the names of the judges known. Now someone would like to take a step back. What does it mean? What they can fear? Are they afraid that someone will question the calls and express their concerns on the internet? Stealing every possible moment between one program and another, because I watched the programs, but not always the kiss & cry, during the 2021 World Championship I wrote these posts:

World Championship 2021: Judges for the Ladies Competition

World Championship 2021: Judges for the Pairs competition and original marks in the Ladies

World Championship 2021: Judges in the Men’s Short Program. The components

World Championship 2021: GOE in the Men’s Short Program

World Championship 2021: Judges for the Men’s Free Skate

Many other things could be written about this competition and how it was judged, but since I write in my spare time and there are some other things that require my attention, I cannot write everything. But sooner or later I will add something. Not long after, the World Team Trophy took place. I wrote these posts:

Judges at the World Team Trophy

Dedicated to Philippe Meriguet

ISU, we have a serious problem

Could my posts have influenced anyone? I honestly have no idea. I don’t want to give myself too much importance, and I know I’m not the only one writing. But, since we have the indication of three nations, I remember the names of some significant judges of these nations. In seven posts I have published the national bias of all the judges: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Here I report only those who have the worst values and who have judged at least five short program and five free skate. I start with Canada.

The Chinese judges:

The Italian judges:

So, someone among the Canadian Cynthia Benson, Leanna Caron, Pamela Chislett, Ron Conacher, Sylvain Guibord, Leslie Keen, Nicole Leblanc-Richard and Jeff Lukasik, the Chinese Weiguang Chen, Feng Huang, Hui Liu, Jia Yao, Tianyi Zang and Rui Zhao, and the Italian Michela Cesaro, Raffaella Locatelli, Isabella Micheli, Karol Pescosta, Paolo Pizzocari and Walter Toigo, don’t like being talked about? Maybe none of them have anything to do with the proposal, but the doubt comes. If they are concerned about this possibility, they can rest assured: I will continue to talk about them, regardless of whether this proposal is approved.

The choice to keep the names of the judges or the protocols secret, or their belated publication, does not take the pressure off the judges. The only thing it can achieve is the late outbreak of controversy, when the press is distracted, and this favors corruption. To remind the ISU that secrecy has never prevented the judges from doing what they like, I decided to look at the old competition protocols and highlight the most absurd votes.

In the coming days I will publish some protocols, so that the reminder of what has happened in the past can push the ISU not to make the wrong decisions for the future.

One last thing: the sentences highlighted in bold are not mine. They come from the book Push Dick’s Button, a book written by someone who knows figure skating from the inside, loves it and did his best to make it better. If you are interested in reading the entire passages from which I have extrapolated a few sentences, you can highlight them. At the end of each passage, I have written the page number from which the quote comes in blank, so if you have the book you can find all of them easily.