Track star and discrimination

[quote]asinine rules and officials wrote:

Yeah........if she ran in Norhtern Virginia, she would not be training on the sidewalk either. And yet her PR of 12:00 is better than 75% of the girls who run in NVA.

/quote]

I pretty much agree with everything in your post except for this comment. DC is one of the most running-friendly cities I've ever been in. I often train in DC on weekends. If she or her coaches can't find good running routes in DC they're not looking very hard.

We're not talking about an extra earring, we're talking about a very visible, multicolor head covering. It's so obviously against the rules that it any official that didn't notice it should have their credentials revoked. Any official that noticed it and didn't enforce the rules was making a conscience decision to let someone break a rule, which isn't what officating should be about. Again, we're not talking about checking for shirt tails or rings, it's something very obviously against the rules.

The analogy, once again, is valid. I never mentioned safety. I merely said that there are rules and they must be followed and showed an analogy demonstrating this. The point is that just because someone was allowed to break a rule before doesn't mean its acceptable in the future.

How about this analogy: A homeowners association gets a new president that enforces pre-existing rules about landscaping. Imagine only one person had a bunch of those flamingos on his or her lawn. If the resident was asked to remove them and complained they would be in the wrong. Better?

Half steppers shadow wrote:

As for the speed limit analogy. It sucks.

No, it doesn't. Yer just mad cuz yer the consummate half-stepper's shadow.

So........ rings are ok? A ring is more of a "safety" violation than a head covering.

Mtn Dew wrote:

The rule is a legitimate one. It may be silly (or not), but it applies to everyone. If they made exceptions for someone's religion then the rule would no longer be legitimate.

She's asking for special treatment - she doesn't want the rules to apply to her.

These points are spot on and I agree 100%. As for the others, we will just have to agree to disagree.

How do you propose taking action against said officials? Pull up records from the prior meets along with photos showing the offending garb and get rid of all the officials that were there and should have noticed it?

If you are going to do that, you better brush up on your officiating because the DC area is going to be really short and could use your help.

(BTW - sorry about you getting smacked down for having the pink flamingos)

Not really a "track star" with those perfs is she.

My point wasn't that rings are ok to ban and head scarfs aren't, nor was my point that the officials that let her get away with it before should get in trouble (although I do believe if anyone should get blame for this it is those that let it happen before, but the real people at fault are the coach and athlete).

The. Point. Is. ... a rule is a rule. Maybe it's silly, maybe it's good, but it's a rule. One cannot break a rule and EXPECT that they will be allowed to get away with it. That's a pretty good lesson that works in any situation.

Mtn Dew wrote:

How about this analogy: A homeowners association gets a new president that enforces pre-existing rules about landscaping. Imagine only one person had a bunch of those flamingos on his or her lawn. If the resident was asked to remove them and complained they would be in the wrong. Better?

Not to get involved in you two arguing over whose Dad can beat up whose Dad but that analogy is much better.

I also think that the former president should have to move out of the condo development for allowing the rules to be broken while he was in office.

SHAMEY-SHAMEY!!!!

Bottom line is obide by the rules, if you don't like them then do what someone said earlier bring it up with the high school league. No way should she be pouting about this.

P.S. 12 flat is terrible. come to the midwest, and we'll show you whats up

whoever punched the ref from her camp should be charged, but that wont happen because she and her family are black and muslim.

This is a classic "track official on a meaningless power trip" case. We've all experienced them.

Who really cares if she wears a full body suit other than the jerk running the meet? Why are there rules in place prohibiting her attire? If anything, it's detrimental to her performance. It's a stupid, meaningless, useless rule being enforced by a raving egomaniac. She's a good runner and if she doesn't feel like showing off her body she should be able to cover it up.

oh great, now the muslims are going to start killing runners. Wonderful, just another thing on our 'what could kill us when we run' list. Wonderful.

