polevaultpower wrote:
Conto wrote:I still don't understand why Jordan Hassay's withdrawal of an appeal that was already ruled upon should make a difference to GG? Of course GG should have won, but USATF has stated it was the act of Hassay withdrawing, not a mistake on their part, that led to her reinstatement. That makes no sense. Again, I use the following analogy:
An acquantance steals from me. I press charges. He goes to trial and is sentenced to some jail time. I then say, "you know what, I recant pressing charges". Its not like it matters at that point. The only thing that could change the decision is if there was new evidence or issues with the trial itself.
USATF had issues in the trial. They should never have gotten to a 3rd decision. We all know this. But that isn't what they said. It was Hassy withdrawing an already ruled upon appeal that they site as the reason. That makes no sense.
Now, on to Bumbi. How do we affect change there?
You're right, it makes no sense. So in the vein of that nonsense, let's all demand that Salazar withdraw his protest of Bumbalough, since apparently withdrawing a ruled upon protest days after the fact is a thing that you can do...
I mean we wouldn't want USATF to admit that THEY screwed up, would we?
Read the rule book. The rules apply for an initial appeal of the ruling on the track, and to appeal that decision to the committee. But the committee's decision is final unless new evidence can be produced, and that of course is the can of worms that Nike got them into.
Now, the committee claims to have reversed their decision besed on new evidence (really intimidation by Salazar apparently), and after that you have Brooks filing a section 9 arbitration with USOC, and USOC on the case with the potential of beginning decertification if USATF cannot show proof of the "new evidence."
But under the rules, there is no way to reverse the decision to DQ. The only way out of this was for Hasay to withdraw the protest, and that is what Max and Hasay apparently worked out.