when you have a thousand rules, there can be a thousand interpretations.
one of the NCAAs undoing is ambiguity via excessive rules
There's no emotion in my statement that it shouldn't fcking matter if he ran 8 or 8000 meters of the 10000, he still beat people and earned his trip in the 5000.
You can't argue that. He's not on drugs, he didn't fcking cheat, he ran faster than his comp and earned his trip.
The ncaa needs to get the fck out of the way.
Total bullsht
For those of you that don't understand the honest effort rule and why they have it and why it applies in this case, do some research. For those that don't understand why he needed to get clearance from official meet medical staff to compete in the 5k once he dropped out of the 10k, do some research.
The honest effort rule is an excellent rule and all coaches know the rules (or should). It is pretty simple and I feel bad for the kid that his coach doesn't know what he is doing.
See above. Rules were covered. I'm hardly a Hokie hater considering they paid my education.
Did the VT runner know that if you DNF an event you can no longer compete in that meet? Was he aware of the medical exemption rule? Did he think he could drop out with a cramp and come back for the 5000? This rule is in place not only for regionals, but also conference championships. As an athlete I have always been under the assumption that if I DNF, I am done for the meet. I have been quite pissed off at a few teammates for making this error in the past, as it cost the team potential points in another event. I was never aware of a medical exemption rule until this thread. At what point (without requesting an appeal) did the VT athlete and coaches believe it was within the rules for him to run the 5000? I am honestly confused as to why the VT coaching staff even let him start and why, as a 5th year senior, he believed he could start that race.
For the record, Le was limping off the track after the 10K. So it's not like his hamstring was just a little bit tight.
VT coach is stupid. That's the only story here. Actually not much of a story...
Agree. The 5000 was 2 DAYS later?? NOBODY informed him, or his coach, that he could not legally run in the 5000??? Maybe an appeal (during those 2 days) might have been a good idea, and something the coach should have known.
Trying to keep emotion out of it, and just look at this logically, here is where I see a number of problems in this case:
1) The Honest Effort Rule. Regardless of whether or not the reasoning behind this rule or not is intelligent, the question is, can it be implemented correctly and without question (without any ambiguity). In a prior comment, one of the posters stated, "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." Thank you for proving my point. Who can judge otherwise. In reading the honest effort rule, it does not appear that there are explicit conditions stated in the rule that not finishing the race is deemed a lack of an honest effort. I understand that the meet officials interpreted things this way, but too often in this sport, from meet to meet, I've heard different interpretations of rules, even seen officials disagree during a coaches meeting about various rules and interpretations of said rules. If a rule is subject to such open interpretation, or that the implementation is so cut and dry, then why have the rule in the first place? I could be missing something, but I don't see the reading of Rule 4-2.2a, 4-2.2b, or 4-2.1.
2) If the meet officials set up the interpretation as Honest Effort required completion of the race OR clearance with the medical staff before competing in another event, then the meet officials should have had a meeting that night to review finishers from the 10000 and compare that list to those from the meet medical staff. Where the meet medical staff documenting and providing officials with this information, or was that available. How were meet officials going to verify if an athlete who DNF sought clearance from the medical staff. Were their coaches meetings at the end of the day or the start of the day to confirm this. Why did the meet officials allow this to continue for two days, run the race and then upon notification from the Harvard coach make a decision. This really sounds like a) poor meet management that cannot keep track of potential disqualifications, and also b) a failure of due diligence upon the Virginia Tech coaching staff not to have their athlete evaluated, even the next day after recognizing they dropped out. However, again, even a medical evaluation clearing an athlete to participate doesn't help determine Honest Effort, does it. Even if an athlete is not cleared by a medical staff to compete in any further events (thus making the Honest Effort determination moot), you still cannot make any definitive statement on their effort.
3) Which brings us to the Harvard coaches. Meet officials sometimes miss things. If a Harvard athlete were interfered with during a race, or one of his competitors used some form of enhancement to beat the Harvard runner (whether physical, chemical, mechanical, etc), and meet officials missed it, I completely agree with the Harvard coach(es) filing a protest. In these cases, it is cut and dry that their athlete's ability to perform was directly impacted by the action of another. However, this is not the case. The Harvard runner was running in another heat, correct? While the participation of the VT runner did affect the outcome of his heat, we cannot definitively say how it affected the outcome. Did it make the finalists faster? Did it potentially slow down the second person out, meaning if the VT runner had not participated, he would have been the first person out, making the Harvard runner two spots out? It would be hard to make a definitive statement on that. However what we can say are the following regarding the Harvard runner and coach: either 1) Your runner is not a good enough athlete/racer to have qualified for the finals (or they would have), or 2) The Harvard coach didn't prepare his athlete (either physiologically, mentally, or tactically, or all three) well enough to make finals, or 3) Both the runner and coach just didn't get the job done. Honestly, hard to argue against one of these options, but in the end, the Harvard runner and/or coach didn't get the job done. Protesting over the Virginia Tech athlete's participation is clearly sour grapes on the part of the Harvard coach. There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. If your athlete doesn't make finals, and no one interferes with him during the race, either you, they, or both of you failed. You didn't earn it. They didn't earn it. That's life. What a great life lesson. Instead, what we saw was when you fail to get the job done, blame someone else and attack their success. Great lesson!!! Filing a protest to DQ the runner based on the honest effort rule is right up there with filing a protest because one athlete wore a nose ring heading into competition. YOUR RUNNER DIDN'T EARN IT. YOUR RUNNER WASN'T HINDERED BY THE VT RUNNER. Recruit better athletes, or become a better coach. That's how you should handle the situation.
