I do not see a slew of personal attacks here. There's some emotional rhetoric and tart jibes at some coaches and officials, but the facts and arguments stated are well presented. Bravo Vin5anity, and brickbats to Larry
I do not see a slew of personal attacks here. There's some emotional rhetoric and tart jibes at some coaches and officials, but the facts and arguments stated are well presented. Bravo Vin5anity, and brickbats to Larry
The issue is not with the Virginia Tech runner or the Harvard coach. The issue is with the Virginia Tech coach. It was clearly stated in the coaches meeting before the meet that all medical clearances with regards to not completing an event must be approved by the medical staff on site, not by your team trainer or doctor. The Virginia Tech kid DNF and didn't seek a medical clearance to come back and compete in the 5K. Every distance coach at the meet knew he was going to get DQ'd. It was a cut and dry case. The VT coached messed up.
Oh yeah because it's his fault. Please keep him out of this.
LetsRun.com wrote:
BooHoo wrote:This falls on the Virginia Tech coaching staff for not knowing the rules on seeing the NCAA medical staff and informing the athlete about the ramifications for DNFing.
VA tech could have handled it better but so could have the NCAA, meet officials and rival coaches.
In our minds, in an ideal world, if you let him start the race, that's it. He's in the race. He impacts the race by being in it. Anyone that wants him DQd, whether it's meet officials, rival coaches, etc. need to have him DQd BEFORE it starts.
It's absurd to let a kid race and then DQ him after the fact.
Hopefully, moving forward changes can be made so that this situation doesn't arise again. The NCAA should develop a protocol where after each race the DNFs are addressed to see if they have additional races to run.
This all should have been handled BEFORE the gun went off. Common sense wise, if we got a protest after the fact, we'd be tempted to say, "We're not considering it." It's sort of like instant replay in the NFL, once the next play starts, you can't go back and review the previous play.
Once the 10k starts, you shouldn't be allowed to go back and DQ someone for not giving an honest effort in the 5k. Since it sounds like he did give an honest effort, it's even more disappointing.
This ^^^
If Harvard was mad because he didn't have "intent to compete" in the 10k, why not try the DQ right after the 10k when you say it? And if he started off last and started moving through the pack lap by lap, he was obviously competing... How do you even justify "intent to compete" at that point? If he wanted to save it for the 5k he would've just not ran the 10k, why would you run a hard 6.2 miles less than 48 hours before your next race if you don't have to? This DQ is messed up and I feel that the "intent to compete" rule, the way it's used now, is totally messed up... We should do a petition to let the VA Tech Runner back on!
East track coach wrote:
The issue is not with the Virginia Tech runner or the Harvard coach. The issue is with the Virginia Tech coach. It was clearly stated in the coaches meeting before the meet that all medical clearances with regards to not completing an event must be approved by the medical staff on site, not by your team trainer or doctor. The Virginia Tech kid DNF and didn't seek a medical clearance to come back and compete in the 5K. Every distance coach at the meet knew he was going to get DQ'd. It was a cut and dry case. The VT coached messed up.
Show where it says that in the rules.
The honest effort rules is honestly a joke, they qualified for the event not you or anyone else, you cannot tell them how much "effort" they have to give or have given.
DQs should also never grant the next slowest guy into the spot. If 10 spots get in and number 10 gets DQ'd the 10th spot remains empty, number 11 should not get upgraded, he has already proven he doesn't belong in the finals by failing to make it.
#FreeDegfae
Lee Degfae is from same high school as Harvard recruit Louis Colson.
What a douchebag move by the Harvard coach. Shame on you-how selfish!
In the coaches meeting they stated that if an athlete was declared in an event they must compete in it unless cleared by medical staff.
The wording makes it look like if he wanted to get out of the 10k due to some type of injury, but still race the 5k, he would need to see medical staff. This is a rare situation that the rules are not really written for.
The rule is more so designed for someone that may have tweaked a hamstring in the 100 (but still qualifies) and wants to get out of the 200, which is the race after, so they can rest up for nationals 2 weeks later.
The wording of the rule in the coaches meeting made it look like you needed to see medical staff to avoid getting on the line, not to prove that you could get back on it.
Oh come on . . . wrote:
Also two other runners from Providence and Georgetown DNF'd from the 10,000 but did not come back to run the 5,000 despite qualifying. So if you can't finish a race, you don't get to come back later in the meet. I have no sympathy for the VT runner.
This is untrue for all three runners. None were qualified in the 5,000m.
Makes no sense. Feel real bad for the athlete.
Why is it ok to run the first race you are entered in and if it goes well, dnf or DNS the second. It's the same idea and it happens more often. It happens in the 5k of conference meets and the 3k at Ncaas every year.
Agreed. The rule may have a purpose, but it is a stretch to apply it to a case like this. The VA Tech runner completed 8K of a 10K race. That's an honest effort. A 100m runner could sprint and be in the race up to the 80m mark, and shut things down to coast across the line. No questions of honest effort there. The rule seems to penalize the top athletes who can qualify for multiple events. As a sport Track should avoid going down the path of being a "judged" sport. These types of disputes are unfair to the athletes, the people who are competing, who deserve better. The VA Tech runner should be reinstated in the interests of the sport, and basic fairness. If mistakes were made, they weren't made by the athlete, the person being penalized in this case.
Quinn and King both qualified in the 5,000
Irony 101 wrote:
Lee Degfae is from same high school as Harvard recruit Louis Colson.
you dope... that's not "irony"....it's called a "coincidence."
How about the NCAA just makes the logical decision and allows both athletes to compete? Seems to me like the Virginia Tech runner should have been disqualified BEFORE the 10k, but that didn't happen. It's not like adding one more person to the 5k is gonna screw up the field.
First, I completely understand the passion on this thread for the Tech kid. It sucks that he ran the 5,000 and qualified and then was DQ'd, I feel for him because this mess isn't his fault!
Everyone needs to take a step back from the emotion. The honest effort rule is simple, if you don't finish a race you aren't deemed to have given an honest effort. Why? Because who can judge otherwise? I know he ran 8k so obviously thats well beyond "saving" yourself for the 5,000 later, but you can't have a flexible rule thats open to interpretation.
The clerks/meet management people running the meet made the mistake letting him line up for the 5,000, he shouldn't have been allowed to run, bottom line. It isn't the NCAA's rules committee's fault for having to DQ him when the protest was made, they had no choice. The Harvard coaches did the right thing by their athlete in lodging the protest, their responsibility is to their athlete and they looked after him.
Again, let me clearly state I feel terrible for the Tech athlete, I'm not bashing anyone, a mistake was made and an athlete suffered. That is unacceptable, but unfortunately the reality in this instance.
Correct. The blame is on the VT coach. He should know the rules by now. The runner should never have been allowed to start the 5,000.
Bleu hokie hater,
Please cite and provide written rule that vt coach "should have known"
And that justifies Le Degfae's dq.