USATF Explanation for Alice Schmidt Being in 1500m Final

The most relevant rule for this situation is 166.7:

"When an individual or relay team, having qualified for a subsequent round, withdraws for any reason, no additional individual or relay team shall be advanced to fill the vacated position. When an individual or relay team is disqualified prior to the subsequent round, the qualifiers and seeding shall be redetermined without the disqualified competitor(s) unless the disqualification results in an advancement under Rule 163.4, in which case no other advancement shall occur."

Rule 163.4:

"Any competitor or participant jostling, running across, or obstructing another competitor or participant so as to impede his or her progress shall be liable to disqualification in that event. The Referee shall have the authority to order the race to be reheld, excluding the disqualified competitor or, in the case of a heat, to permit any competitor(s) seriously affected by jostling or obstruction (other than the disqualified competitor) to compete in a subsequent round of the race. Normally, such an athlete should have completed the event with bona fide effort. Regardless of whether there has been a disqualification, the Referee, in exceptional circumstances, shall also have the authority to advance a competitor seriously affected by jostling or obstruction or to order the race to be re-held if it is just and reasonable to do so."

The way I read this (as applied to the Anderson case), Schmidt was advanced to the final because of the Anderson DQ, in accordance with 166.7. *If* a competitor who had been "seriously affected by jostling..." had been advanced (i.e., Mortimer), Schmidt would not have been advanced to the final.

There is nothing in the rule book about the procedure for handling an overturned appeal. The closest applicable rule is the rule cited by Ms. Geer concerning athletes competing under protest (particularly in a field event going from trials to finals), where the DQ'ed athlete is still allowed to compete with the rest of the field while the appeal is being considered.

As one poster above noted, this is simply a case of USATF jumping the gun and needlessly acting on a DQ before all appeals had been exhausted. There was no need to make a quick decision or to make that decision public. Some in this forum have called for Ms. Geer to be the new leader of USATF, but the way communications have been handled over the past two weekends, I have my doubts.

USATF is trying to use some common sense and fair play here.

Seriously Wejo, don't go starting trouble where there is none.

Someone please tell me why Mortimier the original athlete that was impeded was not let in?!

USATF/Nike knew the rules so they DQ'd Anderson knowing she would get reinstated after an appeal but then they would have to leave Schmidt in. Or at least they would have an excuse to leave her in.

If Schmidt had true character and morals she would remove herself from the final knowing she did not EARN a spot in the final.

Again USATF has used there ability to make up rules on the fly to there benefit.

I love the support Nike gives the sport and to USATF but this is too much. It's happening way too often and only with Nike athletes or UO athletes. Where is the credibility?

pogo wrote:

Once you alert someone that they are advancing, you advance them.

What authority do you have for this assertion?

If a sprinter is alerted that she is advancing based on a subsequently reversed disqualification, are you asserting that the officials are required to squeeze another competitor into the finals? What if two disqualifications are subsequently reversed? Do you just have a mass start for the final, like a playground competition?

Of course, one may be somewhat sympathetic to an athlete who believes that she is advancing based on someone else's disqualification, and is thereafter told that she is not when the disqualification is reversed, but that's not a compelling reason to provide the athlete with an unearned spot in the finals.

webfoot wrote:

USATF told Schmidt she was in. I don't think 13 in the final is a problem in terms of number of runners for a 1500m. 13 in the final is also a lesser evil than telling Schmidt she's out after telling her she's in.

Brojos, please don't start manufacturing "news" stories.

This, everyone vote as POD

It sounds like an 800/1500 double in the Olympics is not realistic. Even if she qualified in the 1500, would Schmidt run it in the Olympics? She did not earn the spot in the finals without a DQ. Now, potentially, she could influence the outcome of the race, and may not have any intention of running it in the Olympics. I think the "right" thing for her to do would be to not run the final of the 1500 unless she knows she'd give up her 800 spot to run the 1500 if she finishes in the top 3.

Avocado's Number wrote:

What authority do you have for this assertion?

If a sprinter is alerted that she is advancing based on a subsequently reversed disqualification, are you asserting that the officials are required to squeeze another competitor into the finals? What if two disqualifications are subsequently reversed? Do you just have a mass start for the final, like a playground competition?

