Recent content by JusticeMom

Maybe? But the way the rule is written, specifically detailing what has to be done within the minute, and noting exactly when the minute time starts to accrue, seems to suggest otherwise. Given the specificity of the rule, unless presented with other evidence of intent, I think they did mean...

Ki This is a layperson's response. My husband pointed out this wouldn't happen in other sports (I pointed out one or two, lol). "Bad calls and rules are an unfortunate part of sports. Usually if it inspires officials and organizations to do better after the fact but results are not changed. "...

I understand the distinction that you're making. But I don't think the language of the rule is as specific as your interpretation.

Well it does say this which is why I'mk I'm confused about the highlighted part. Allowing Romania to complain about Jordans inquiry but seem to contradict these rules? Maybe I'm missing something..

That's what it sounds like. I'd like to know when the one minute starts to accrue.

Killko This had been my thought for the last few days and now they exacerbated it.

The Raducan situation was different. Giving her back her medal would be akin to changing the rules after the fact. Certainly, she wasn't doping in the traditional sense, but it is undisputed that she took a banned substance (even if it shouldn't hav been banned). It is different than saying...

I don't care that the bronze was prematurely celebrated. I don't care that in a largely subjective sport, and that there is a disputed bronze medalist And I think it reasonable human error to believe that Voinea stepped OOB before that double layout. That is the nature of sports. Having said...

Yes. But I believe there's a high-level of the weight of the closed door process and the manner in which the athletes were selected. IIRC, I think the coaches voted.

and Romania timely submitted an inquiry for the ND and it was rejected? Sorry, as I haven't been following a play by play sequence of this all unfolding. Appreciate your explanation.

Right, so to clarify, even thought NDs controlled by D panel, it cannot be disputed because it is not part of the D score. Is that correct?

-1988 Olympics when the US received a .5 deduction for Rhonda Faehn (alternate athlete) staying on the podium during competition. The prevailing thought is at this cost the US the bronze medal to the East Germans. -1992 - Kim Kelly being kicked of the team. She was still credentialed at...

I know she was 18. But she was clearly impressionable and spent many years in very controlled environment without a lot of practice in making her own decisions. That was very much the era where gymnasts did what were told and nobody spoke up (especially to Bela or Marta).

So if it is D, and not E, does it mean the Romanian delegation failed to file an appropriate inquiry when they saw the ND?

Yep. Reminds me of Raisman/Ponor on beam in 2012. Romania vs USA, last competitor, bronze medal at stake, and inquiry by USA athlete that was accepted.