Unfair DQ in NCAA East 5k - Va. Tech 5th year senior gets DQd with zero contact!

webfoot wrote:

runner, esquire wrote:

Remedies come AFTER violations, which is what we're talking about here (it's in the word remedies itself). There is a process for finding a violation, it was followed, and a violation was correctly assessed according to the rules and interpretations provided by the NCAA.

What they decide to do about the violation now that it has been found is, again, up to them.

For crying out loud, read the subject line of this thread. It says "Unfair DQ"... THAT is what we are talking about.

And runner,esquire explained very clearly why it was not an unfair dq. Read his posts again. The Virginia Tech coach screwed up, plain and simple. I feel bad for the kid and the coach has to live with his not knowing the basic rule of how the honest effort works and the process for getting reinstated if you drop out of a race and try to run another one.

Honestly, why are people having such a hard time understanding this. Is is just emotion; not even reading what is written by the people that have explained it well; anger; what?

The DQ action has nothing to do with the VT runner or coach.

El Wrong'o wrote:

The DQ action has nothing to do with the VT runner or coach.

Of course it does, but again someone posting that doesn't understand what happened.

You have to put out an honest effort. If you drop out to save yourself for another race, that is considered not giving an honest effort. If you drop out of a race for medical reasons, that is acceptable. It was mentioned that he dropped out because his hamstring was tightening up. In order to run in the 5k and not be dq'd, Virginia Tech needed to go to the trainers/doctors of the host school to substantiate the injury or medical reason for dropping out. If they do so, then he would have been able to compete and not been dq'd.

Years ago I had an athlete that was doubling and in her first race she had a bad asthma attack and dropped out of the race and received medical attention and was cleared by meet doctors to compete in her race the next day if she was able to. I of course, followed the rules and got her cleared like every coach should know.

By not doing this is appears Virginia Tech runner dropped out because he knew he wasn't going to qualify in the 10k and he figured he would save himself for the 5k by not running the last 2000 meters. Had it really been a medical reason they would have followed the proper procedure, since any coach should know the rule. They were hoping it would slide through and nobody would notice. Unfortunately for them, someone did notice and the VT runner was properly dq'd for dropping out of the 10k with no medical reason.

Hopefully you actually read this and if so, it really is pretty simple. I personally feel bad for the kid, but the honest effort rule is an important one in track & field.

Tracky wrote: Hopefully you actually read this and if so, it really is pretty simple. I personally feel bad for the kid, but the honest effort rule is an important one in track & field.

Interesting that the spirit of the rule takes a back seat to overreach and manipulation of the rule. I suppose the guy should have faked an asthma attack like your athlete.

In our legal system it is possible for an innocent person to be convicted even when given a fair trial. This does not make the conviction morally right or "fair", but I suppose it follows your "rules".

Except that it was made clear as day at the coaches' meeting that if an athlete DNF'ed in any event, they needed to be cleared by the host institution's medical staff. VTech had 2 days to sort it out. Sucks for the kid, but could have been sorted out easily.[/quote]

False.

No dog in this fight, but this statement is false. Only dns' /scratches/ not participating were covered in this meeting, as far as instances where a dr's note would be required to compete in a 2nd event. Nothing was said regarding dnf's.

Thank you. Also in this case the runner completed 8K + of the 10K race. Any athlete has either raced or trained to the point where legs tighten, and either cramp, or you can feel a cramp is about to happen. That's all the explanation a reasonable referee should have to hear. No doctor's certificate or blessing required. The runner was racing the 10K, but circumstances made him DNF. To a previous poster, yes the officials should be checking the entrant list for the 5K if they are concerned about DNFs from previous events (10K, Steeple, 1500m) It's not that hard. In this case perhaps it's all about people with hard feelings towards VA Tech. The runner should be reinstated.

webfoot wrote:

Tracky wrote: Hopefully you actually read this and if so, it really is pretty simple. I personally feel bad for the kid, but the honest effort rule is an important one in track & field.

Interesting that the spirit of the rule takes a back seat to overreach and manipulation of the rule. I suppose the guy should have faked an asthma attack like your athlete.

In our legal system it is possible for an innocent person to be convicted even when given a fair trial. This does not make the conviction morally right or "fair", but I suppose it follows your "rules".

Show some class webfoot. As for my athlete, she was on the ground for 30 minutes with trainers all around her, gasping for breath. Some races she suffered attacks, others she didn't. It was always up to her to run, but we tried to discourage her. Thankfully she did and ended her college career on a good note.

