Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

IAAF acts on Transfer of Allegiance

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • polevaultpower
    replied
    Originally posted by crymeariver View Post
    "If it can be documented..."? Why should a tribunal be responsible for deciding who has a legitimate reason to represent countries other than their birth nation? To me that's an extremely arrogant point of view.

    2003 Paris World Champs: On a bus ride back from the stadium to the Athletes Village I was seated next to an athlete who didn't qualify for the final in his event. I asked him how he felt about his race and he finished his assessment with "my federation is a failure".

    He talked about the struggles he had with tickets and itineraries just to get to the championships because of screw-ups by his NGB (I can't remember if he ultimately paid his own way). But, if you could have heard how broken he felt describing how his federation failed to even have a uniform for him; how he spent an entire day with his president going around Paris to ultimately find a "uniform" that wasn't even the color of his country. He was hurt. He would go on to be the second fastest in the world in his event a few years later.

    The sport has no mechanism for protecting these types of athletes competing for those types of countries. Allowing athletes to transfer allegiance for any reason (as long as that athlete has the full benefits of actual citizenship from the receiving country) doesn't bother me one bit.
    I'm not opposed to athletes transferring for any reason, exceptional circumstances are to speed things up.

    That situation is common with many federations. I know an Olympian who had her own uniform made and paid her own way to get to the Olympics. Her Federation was supposed to reimburse her and never did.

    Leave a comment:


  • bhall
    replied
    I would like to see the "exceptional circumstance exceptions" used fairly broadly in the first couple months here, for athletes who were unable to read the IAAF's mind and put in their papers before the moratorium and now new rules went into effect. Ideally, the IAAF would have set a very tight deadline after the new rules were announced and back dated the approvals that come through to the start of the moratorium. They haven't done that.

    I am fine with athlete transfers and these new rules. I just think the IAAF has left a number of athletes in a terrible position for 18 months and has a responsibility to try to make it right. Athlete careers are much shorter than those of bureaucrats.
    Last edited by bhall; 07-31-2018, 06:48 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • crymeariver
    replied
    Originally posted by polevaultpower View Post
    I'm not opposed to exceptional circumstance exceptions as long as it is not abused. There are a number of parts of the world that are very politically unstable and can become dangerous for athletes (well for all people really). If it can be documented that an athlete has to flee for their life and another country is willing to give them a real citizenship in a timely manner, by all means, let them compete.
    "If it can be documented..."? Why should a tribunal be responsible for deciding who has a legitimate reason to represent countries other than their birth nation? To me that's an extremely arrogant point of view.

    2003 Paris World Champs: On a bus ride back from the stadium to the Athletes Village I was seated next to an athlete who didn't qualify for the final in his event. I asked him how he felt about his race and he finished his assessment with "my federation is a failure".

    He talked about the struggles he had with tickets and itineraries just to get to the championships because of screw-ups by his NGB (I can't remember if he ultimately paid his own way). But, if you could have heard how broken he felt describing how his federation failed to even have a uniform for him; how he spent an entire day with his president going around Paris to ultimately find a "uniform" that wasn't even the color of his country. He was hurt. He would go on to be the second fastest in the world in his event a few years later.

    The sport has no mechanism for protecting these types of athletes competing for those types of countries. Allowing athletes to transfer allegiance for any reason (as long as that athlete has the full benefits of actual citizenship from the receiving country) doesn't bother me one bit.

    Leave a comment:


  • polevaultpower
    replied
    I'm not opposed to exceptional circumstance exceptions as long as it is not abused. There are a number of parts of the world that are very politically unstable and can become dangerous for athletes (well for all people really). If it can be documented that an athlete has to flee for their life and another country is willing to give them a real citizenship in a timely manner, by all means, let them compete.

    Leave a comment:


  • jupo
    replied
    So apparently Pichardo is eligible to represent POR in Euro's.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotDutra5
    replied
    Originally posted by norunner View Post
    Does it specify in any way what exactly is deemed an exceptional circumstance?
    No. Nothing clarifying exceptional circumstance.

    Also the rule is quite clear that the 3 year waiting period begins upon the application for approval to switch allegiance is made to the IAAF.