Yeah, VT distance coach is stupid.... Only qualified 3 guys, 3 girls and had two other top 15 finishers. SIX, nearly 8 ncaa qualifiers with a bunch of no names. What a lousy coach...
Should a basketball player be banned from the rest of the NCAA tournament because he has leg cramps and can't finish the game? I don't think that anyone questions the honest effort of the basketball player who can't complete the game.
An NCAA runner experiences heatstroke or leg cramps at 8k into the 10k and the runner reasonably pulls out of the race or risk serious injury. This runner must be banned from additional events they have qualified for? Wtf.
webfoot wrote:
Should a basketball player be banned from the rest of the NCAA tournament because he has leg cramps and can't finish the game? I don't think that anyone questions the honest effort of the basketball player who can't complete the game.
An NCAA runner experiences heatstroke or leg cramps at 8k into the 10k and the runner reasonably pulls out of the race or risk serious injury. This runner must be banned from additional events they have qualified for? Wtf.
No they are not banned from additional events. They just need to get clearance from the medical staff provided by the meet. If they really needed to drop out for medical reasons they will be cleared. The coaches all knew this and the Virginia Tech coach didn't bother to get him cleared. That is what tells me that once the VT runner knew he wasn't going to qualify in the 10k, he dropped out to save himself for the 5k. Had it really been his hamstring, they would have gotten it cleared with the medical staff, since all the coaches knew this is what they needed to do. I feel bad for the kid, but this is a no brainer that he should be disqualified for the 5k.
The VT runner should be reinstated immediately.
What does going to the NCAA medical staff accomplish? Pain can easily be faked.
might be wejo wrote:
What does going to the NCAA medical staff accomplish? Pain can easily be faked.
And what exactly does the "honest" part of "honest effort" mean to you?
Ultimately this comes down to 2 things. The VT coach and athlete tried to dick around the rules and got caught, and the Harvard coach is a dick who knows the rules and busted them.
I'm inclined to let the 5th year senior run because he earned the spot (and I can't imagine the Harvard kid feels good about getting in based on a technicality), but it would have to be the result of the Harvard coach dropping the appeal because there definitely was a rules violation here.
The only rules violation was the DQ of the runner.
Dumb interpretation of the rule. If you run 8800 meters of a 10k and cramp up that's an honest effort.
So if you jog around at 5:20 pace for two miles of a 5k when you are a 13 flat guy and kick it home that's an honest effort. Bust your balls for 5.5 miles of a 10k and you aren't. If that's the case anyone running 88% or less of max should be DQd as set by this precedent.
When an athlete fails to complete an event they are out of the meet unless there is medical documentation. Harvard may have protested, but it is quite possible that the NCAA would have removed the individual from advancing regardless.
Now to make sure everyone understands, if the athlete had finished in the top 5 of the 10k and just said, forget it, I am not running the 5k 2 days later and did not, he would be out of the meet and not advancing to Eugene in the 10k, unless medically cleared. If he would have started the 5k and not finished he would be out of the meet in the 10k.
This rule is clearly emphasized to all coaches at every conference meet and national meet in America. The rule is not new, its been around forever. The VT coaches dropped the ball. He would've been put out of the meet eventually once the NCAA saw the he had no medical documentation from the 10k.
What's the actual wording of the rule? It seems that a lot of people (potentially including the officials) are confusing an interpretation of a rule with the actual rule.
Would seem it doesn't really matter how prepared his athletes are if he doesn't know the rules....I am sure those kids enjoy being called no names as well. Time to remove BT's sac from your chin.
mr. tard wrote:
Yeah, VT distance coach is stupid.... Only qualified 3 guys, 3 girls and had two other top 15 finishers. SIX, nearly 8 ncaa qualifiers with a bunch of no names. What a lousy coach...
Or the VA Tech coaches believe their runner participated in the 10K within the spirit of the NCAA rules. The fact that the VA Tech runner was allowed to start and finish the 5K is proof that their opinion was shared by the meet organizers. Why would the meet organizers let an unqualified runner start a 5K race? They wouldn't. Any issues regarding the 10K race should have been raised within 30 minutes of the results being posted. To make a protest 2 days later to advance a non-qualifier is unfair assistance by non-competitors. It has nothing to do with the race, and highlights the problems with a so called rule and it's interpretation that has been going on for close to 10 years. The NCAA even has a Rules Committee that has been trying to sort out this rule and it's interpretation for years. Good work. Glad you are on the case. Reinstate the VA Tech runner. It's the right thing to do.