Track star and discrimination

I bet that the athlete did not comply with the rules for her undergarment, and that was the reason that she was not allowed to run. Happens all the time. And because she is one of the top athletes she and her coach feel that she doesn't have to follow the rules. Happens all the time. It was her coach's responsibility to make sure that her uniform complied with the rules of that meet. Dumb mistake, and more than likely not religious discrimination. Learn to follow the rules and you won't have to make up stories for the newspaper.

Let see, Her coach didn't bother to learn the established rules, neither did she or her parents.

They go to the meet, ask for special consideration because of their ignorance and are told no. What's the problem?

Maybe if they claim the school and Athletic body are discriminating against lazy and stupid adults looking to teach a kid how to cry to get rules bent, they have a case, but religious discrimination, not a chance.

I won't even mention the person that wrote that piece of crap.

The article mentioned she was upset because there were recruiting scouts at the meet. Recruiting scouts? For track? Maybe I'm out of the loop but is that really necessary? If someone runs a good time does it really matter if a college coach is physically there watching it?

"Like, it was a lot of recruiters at this meet."

Like, colleges generally "like" it when you don't use "it" in place of "there", which would then necessitate the use of "were" versus "was." Clearly, rules just aren't this chicks thing.

Oh, and then there is the whole "I'm suing!" angle, which is what this is ultimately all about: getting paid.

Next?...

This is a dumb-ass rule, and has always been a dumb-ass rule that seems to have only one purpose: to allow over- officious nobodies to assert themselves as having some kind of stature and importance.

We're talking about an UNDERGARMENT here. Several track officials in other jurisdictions found out the hard way that they should not be looking at under garments, especially on young ladies.

This young lady has competed in the DC area for over a year wearing the garment in question, and it has never been deemed a problem.... undoubtably by the same group of officials (who work most of the meets in the area).

National HS Federation rules in other sports are vague on this issue, so how does an UNDERGARMENT affect the spirit and intent of the rules, which supposedly are to insure a fair and eqitable competition.

Also, after watching the video, the young lady's comments (use of the word 'like', etc.) are no different than the vast majority of ALL high schoolers.

And, yeah, college coaches DO go to meets to recruit, adding eye-witness assessment to published results (which can sometimes be 'incorrect.'

Rules about uniforms are set well before the season begins, and any good coach is aware of them. If there are different rules for a meet, then the coaches are informed of that ahead of time. As a long time coach, and official, I have NEVER been to a meet where the rules were not known ahead of time.

There was no detail about the undergarment, but two things that I can think of may have been the problem. She may have been wearing a different color than the rest of her teammates in the same event, be it a relay or individual event, or she had logos on the garment that did not comply with the rules. Yes, they are kind of dumb, but at the high school level advertising is not permitted.

I am quite positive that NO ONE was looking under her clothing, a part of it must have been showing.

You can protest all you want, but EVERYONE needs to follow the rules that are set forth for the meet in question, regardless of how good an athlete is.

And if she is that good, missing one meet isn't going to make a bit of difference.

Yell at her coach, and the girl for not taking responsibility for knowing the rules, that is the issue.

Parenthetically, Islam itself does *not* require the hijab--that is a cultural, not religious, stricture (though widely adopted in many Islamic cultures).

More to the point, the video makes clear that her (visible) undergarment has two colors--the rules say that only one is allowed. She would have been fine, hood and all, if her undergarment were a single, solid color.

I hope that she takes the simple step of securing such a garment. If not--well, then it looks like she/her family/her coach/whoever is after something other than "competitive opportunitites."

Isn't it interesting that this or any of the other stories can't be about following the rules....but MUST be about RACE? I don't think so. Follow the rules and there won't be any problems. And it is so unprofessional of a newspaper to not print both sides of the story. Oh...that's right, if you do that, then there IS NO STORY other than another athlete screwing up by not following the rules.

Same old story. Haters make those they hate follow the rules, and let those who they envisage as their own kind get away with murder, and then they falsely think they can bullshit us. We know the drill. Phil Spectre, Robert Blake, know the drill to. We've seen the same old story on the track too. Now with the video we see it again.

Here's today's Washington Post article on this controversy.

I was at this meet and witessed the whole thing. I have also seen this young lady run in the EXACT same uniform for 3 years now. While the meet director was technically correct, it seems to me like it was a bad judgment call on his part. All I thought when seeing her run last year was "man she must be warm running the 1600 in that suit".

Second point, her ability had nothing to do with this. Her 1600 pr is about 5:17, not bad but not great and not good enough to get into the elite mile. Her 3200 pr is 12:00, yet that is the fastest time in DC this year. Shows you how bad DC distance running is. If she ran in northern Virginia she would not get the kind of press she gets from the Post.

oops..forgot to post the link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011503356.html?hpid=topnews

All the talk about her religion is fine. Nobody is arguing against that. The simple fact is that the meet has uniform rules, and they must be followed. If the rules are bad, get with the National HS Federation, and get them changed. However, until then, the meet management has no choice but to go by the rules.

