Tweet
Normally I would not share content of a private e-mail, but this is a special case which I feel should be brought forward.
It is quite evident that elite U.S. sprinters, and much of the U.S. track 'hierarchy' has been dead-set against the new IAAF false-start rule since it was announced.
Many of them have worked incredible hours and sweat to try to get it changed in some key ways, in ways they think would make it 'better' or 'more practical'.
They may or may not be right.
That said, it is also critical that coaches work with their elite athletes with an admonishment to follow the rules as they are explicitly stated, until that rule gets changed. Appeals only work based on specific rule language, not emotional arguments or "I told ya so's".
Jon Drummond has outright said that his interpretation of the rule is consistent with that of the U.S. international team staff, based on their 'understandings' with the IAAF, and further that his actions on the track to delay/obstruct the competition were specifically ordered by the U.S. team staff.
I asked him to name names.
Jon sent this:
"I know the rules, and whether
you want to argue what you think the rules are, I deal directly with the powers
that be.
You want me to name names! Well, lets start with the head coach Bubba
Thornton
then, the assistant Harvey Glance, then the chief de mission Stephanie
Hightower, and team Manager Michael Caine. All of which will defend my actions
based on the rules that the IAAF has insituted.
You are not a sprinter and have no clue what it is to be in the blocks.
While your arguement is sounds great for those who don't know the rules, I live
this sport, and what you are saying is definately incorrect. Unfortunately I
don't have a rule book in front of me at the moment but I will on tomorrow and
will site the rules as it was shown to me today and then you can argue your BS
point all day. The bottom line is, there is no ruling for flinching, and I
DID NOT FALSE START!!!!!! "
Now of course I can sympathize with Jon's disappointment and frustration.
My concerns are:
1. Did USATF have an implicit "understanding" with IAAF regarding interpretation of this rule (possibly in opposition to the way the rule actually reads), which was turned on its head today in Paris when the meet enforced the rule LITERALLY the way it reads?
2. Did any USATF coach tell athletes that if an athlete in a neighboring lane jumps (after a false start warning has already been issued), that it's okay to then 'stand up' or make any kind of motion (before the starter gives a "stand up" command, and only the first athlete to 'jump' would be DQ'd? If so, was the coach acting on an "understanding" with the IAAF, or going by the rule book?
3. Did USATF staff, as Jon alleges, explicitly direct him to continue to hinder & delay the continuation of the competition, demanding an IMMEDIATE appeal ruling, even when he was ready to leave the track, based on a belief that there is a rule allowing athletes to "run under protest", rather than be added to the semi-finals later if an appeal is successful (such as happens when a runner is unfairly obstructed and falls and doesn't finish a race)?
4. When a major rule change comes out, doesn't the USATF pull together all its elite athletes in that event and explain it in detail? Do they at least send out e-mails to those athletes explaining what the IAAF expects? Is there a documentation trail here? Who screwed up?
5. Jon's argument is also that he didn't false start because flinching is not against the rules. He didn't want to listen to my points about psi on the starting blocks, whether the blocks were calibrated correctly possibly having some merit to look into, and so forth. Basically I don't think he likes the 0.100 second threshold rule to begin with, so he thinks it's all bogus.
I think the accusations by Jon that I summarized in #1-4 above should be investigated by an independent USATF group (if there is such a thing). If USATF team coaches are negligent in teaching rules incorrectly, they should be issued a reprimand at the LEAST, and possibly suspended from international teams for a year or two if it is found that they were involved in any behind-the-scenes secret "understandings" with the IAAF that the rule would be enforced in a different way than it is explicity stated in the rulebook.
And that goes DOUBLY for any USATF or IAAF executives who were partipating in such connivance.
That assumes that Jon is correct that the coaches will back him up in his story.
I think the ball is now in the USATF's court to address what Jon Drummond is saying.
It is quite evident that elite U.S. sprinters, and much of the U.S. track 'hierarchy' has been dead-set against the new IAAF false-start rule since it was announced.
Many of them have worked incredible hours and sweat to try to get it changed in some key ways, in ways they think would make it 'better' or 'more practical'.
They may or may not be right.
That said, it is also critical that coaches work with their elite athletes with an admonishment to follow the rules as they are explicitly stated, until that rule gets changed. Appeals only work based on specific rule language, not emotional arguments or "I told ya so's".
Jon Drummond has outright said that his interpretation of the rule is consistent with that of the U.S. international team staff, based on their 'understandings' with the IAAF, and further that his actions on the track to delay/obstruct the competition were specifically ordered by the U.S. team staff.
I asked him to name names.
Jon sent this:
"I know the rules, and whether
you want to argue what you think the rules are, I deal directly with the powers
that be.
You want me to name names! Well, lets start with the head coach Bubba
Thornton
then, the assistant Harvey Glance, then the chief de mission Stephanie
Hightower, and team Manager Michael Caine. All of which will defend my actions
based on the rules that the IAAF has insituted.
You are not a sprinter and have no clue what it is to be in the blocks.
While your arguement is sounds great for those who don't know the rules, I live
this sport, and what you are saying is definately incorrect. Unfortunately I
don't have a rule book in front of me at the moment but I will on tomorrow and
will site the rules as it was shown to me today and then you can argue your BS
point all day. The bottom line is, there is no ruling for flinching, and I
DID NOT FALSE START!!!!!! "
Now of course I can sympathize with Jon's disappointment and frustration.
My concerns are:
1. Did USATF have an implicit "understanding" with IAAF regarding interpretation of this rule (possibly in opposition to the way the rule actually reads), which was turned on its head today in Paris when the meet enforced the rule LITERALLY the way it reads?
2. Did any USATF coach tell athletes that if an athlete in a neighboring lane jumps (after a false start warning has already been issued), that it's okay to then 'stand up' or make any kind of motion (before the starter gives a "stand up" command, and only the first athlete to 'jump' would be DQ'd? If so, was the coach acting on an "understanding" with the IAAF, or going by the rule book?
3. Did USATF staff, as Jon alleges, explicitly direct him to continue to hinder & delay the continuation of the competition, demanding an IMMEDIATE appeal ruling, even when he was ready to leave the track, based on a belief that there is a rule allowing athletes to "run under protest", rather than be added to the semi-finals later if an appeal is successful (such as happens when a runner is unfairly obstructed and falls and doesn't finish a race)?
4. When a major rule change comes out, doesn't the USATF pull together all its elite athletes in that event and explain it in detail? Do they at least send out e-mails to those athletes explaining what the IAAF expects? Is there a documentation trail here? Who screwed up?
5. Jon's argument is also that he didn't false start because flinching is not against the rules. He didn't want to listen to my points about psi on the starting blocks, whether the blocks were calibrated correctly possibly having some merit to look into, and so forth. Basically I don't think he likes the 0.100 second threshold rule to begin with, so he thinks it's all bogus.
I think the accusations by Jon that I summarized in #1-4 above should be investigated by an independent USATF group (if there is such a thing). If USATF team coaches are negligent in teaching rules incorrectly, they should be issued a reprimand at the LEAST, and possibly suspended from international teams for a year or two if it is found that they were involved in any behind-the-scenes secret "understandings" with the IAAF that the rule would be enforced in a different way than it is explicity stated in the rulebook.
And that goes DOUBLY for any USATF or IAAF executives who were partipating in such connivance.
That assumes that Jon is correct that the coaches will back him up in his story.
I think the ball is now in the USATF's court to address what Jon Drummond is saying.
Comment