The bottom line is that most of the people posting on here do not understand why there is an honest effort rule even though it has been explained. They also don't understand why you need medical clearance, so people don't abuse the honest effort rule. If his hamstring was really tightening up, he could have gotten medical clearance, which any coach should have known you need to do and would have done it. He didn't get cleared, he was dq'd, it sucks for him, end of story. Coaches and athletes need to play by the rules, which are not ambiguous or confusing unless you want them to be.

WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND. I am guessing it is mostly high school kids not understanding, but really it is all pretty simple if you read the posts by people who know what they are talking about, not the people that have a bias towards VT and obviously are letting their emotions guide their thoughts instead of common sense.

Tracky wrote:

The bottom line is that most of the people posting on here do not understand why there is an honest effort rule even though it has been explained. They also don't understand why you need medical clearance, so people don't abuse the honest effort rule. If his hamstring was really tightening up, he could have gotten medical clearance, which any coach should have known you need to do and would have done it. He didn't get cleared, he was dq'd, it sucks for him, end of story. Coaches and athletes need to play by the rules, which are not ambiguous or confusing unless you want them to be.

If that were true they would give him clearance now that it's known but they don't.

J.R. wrote:

Tracky wrote:

The bottom line is that most of the people posting on here do not understand why there is an honest effort rule even though it has been explained. They also don't understand why you need medical clearance, so people don't abuse the honest effort rule. If his hamstring was really tightening up, he could have gotten medical clearance, which any coach should have known you need to do and would have done it. He didn't get cleared, he was dq'd, it sucks for him, end of story. Coaches and athletes need to play by the rules, which are not ambiguous or confusing unless you want them to be.

If that were true they would give him clearance now that it's known but they don't.

What are you talking about. How can you go back and give him the clearance. He needed to see a medical person right after the 10k to show proof that his hamstring was really the reason he dropped out of the 10k. Now it is just his word several days after the 10k. You honestly think that is acceptable. You have to prove you had to drop out due to injury and that would need to be done right away.

Why is this so hard to understand for some of you. Not sure if I am being trolled or not. The honest effort rule has been around for a long time and I remember having to deal with it in high school back in the late 70's. My coach had decisions to make on which events I would run because he knew if I was entered in a race I couldn't not run that race or just jog it or drop out or else I would be out of the meet. That was in the 70's and not much has changed. The VT tech should have known this and either had his runner finish the race or get clearance right after the race was over. They chose not to, possibly because it may have been difficult to prove that his hamstring was really the reason he supposedly had to drop out.

Tracky wrote:

WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND. I am guessing it is mostly high school kids not understanding...

Got it, you play by the rules so your athlete with "asthma" gets another chance. Otherwise she would not be deserving.

I'm middle-aged by the way. The great John Chaplin prevented me from running USA nationals one year because of his petty interpretation of a rule to further his own agenda. That is my frame of reference for the application of rules where it prevents deserving athletes from competing.

I agree that when it comes to a question of letter of the law vs. spirit, this DQ appears to be an undesirable outcome. Athlete is paying a big price for what appears to be a simple mistake by his coach.

However, I don't think this rule is particularly burdensome on competitors or complicated to follow, so my sympathy is reduced a little bit. If an athlete does not start or finish a race that they are supposed to, then it needs to be cleared with the meet officials or they're done for the meet. Sounds simple and logical to me.

And even given that the coach failed to respect the rule, there is still reference to some form of appeal process in the NCAA rule interpretations. I didn't look to see if there are any limitations that would bar the Va Tech staff from pursuing one in this case, or if the NCAA is facing limitations that would bar a remedy that allowed the athlete to compete, but does anyone know if they've tried to appeal?

If there are no limitations and Va Tech has appealed and were still denied, perhaps there is more to the story than what we're hearing.

Who cares?

webfoot wrote:

Tracky wrote:

WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND. I am guessing it is mostly high school kids not understanding...

Got it, you play by the rules so your athlete with "asthma" gets another chance. Otherwise she would not be deserving.

It's amusing that you're aggressively backing someone who allegedly suffered a hamstring injury (aka internal with no outwardly visible symptoms) and accusing an athlete who had an asthma attack, which is much more difficult to fake, of being dishonest... Agenda much?

Tracky wrote:

What are you talking about. How can you go back and give him the clearance.

By going back and... giving the clearance to him.

Or... just staying right here... and doing it... now.

Why is this so hard to understand for some of you.

Because it's a stupid thing, that is stupid, and we'd need to be stupid to understand it cause it's stupid, and we're not, and therefore... it's really hard... to be stupid... see.

J.R. wrote:

Tracky wrote:

What are you talking about. How can you go back and give him the clearance.

By going back and... giving the clearance to him.

Or... just staying right here... and doing it... now.

