USATF Explanation for Alice Schmidt Being in 1500m Final

rentawreck wrote:

Perhaps because your logic is flawed and you don't read prior posts. Please post a link showing that your #2 is the proper procedure. It isn't. Look at the 200 semis yesterday. Multiple guys scratched and guess who was moved up to fill their spots? You got it, nobody.

It is shocking that so many don't understand how wrong it is that Schmidt was added to the final. She has ABSOLUTELY no business being there and her presence is going to have a large impact on the race.

Scratches are well covered in the procedural rules and were properly followed. Frankly it is not clear to me that this situation is covered explicitly in the rules. Most people seem to be relying on logic and extrapolation (which, I agree by those standards Schmidt should be out).

Find the rule that states that in the event of a DQ that competitor's spot is not filled.

kthx

This is correct. The situation is not complicated and the only rule you need to know is that the top 5 from each heat plus the next 2 fastest advance.

The DQ during the race effectively results in a DNF for Anderson and necessarily moves Schmidt to the 5th qualifying spot out of that heat.

If a runner is disqualified from a final you wouldn't vacate his or her place and leave everyone else where they finished. Each runner would move up one place effective at the time of the DQ. The same applies for a prelim.

Therefore, Schmidt properly advanced with the DQ when she was moved up to 5th place in the heat and qualifies for the final. I view this qualification as a one way door. Once she goes through it she can't be removed from the final by the same door. She qualified by virtue of the DQ. The DQ was overturned but it doesn't matter because Schmidt was already in the final.

USATF messed up when they disqualified Anderson, not when they left Schmidt in the final.

This is the post I was replying in support of:

I don't understand how everyone can't just follow the simple chain of logic:

1) Anderson gets DQed from the simi

2) Schmidt is therefore added to the final as the next person in line from that heat

3) Anderson protests DQ

4) The protest is upheld and she is given an extra spot in the final

It's not Schmidt getting the "added spot" - it's Anderson, who was disqualified from her simi-final heat.

Seems pretty simple to me

rentawreck wrote:

Schmidt only was in the final because the USATF arbitrarily added her to the final after the semis had been completed. She didn't qualify under the established procedures. USATF just as easily could have added Shalane to the final as Shalane had just as much business being added -- zero.

Using a red herring such as Shalane doesn't make your point any stronger and, if anything, it probably weakens any argument you'd make because you come off as hysterical. You've already attemtped to use a situation which didn't occur in the 200m semis to support your point and you were factually incorrect about that. So it might be best, if you wish to be taken seriously, to stick to the 1500m alone.

Schmidt was added to the final because of a DQ which is normal procedure. The DQ'd runner appealed and was reinstated and added to the field. There does seem to be precedence in appeals leading to larger than expected fields.

It also doesn't appear that there is a clear written rule covering this exact situation and I suspect this was the result of a "split decision" by the review committee. I don't find their decision all that awful as I can see, to a degree, both sides. I don't think there is an absolute in this case which obviously some do.

I do wonder about the OP couching the original DQ thread with "cancer survivor" etc. While props go to those who've suffered and survived this has nothing to do with the situation and interjects entirely too much emotion into the debate. If the two athletes were less prominent athletes and neither was a survivor of a devastating disease would this be much of an issue to anyone? My guess is no.

Schmidt will like have an affect on the race...and it's stupid to ignore that.....as she could make the team.

Schmidt was not arbitrarily added to the final. She qualified when everyone moved up a place as a result of the DQ.

The situation is not one where a runner is scratched or running under protest and it certainly isn't a football or basketball game. The function of the rule(s) is specific to this situation and this distance.

"I view this qualification as a one way door. Once she goes through it she can't be removed from the final by the same door."

You are just making that up and it's not supported either by the USATF rules or any notion of logic. You just as easily could make up an equally irrelevant rule -- such as the better looking runner advances -- and it would be similarly arbitrary and wrong.

that other guy wrote:

Find the rule that states that in the event of a DQ that competitor's spot is not filled.

kthx

There was no DQ in this race as Anderson has not been DQed. It's top 5 plus next 2 fastest. However, if you are Nike athlete, you can be given a free pass despite not being in the top 5 plus next 2 fastest.

Thank you, I don't see why this is so hard to understand!

(besides the fast that Wejo and others want to make a big deal of OHHHNIKEUSATFHARHARDURRHAR)

The rules pretty clearly state that when a competitor is disqualified their mark from that event is invalid. Since Anderson's mark was invalid, Schmidt becomes the 5th place finisher in the heat, moving her into the finals.

USATF could certainly be a little more clear on the rules of reinstatement, but I don't find it that hard to follow.

She was DQed - that's the whole reason that this thread exists!

Shalane is not a red herring -- she has just as much business being in the final as Schmidt does. She doesn't.