    I'll bet this particular requirement either holds up some athletes switching or the IAAF will make some exceptions initially on this requirement if the rest of the requirements for citizenship, not having competed for another country for 3 years and the established link to the new country have all been met.

    Leave a comment:


  • norunner
    replied
    Originally posted by bhall View Post
    The complete verbiage of Rule 5 is available on the IAAF website under documents.

    They seem fairly sane and there is a giant wiggle room clause in 5.8 - The IAAF will have discretion (which it may delegate to a committee or panel) to waive or vary any of the requirements of this Rule 5 in circumstances that are deemed exceptional.
    Does it specify in any way what exactly is deemed an exceptional circumstance?

    Leave a comment:


  • Atticus
    replied
    Originally posted by tandfman View Post
    I hope you're kidding.
    Representing a country should
    While I agree 100% with your sentiment, this is 2018, and it's simply not the primary consideration any more. NOT being able to do as I suggest is 'restraint of trade'. You are not allowing the athletes to represent who they want to, and you are not allowing the two nations to do something mutually beneficial. The only thing being 'hurt' here is your antiquated (and I'm on your side!) sense of 'patriotism' (?!).
    And while our paleozoic sensibilities are being infringed on, we are denying people a better livelihood.

    Leave a comment:


  • tandfman
    replied
    Originally posted by Atticus View Post
    WIN-WIN-WIN!
    The athlete gets to transfer.
    The recipient nation gets an athlete.
    The donor nation gets recompensed.
    I like it - make it so!
    I hope you're kidding.

    Representing a country should have more significance than representing a professional team, which can buy, sell, and trade athletes' contracts. Fans expect that wearing their country's uniform will mean more than wearing the uniform of the Dallas Cowboys or the Boston Red Sox.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Originally posted by bhall View Post
    The complete verbiage of Rule 5 is available on the IAAF website under documents.

    They seem fairly sane and there is a giant wiggle room clause in 5.8 - The IAAF will have discretion (which it may delegate to a committee or panel) to waive or vary any of the requirements of this Rule 5 in circumstances that are deemed exceptional.
    which, of course, now requires one fill out a long registration form before being able to read

    Leave a comment:


  • Atticus
    replied
    Originally posted by gh View Post
    that simply opens the door for the destination-nation to make it financially worthwhile for the original nation.
    WIN-WIN-WIN!
    The athlete gets to transfer.
    The recipient nation gets an athlete.
    The donor nation gets recompensed.
    I like it - make it so!

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    Originally posted by crymeariver View Post
    And the response proves the point. An athlete like Aldama would accept a passport to even Sudan JUST for the opportunity to compete at the international brand building games.
    I agree it's better to compete in major championships than not; I'm just saying a top-level athlete can manage to make a good living without them, like Aldama, or Wilson Kipketer in 1996, or Niurka Montalvo in 2000. And it's not like it's an act of God; it's pretty much always the athlete's decision to change allegiance. There was nothing prohibiting these athletes to continue competing for their countries of birth. They made conscious decisions to switch, realizing what the consequences would be.

    Leave a comment:


  • bhall
    replied
    The complete verbiage of Rule 5 is available on the IAAF website under documents.

    They seem fairly sane and there is a giant wiggle room clause in 5.8 - The IAAF will have discretion (which it may delegate to a committee or panel) to waive or vary any of the requirements of this Rule 5 in circumstances that are deemed exceptional.

    Leave a comment:


  • Davidokun
    replied
    Originally posted by ATK View Post
    I think Johnny Dutch in either 2015 or 2016 led by a wide margin and hit hurdle 10 ending up 4th in the final.
    It was 2016, and Dutch finished fifth. Authorized video:

    (Yes, gh is the public-address announcer.)

    For what it's worth, I think Dutch was already running on empty approaching the last hurdle.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Originally posted by Atticus View Post
    Brilliant idea: adopt the NCAA transfer rule: sit out one year, unless the previous school/nation OKs immediate eligibility. The pressure would be on to OK the transfer because the circumstances might be reversed for that country in the near-term.
    that simply opens the door for the destination-nation to make it financially worthwhile for the original nation.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X