Midwesterners "obide" by all rules except the use of meth. Keep "obiding," dumbass!

dean moriarty wrote:

This is a classic "track official on a meaningless power trip" case. We've all experienced them.

Who really cares if she wears a full body suit other than the jerk running the meet? Why are there rules in place prohibiting her attire? If anything, it's detrimental to her performance. It's a stupid, meaningless, useless rule being enforced by a raving egomaniac. She's a good runner and if she doesn't feel like showing off her body she should be able to cover it up.

She CAN cover it up. The rules just state it must be the same color.

You ought to work towards changing the rule, not blaming someone for enforcing a rule (i.e. doing their job) already in place.

So, let's summarize: She got in trouble not because she wore a special running suit to cover her body, but because said running suit was two colors, not one, as existing rules state. If she had worn the exact same suit, but died it a single color, there would be no violation and no problem.

So, then, here is the question. What is the purpose of the rule? Why is it important that this rule be followed? Was the rule put in place because other teams had had uniform violations that, for example, created confusion in a track meet about keeping track of people? Here, we know that the rule had not been enforced for the past 3 years; therefore, we know it is not a critical rule, because her uniform confers no advantage. And we know that she is a Muslim, and is wearing this uniform in order to preserve modesty as her religion requires. So, the officical could have done any number of things: He could have allowed her to run and provided a warning for future meets (given she was there and ready to perform), he could have DQed her knowing full well that he would ignite a controversy that cannot reflect well on anyone involved; he could have simply allowed her to run and end of story. He selected the one that created the most havoc. Yes, he asked her to abide by the rules; yes, she did not handle it well. Yes, the coach made a mistake. But I just don't see a major problem in letting the issue pass, and simply making hte coach aware. This would be similar to telling an orthodox Jew that he has to remove his headcovering. You can do it, but should you? Some common sense all around would have saved the day.

It is disheartening to read all the responses. Everyone here who says rules are rules and must be followed knows full well that often they are not, and often they break rules and expect to get away with it, whatever the rule is. When a cop pulls you over for speeding, he can ticket you or give you a warning; that is a decision the cop makes. I'm going to bet you would want him to give you the warning, all you "let's follow the rules" people. That is no different here, with what the offical did. He had discretion and exercised in a way that ended causing a problem for a whole lot of people, that ended up being much more than what it was and that reflected poorly on everyone involved. This all could have been avoided.

Roar wrote:

It is disheartening to read all the responses. Everyone here who says rules are rules and must be followed knows full well that often they are not, and often they break rules and expect to get away with it, whatever the rule is. When a cop pulls you over for speeding, he can ticket you or give you a warning; that is a decision the cop makes. I'm going to bet you would want him to give you the warning, all you "let's follow the rules" people. That is no different here, with what the offical did. He had discretion and exercised in a way that ended causing a problem for a whole lot of people, that ended up being much more than what it was and that reflected poorly on everyone involved. This all could have been avoided.

If a cop pulled me over and gave me a ticket I would have absolutely no legitimate response. I would have broken a rule. I would prefer a warning, but that doesn't mean he's in the wrong to give me a ticket just as the official wasn't wrong to DQ her.

Roar wrote:

This all could have been avoided.

Right. It could have been avoided if she followed the rules.

There are tons of useless and/or outdated rules that no one should pay attention to. Google "stupid laws" and you'll see what I mean. It's a stupid rule that would only be enforced by an egomaniac with an agenda.

dean moriarty wrote:

There are tons of useless and/or outdated rules that no one should pay attention to. Google "stupid laws" and you'll see what I mean. It's a stupid rule that would only be enforced by an egomaniac with an agenda.

As I've said before, I think a little common sense could have gone a long way here. However, even being at the meet I wasn't privy to exactly what happened.

Tom Rogers is not an egomaniac. He runs a good meet. From what I've heard, many hav esaid that he offered some reasonable and easy solutions that the coach and family refused to consider. Instead, they immediately got their backs up and became indignant. I think both sides could have handled the situation better.