This situation really isn't that complicated -- top 5 plus next 2 fastest make the final. Schmidt didn't qualify under a very simple standard and shouldn't be in the final. Under your flawed logic, if USATF DQed 8 women for uniform violations on Friday night, added the next 8 fastest to the final and then reinstated all of the formerly DQed women on Saturday after appeals, then we would be having a 20 woman final because once someone is added to the final she never ever ever can be removed. That's ridiculous.

rentawreck wrote:

"I view this qualification as a one way door. Once she goes through it she can't be removed from the final by the same door."

You are just making that up and it's not supported either by the USATF rules or any notion of logic. You just as easily could make up an equally irrelevant rule -- such as the better looking runner advances -- and it would be similarly arbitrary and wrong.

I think it is perfectly logical that once you qualify for the final you should expect to be in the final. The DQ vacates the spot effective at the time of the DQ.

I think what's tripping people up is thinking that the process of DQ-protest-no DQ = finishing the race with no disqualifications at all.

It's not - the DQ is still there, but it was later ruled invalid and she was reinstated.

The Once and Future Runner wrote:

rentawreck wrote:

"I view this qualification as a one way door. Once she goes through it she can't be removed from the final by the same door."

You are just making that up and it's not supported either by the USATF rules or any notion of logic. You just as easily could make up an equally irrelevant rule -- such as the better looking runner advances -- and it would be similarly arbitrary and wrong.

I think it is perfectly logical that once you qualify for the final you should expect to be in the final. The DQ vacates the spot effective at the time of the DQ.

Do you mean like when Anderson qualified for the final and expected to be in the final but then was told that she wasn't in the final? Or are we talking about a different situation? You can't have it both ways -- if you are so myopic that you think that once someone is told he/she is in the final, you have crossed the Rubicon and never can go back, then Anderson never could have been taken out of the final to begin with (she got the magical words of "you are in the final").

I did a little research, and went back to the 1996 trials that Ruth Wysocki competed in. She petitioned for a spot in the final due to being tripped in her semifinal, and her petition was granted. Sarah Thorsett was DQ'd because of the contact during that semifinal, but was later reinstated after she appealed the DQ. The top six from each heat advanced to the final that year (no advancing on time). I noticed 14 runners competed in that final, one being Fran ten Bensel, who finished 7th in Wysocki's and Thorsett's semi-final. I can't find any reference to it, but upon Thorsett's DQ, did USATF advance both Wysocki (for being impeded) and ten Bensel (moved up from 7th to 6th on the DQ), then finally decided to leave both those runners in the final upon overturning Thorsett's DQ?

rentawreck wrote:

Shalane is not a red herring -- she has just as much business being in the final as Schmidt does. She doesn't.

It complete devalues your opinion since Flanagan was not entered in the event.

Schmidt was advanced on the basis of a DQ of another athlete. Now whether she should retain that slot is subject to debate as, having read the rules, the situation does not appear to be covered in either direction.

Under your flawed logic, if USATF DQed 8 women for uniform violations on Friday night, added the next 8 fastest to the final and then reinstated all of the formerly DQed women on Saturday after appeals, then we would be having a 20 woman final because once someone is added to the final she never ever ever can be removed. That's ridiculous.

What flawed logic would that be? You keep firing off unrelated situations to attempt to prove a point such as a non competing athlete and facts untrue in another event which has a different set of rules in the first place.

I don't particularly care if Schmidt runs or not but I find those up in arms about the fact that she is running a bit over the top.

All I know is that if I was Schmidt and was told I'd be in the final and then later removed, I'd send the USATF a bill for all the hotel charges and other expenses incurred by myself and all my family members who stayed longer because they were told I'd b in the final.

Answering my own question here.... http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=VNggAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GGsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2640,5460609&dq=sarah+thorsett&hl=enWhat is odd to me is, in the Anderson/Schmidt situation, why wasn't Mortimer advanced to the final (assuming she is the runner who filed the original protest)?

you cannot be serious wrote:

I did a little research, and went back to the 1996 trials that Ruth Wysocki competed in. She petitioned for a spot in the final due to being tripped in her semifinal, and her petition was granted. Sarah Thorsett was DQ'd because of the contact during that semifinal, but was later reinstated after she appealed the DQ. The top six from each heat advanced to the final that year (no advancing on time). I noticed 14 runners competed in that final, one being Fran ten Bensel, who finished 7th in Wysocki's and Thorsett's semi-final. I can't find any reference to it, but upon Thorsett's DQ, did USATF advance both Wysocki (for being impeded) and ten Bensel (moved up from 7th to 6th on the DQ), then finally decided to leave both those runners in the final upon overturning Thorsett's DQ?

First it's been a good number of years since I studied the rules and I'm unclear on some things.

What rule allowed them to call the list official before the protest periods had expired or while a protest was being reviewed ?

Can you declare something final when it can still be ammended? IMO it doesn't matter if the door swings open for entry or exit something is not final,until the door is no longer allowed to swing.

The idea that an unintended consequences of Mortimer asking for a ruling on Anderson's pushing her resulted in an unaffected runner (Schmidt) advancing to the final field even though the ruling for a DQ ,the reason she was advanced, no longer is valid seems more than a bit odd.

Either I need a better brain USAT&F needs better rules or both--I vote both!