Olympic Slip and Falls: It Is Time For the Olympic Committee To Get Rid Of Out-Dated Procedures

Here is my column today in USA Today calling on the Olympic committee to consider an overhaul of Olympic rules to update procedures and remove archaic and discriminatory rules. While some may treat this as a call for a new Olympic legal team, it is merely an effort to get the Olympic to guarantee greater fairness with a systemic review of the rules for various sports. What bothers me is to see avoidable mistakes treated like just part of the games, even though they do great injustice to athletes who sacrificed so much to get to these cameras.

Just as some people go to Nascar races to watch the crashes, I admit I watch the Olympics in part for the rules challenges. They are a legal event in which world class athletes often find themselves faced with subpar procedures that strip them of points and sometimes medals.

The rules are a hodgepodge of arbitrary judgments established by dozens of sporting bodies, but the Olympics has a long history of clinging to them despite the ability to adopt better procedures.
Here are a few places where a new Olympic legal team might begin an overhaul:

•The cashless challenge. Some sports still require cash for a challenge. For example, when Japanese gymnast Kohei Uchimura stumbled off the pommel horse in the final event of the men’s team competition, the Japanese challenged and insisted that the fall was actually part of his dismount. Before the successful challenge could be heard, the Japanese had to scramble for cash.
A similar scene occurred in the fencing competition with South Koreans running around frantically hitting people up for cash. The image of coaches crouching around judges like crapshooters with wads of cash in hand is grotesquely out of place in the Olympics. Even if the Games insist on charging for challenges, it is hard to see why nations should not be trusted with a credit line or why payment should be demanded for challenges.

•Equal treatment. The Olympics continue to allow different rules to apply to men and women without any rational basis. For example, Olympic rules state that a female gymnast on vault can stop or break a run before touching the springboard without a deduction as long as she returns to the end of the runway within 30 seconds. But a male gymnast will receive a score of 0 for aborting a vault. Thus, two female gymnasts in the finals this year stopped their runs and were given the option of a second run without deductions — an option denied to their male counterparts.
Conversely, in diving, men are allowed to repeat one of their categories of dives while women are not.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes a variety of opinions from outside writers. On political and policy matters, we publish opinions from across the political spectrum.
Roughly half of our columns come from our Board of Contributors, a group whose interests range from education to religion to sports to the economy. Their charge is to chronicle American culture by telling the stories, large and small, that collectively make us what we are.

This might reflect another difference: Men must complete six dives while women must complete five. Why? These women are amazing athletes capable of the same number of dives as men.

•Justice is blind. The Olympics often come across as the last refuge of the world’s troglodytes resisting the simplest of technological advances. There is no greater example than the refusal of some sports to use instant replay. Last week at a critical point in the men’s volleyball competition, the Americans hit a ball that the Italians thought was out but the judge ruled for the Americans. NBC immediately confirmed that the ball was out. (Another bad call cost Russia a set against Bulgaria). However, the volleyball officials refuse to use instant replay, so a clearly unearned point was given to the United States.

Likewise, soccer officials have long barred the use of the technology. In the 2010 World Cup, referees refused to award a clearly good goal to England in its loss to Germany. Just last month, FIFA approved the use of goal-line technology for the 2014 World Cup, but it is still not mandated in the Olympics.

Other sports that resist technology include swimming, where officials cannot use underwater video available to television viewers. Thus, despite objections to an alleged illegal “dolphin” kick by South Africa’s Cameron van der Burgh, he was able to collect the gold medal because judges cannot use underwater video technology.

The absurdities combined at the fencing competition, when Shin Lam thought that she had won her bout against Germany’s Britta Heidemann. But the judges suddenly announced that a time keeper had hit the button one second too early. (The time is rumored to have actually been 0.02 of a second.) Heidemann then used that second to add another touch and win the bout. But before the South Koreans could challenge, they first had to come up with the cash, so the world watched as the coaches ran around frantically trying to bum money for the challenge. A full hour passed as the world watched Shin sobbing and refusing to leave the piste.

This year is the 40th anniversary of the Soviet defeat of the United States at the 1972 Olympics in basketball. In that game, the United States thought it had won 50-49 when Soviet coaches objected that they had demanded a time out in the final seconds.