Why is this so hard to understand for some of you.

Because it's a stupid thing, that is stupid, and we'd need to be stupid to understand it cause it's stupid, and we're not, and therefore... it's really hard... to be stupid... see.

Wow people really!!!

You can't go back and give him clearance after the fact BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE THAT HE DROPPED OUT BECAUSE OF HIS HAMSTRING. It is too late now. It needed to happen right then with the meet medical staff so we could know for sure. Now it is just someone saying that is why he dropped out. That is why the rules are in place, so someone doesn't do this.

Some of you guys are all about fairness, but are only concerned with your guy and not why the rules were put in place. So do you care about the guy who was the first person out of making it to regionals in the 10k. Maybe that was his dream, to make it to regionals. He knew he was close and just missed out. Now he sees some guy declared for the 10k, dropped out of the race and then ran the 5k two days later. If the guy who was denied his trip to regionals by a guy who just entered both races to see which race he had a better chance to get to nationals and then dropped out of the 10k without giving an honest effort so he could save himself for the 5k, how do you think the guy feels. Now if he knew the guy gave an honest effort and really did have a hamstring injury, that is a different story. That is why you need to get it cleared by a meet medical staff. It would be nice to just be able to believe everyone, but sadly many people would lie about it.

I gave a perfect example of an athlete of mine that suffered from exercise induced asthma. She was entered in the 5k and 3k at conference, had to drop out of 5k and couldn't catch her breath for 30 minutes with medical people all around her. We got her cleared at that time to be able to run the 3k the next day if she was able to. There was definite proof that she indeed planned to run the entire race at her best effort and only dropped out because of a medical issue.

Even with this example of how it is supposed to work, people ripped on my athlete for having an asthma attack or me for following the proper protocol. I knew the rules, followed them and my athlete was able to compete. The VT tech did not follow the rules if indeed there was a hamstring issue and he never got him cleared and it is not fair to the other competitors, especially the one that was denied regionals because of the VT runner declaring in a race he never finished and for all we know, was only to save himself for the 5k. We can't know it was a hamstring issue because protocol wasn't followed.

Tracky wrote:

That is why the rules are in place, so someone doesn't do this.

I see your logic now.

The VT runner ran most of the 10k, which must be easier than not running the 10k at all, therefore ------------> it wasn't an honest effort and ------------> his hamstring must have been OKAY, or else he wouldn't have done that ----------> therefore ----------> it wasn't an honest effort BUT --------> if they had talked with a MEDICAL STAFF -----------> ----------> that would have made it an honest effort -----------> BY MAGIC!!!! --------- which his coach SHOULD HAVE KNOWN!!! (since it's magic, and therefore unexplainable).

And because --------> 2 + 2 = 13.

You know who makes lousy arguments like this? People who can't come up with a good one to support their position.

There's no good reason for the kid to have skipped the med tent, and there's no good reason to bend simple rules for people who can't seem to follow them. There's an attractive reason, to let the kid compete, but that has nothing to do with the rule and you know it.

If people were more honest as a general way of being then we wouldn't need things like the honest effort rule. But we can see from this thread alone that the rule is necessary.

like the girl from UGA that qualified for ncaa finals in the 1500 then jogged the 5k in flats in 17:40 something. how that was not an honest effort violation i'll never know.

J.R. wrote:

Tracky wrote:

That is why the rules are in place, so someone doesn't do this.

I see your logic now.

The VT runner ran most of the 10k, which must be easier than not running the 10k at all, therefore ------------> it wasn't an honest effort and ------------> his hamstring must have been OKAY, or else he wouldn't have done that ----------> therefore ----------> it wasn't an honest effort BUT --------> if they had talked with a MEDICAL STAFF -----------> ----------> that would have made it an honest effort -----------> BY MAGIC!!!! --------- which his coach SHOULD HAVE KNOWN!!! (since it's magic, and therefore unexplainable).

And because --------> 2 + 2 = 13.

So overall I am pretty tolerant of ignorant people because it is largely a genetic thing. I am also okay with stubborn people because I think it is good to stand up for what you believe in. The kind of person that I don't really like is an ignorant person that even when presented with facts, logic and has things explained to him that even a 7 year old would understand, still remains stubborn and can't admit that they now understand something and were wrong. Yes, you do understand what the honest effort rule is by now; yes you do understand why you need to get medical clearance; yes you do understand why this dq can't be reversed. Unfortunately you can't admit that you were wrong about the legitimate dq to the VT runner.

Take a few minutes to go back through the thread and read closely the posts by the people who actually understand the process and have explained it clearly. Then thank us for helping you out and enjoy the rest of your weekend.

You are welcome.