Of course, one may be somewhat sympathetic to an athlete who believes that she is advancing based on someone else's disqualification, and is thereafter told that she is not when the disqualification is reversed, but that's not a compelling reason to provide the athlete with an unearned spot in the finals.

My authority is common sense.

Your hypothetical situation is irrelevant, as is the Gatlin one from earlier. Running under protest is an entirely different can of worms.

I love your coverage and much of your insight of the trials, wejo, but of all the other things going on there and in particular the infinitely more puzzling, unjustifiable and downright stupid decisions made by USATF, you really need to get the F over this relative non-issue.

Ruth Wysocki wrote:

It sounds like an 800/1500 double in the Olympics is not realistic. Even if she qualified in the 1500, would Schmidt run it in the Olympics? She did not earn the spot in the finals without a DQ. Now, potentially, she could influence the outcome of the race, and may not have any intention of running it in the Olympics. I think the "right" thing for her to do would be to not run the final of the 1500 unless she knows she'd give up her 800 spot to run the 1500 if she finishes in the top 3.

This makes sense. Unless she gets a bonus for qualifying for the games in the 1500.

All in all, if USATF says she is in, she's in. And it is her choice to run the final for whatever reason she may want.

wejo wrote:

Nothing was final. There was an appeal in process.

Like in the NFL. They rule an touchdown, there then is an appeal, they look at the appeal. If they take back the touchdown, they don't then say, "ok you can keep the 6 points."

That's a terrible comparison.

Can somebody give an explanation for why USATF would advance a runner prior to the appeal process being completed? How could that have happened?

wejo wrote:

pogo wrote:

At this point, I think once you tell someone they're into the final, without a foul to their name, they're in. (so long as the event is contested with a waterfall start, as the 1500m is) Basically, once Schmidt was told she's in, she's in.

Nothing was final. There was an appeal in process.

Like in the NFL. They rule an touchdown, there then is an appeal, they look at the appeal. If they take back the touchdown, they don't then say, "ok you can keep the 6 points."

You're comparing apples and oranges. And this is not the 100 meters either with only 8 lanes to use, e.g., can't use blocks beyond the 400 meters. Once she was told she's in the final, it's final. She's in.

pogo wrote:

My authority is common sense.

Your hypothetical situation is irrelevant, as is the Gatlin one from earlier. Running under protest is an entirely different can of worms.

I wasn't talking about a case of running under protest. I was talking about situations that are procedurally identical to the situation here.

I doubt that Schmidt was ever told by any official that she had an unqualified right to advance to the finals, regardless of whether any protest by Anderson were upheld. And even if she had been told such a thing by someone with the apparent authority to bind USATF on such matters, I doubt that such a statement would be binding, under principles of estoppel or otherwise. These issues come up all the time, in lots of different settings, and are typically resolved under rules and analyses that go far beyond unexamined notions of "common sense."

What is the tie break process used when high jumpers or pole vaulters have exactly the same result of jumps made and jumps missed?

She can decide what she wants to run AFTER the 1500m. Why should she have to decide anything beforehand. Should Shalane not have run the 10k since she knew she was not going to run the 10 in London? Should Lagat of skipped the 1500 at Nationals before the last world meet? USATF said she made the final. She should lace up and race.

AGREED. It's a non-issue. There is plenty of room.

(1) If Schmidt makes the team in the 1500, she said that she will drop the 800.

(2) The notion that once you tell a runner that he/she advanced you cannot tell that runner later that he/she isn't advancing is poppycock. That's precisely what USATF did with Anderson (and then told her that she was advancing).

(3) Letting Schmidt into the final is a much bigger deal than most are making it out to be because she is only 1 of 5 with the A and it's unlikely that a B is going to get the A in this race (we have seen time and time again that nobody wants to be the sacrificial lamb in the 1500). Having her wrongly in the race greatly impacts how the other 4 As will run. It's not like she just missed it either. She wasn't in the top 5 and had 2 more little qs ahead of her.

(4) If anyone had any doubt that the fix is in with Nike and USATF, this should eliminate it.

The Reality of Jealousy wrote:

Actually, she is in the final because she races in pearls.

Yeah, that's it.