Yet another dog has bitten a man. Once again the judges’ decision in figure skating has caused controversy.
This one has taken on unusual dimensions, but it is nothing new in a sport where subjective choices are responsible for winning and losing.
Canada’s Jamie Sale and David Pelletier lost the Olympic pairs gold medal to Russians Elena Bereznaia and Anton Sikharulidze on Monday because five of nine judges liked the Russians’ free skate better.
Tuesday, the Canadian Olympic team leader, Susan Rehorick, called for an investigation that might amount to asking why some like apples more than oranges, unless evidence of collusion somehow can be found. Rehorick, an international figure skating judge, said she was disappointed enough to quit judging but stopped short of taking such a decisive step.
One can only wonder if she waffles the same way as a judge.
The International Skating Union, which governs figure skating and speedskating, responded by saying it is “doing an internal assessment to monitor if the ISU rules and procedures have been respected.” A judges’ decision has never been overturned, but such assessments have resulted in the suspension of judges.
The ISU has become its own worst enemy by taking an ostrich approach to such controversies. Despite frequent media requests to have the event referees made immediately available to at least a pool reporter after a competition, as is done in other sports, the international skating officials stubbornly keep their heads in the sand.
The ISU’s rationale is the referee first must do an event review with the judges. That such an attitude is self-defeating was apparent at the 1994 Olympics, when Oksana Baiul won the gold medal over Nancy Kerrigan by virtue of a controversial 5-4 judges’ decision in the free skate.
The next day, I was among three U.S. reporters who talked with event referee Britta Lindgren of Sweden. The referee gives marks for reference purposes, and Lindgren’s agreed with those of the “swing” judge.
More important, Lindgren could tick off several areas in which she thought Baiul’s superiority was sufficient to earn the gold. Her explanations belied the notion that judges’ decisions have no rhyme or reason but are based only on backroom deals and political allegiances.
Had Lindgren talked to the media right after the free skate, she likely would have defused the ranting and raving from media who cover figure skating once every four years.
The ISU might have tempered the current controversy had pairs referee Ron Pfenning of Hyannis, Mass., been allowed to speak to the media Monday night. Even before Tuesday’s event review, Pfenning, a thoughtful judge, undoubtedly could have provided explanations for why some judges might have favored the Russians.
“I am not at liberty at this moment to say anything,” Pfenning said Tuesday. “I am preparing a report for the ISU Council (the federation’s executive board). My obligation is to share my information first with them.”
This controversy has been driven by the reactions of NBC commentators Sandra Bezic, a former Canadian pairs skater, and Scott Hamilton of the United States, the 1984 Olympic champion. After openly rooting for the Canadians during their performance, their outrage over the outcome seemed rooted more in disappointment than rational argument.
One can only wonder how upset North Americans would have been if the Russians appeared to be the victims of questionable judging.
Veteran judge Gale Tanger of Wauwatosa, Wis., a specatator at the pairs free skate, would have chosen the Canadians. For the record, I would have as well, giving scores of 5.8, 5.9 for the Russians and 5.9, 5.9 for the Canadians. Yet Tanger agreed with the suggestion that a defensible case can be made for the Russians.
“`I felt the second This slideshow could not be started. Try refreshing the page or viewing it in another browser.