Ultimately, FIBA Secretary General Renato William Jones (who was watching the game) came down and overruled the referees and ordered an additional three seconds. Yet, the Soviets already used the three seconds due to an error in timing and, more important, Jones had no authority to issue any order of any kind. The Soviets scored a last second basket and won the gold. The U.S. team voted unanimously to refuse the silver medal.

None of this is meant to suggest the appearance of a litigation team walking at the opening ceremonies or a new ambulance-chasing event. Nonetheless, it is time to allow a different team to look at Olympic procedures when things go badly.

Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.

12 thoughts on “Olympic Slip and Falls: It Is Time For the Olympic Committee To Get Rid Of Out-Dated Procedures

  1. I agree that the underwater cameras would be a good idea. And they should lose the cash craziness in their appeals!
    I also like the idea f more attorneys working. Even at the Olympics!

  2. Raff,

    Job security……

    Yes…. Something needs to change….. How about getting it back to more amateurs….. Rather than hi paid spokes persons…..

  3. Arbitrary differences between the men’s and women’s versions of sports don’t seem like any real injustice. The women have practiced their entire lives knowing they can abort a vault…why change it now? Would you also be in favor of changing everything about softball to make it into baseball? Or everything about baseball to make it into softball? Equality is great, but homogeneity for homogeneity’s sake is another thing…

  4. This reminds me of the hand wringing over instant reply in tennis.
    Many of the stars and others were dead set against it. Today, the number of naysayers can be counted on one hand.

    While acknowledging change can be quite difficult at time, to ignore the obvious is insulting. Be it a game of sport, religion or politics…… justice must always trump feelings.

  5. The IOC is like The UN only w/o an armed force. Like the UN, the IOC is corrupt, bureaucratic and provincial. Any substantive changes need to start w/ gutting that old boy’s club.

  6. I agree with the use of technology that has already been proven successful.

    Also, the need to eliminate a fee for a challenge unless lack of a fee results in a deluge of frivolous challenges.

    I disagree with the need to make the rules for the vaults the same. If the men and women were competing against each other in the same event, then one set of rules for all. But they aren’t. Women compete in one event, the men in another.

  7. The rules need to be realistic. Women don’t hesitate to compete. But they can’t compete with men on the same field. Let’s just be realistic.

  8. Matt Johnson 1, August 13, 2012 at 9:18 pm

    The rules need to be realistic. Women don’t hesitate to compete. But they can’t compete with men on the same field. Let’s just be realistic.
    —————–
    Trolling.

  9. While I agree with each of the points our Professor brings to light, in my view adding a protracted level of legal review, for lack of a proper name, would interfere with the flow and detract from the real purpose of the game which I interpret to be atheletic competition.

    Consider this. Imagine a situation whereupon a lengthy appeal process would be authorized and this results in a situation where rather than having medals relatively immediate to the conclusion of the event, there exists a probability of those winners being stripped of their medals after a months long trial where another contender’s appeal reached a final stage and subsequently reduced thier standing.

    While I believe that instant replay, updating of the rules to modern realities, and the like can benefit the games, the judges’ views must be summary in nature.

  10. Geez, it’s been 40 years and people STILL whine about the US losing in Munich. And they whine about the US getting shafted in Seoul, back in 1988. Get over it. You didn’t hear the Soviets whining about men’s hockey in the 1980 winter games.

    I notice that Americans don’t say one word about the US’s own cheating and rule fixing. Without playing dirty, the US would not have won 83 gold medals in Los Angeles back in 1984. The US’s 83 golds broke the Soviet record of 80 in 1980. The US was collectively willing to look the other way to make sure that happened.

    Several of those rigged gold medals in 1984 were in boxing, as well as other sports (or non-sports like “synchronized swimming”). Among them, several boxers got screwed out of gold or other medals, some of them were South Koreans. When the Koreans fixed boxing matches in 1988, it was payback, not just dirty pool.

    But like everything else, the US views itself as “exceptional” and not subject to the same rules and standards as other countries. How else do you explain the USOC covering up Carl Lewis’s positive drug tests in 1988, and everyone willing to ignore that fact?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2003/apr/18/athletics.comment

  11. P Smith, that’;s because the Soviets lost 1980 hockey legitimately unlike what happened in 1972 Basketball and 1988 boxing (where it wasn’t just U.S. getting screwed however, that was left off). Never mind the fact that Soviets were more on the juice for some time since the beginning of the cold war.

Comments are closed.