I know it has become fashionable recently for certain groups to feel that they have the right to ignore all the rules that they do not like. That's what this whole thing is about.

whaaaaat?? wrote:

All the talk about her religion is fine. Nobody is arguing against that. The simple fact is that the meet has uniform rules, and they must be followed. If the rules are bad, get with the National HS Federation, and get them changed. However, until then, the meet management has no choice but to go by the rules.

I know it has become fashionable recently for certain groups to feel that they have the right to ignore all the rules that they do not like. That's what this whole thing is about.

But meet management didn't 'go by the rules' last year, or the year before. All I'm saying is that they could have avoided this public relations disaster by using a little common sense. Meet management has the discretion to not enforce a rule like that if they feel an exception could be made. Who would have protested that decision? Her uniform certainly doesn't aid her performance, quite the opposite if anything. Now they have to worry about a lawsuit, etc... It's not worth the hassle, in my opinion.

What actually transpired trackside is now a 'he said-she said situation'. I didn't actually hear any of it myself (until the coach started yelling). This is just unfortunate for all concerned.

Yeah........if she ran in Norhtern Virginia, she would not be training on the sidewalk either. And yet her PR of 12:00 is better than 75% of the girls who run in NVA.

She ran in the SAME meet last year, under the SAME meet director, wearing the SAME 'undergarment' without a problem. Seems like this pious meet director is selective in his rule enforcement. Maybe that's because he gets direction from his "commissioner of track" who made the following statement, quoted in today's Washington Post:

"What she needs to do is get some religious documentation saying it's part of her heritage and bring it with her to every meet," said Jim Vollmer, the commissioner of track for Montgomery County public schools.

How does that square with the rule as it is written? Seems Mr. Vollmer is saying her garment will be permissible with a written statement.... don't see that in the rule book, but, although it unfairly requires her to document her religious beliefs, it at least indicates that Vollmer thinks the rule is asinine, too.

BTW, in other sports (baseball for example) officials routinely ignore asinine rules that have no effect on the fairness of the contest unless forced to confront the isue by the opposing coach (most of whom routinely ignore the infraction since they know it is asinine). An example of this is white lettering on a pitcher's glove - not allowed by the rules, ignored by most officials and coaches - and there are many others.

The obvious solution to these types of problems in the track and field world:

1) Use common sense in initiating rules changes that reflect the real world;

2) Require ALL officials to be certified by their state association (as most other sports require);

3) Think about fairness and equanimity in administering the sport and try to make it a positive experience of all competitors.

In a sport (track) where different members of the same team/school can wear completely different uniforms (as long as they are school issued) in individual events (relays being an exception) it is preposterous to disqualify an athlete for what is worn beneath the uniform.

Here's something I just posted on the Wash Post forum.

I can't believe how judgemental some of you are after reading one, poorly written story. Many of you are attacking a faith that you clearly know nothing about and many of you are clearly attacking people whom you obviously do not know. All of the officials involved are kind, compassionate people who have been involved in athletics for decades. This was not a personal attack on anyone. It was a uniform DQ...one of several at the meet, but the only one that made the press. There were not "small minds" at work here. There were not "bantam roosters" or "morons" at work here. That is ignorance talking. Your ignorance, and determination to express it is disturbing.

The National Federation rule says that anything worn under the competitor's uniform must be unadorned and of a single color. It was never about the headwear. It was never about the style of the garment, it was about the fact that it was multi-colored.

As a coach, I would be upset if one of my athletes was disqualified for that rule, but this athlete were allowed to run because she believes in a different god. It may be a bad rule, but it's a rule none-the-less. They call it a "uniform" for a reason.

Here are some missed points in the story:

1. The "victim" was not DQd. When she went to check in for her event, the clerk told her that her uniform was illegal and that she could be DQd. The athlete protested and was told the get her coach. The clerk in turn summoned the meet referee. The meet referee, who has been refereeing meets for years, agreed with the clerks opinion about the uniform and gave the athlete several options to remedy the situation. When neither, the athlete, her coach, nor her parents seemed to be happy with the referee's suggestions, the "coach" punched the referee.

2. That's right, I said the "coach" punched the meet referee.

3. The family began the cries of religious discrimination clearly in hopes that the meet officials would back down; shamefully attempting to use their religion to intimidate people.

4. when the meet officials stood by the rule, the family went running to the media. Most of the media reports have been very one-sided with the athlete as the victim. I do believe that the family is merely trying to do what's best for their daughter, but to smear a great meet, to smear great officials, and to smear coaches who would proudly coach her if she lived 20 miles away from where she does without prejudice is unacceptable. There was not religious discrimination here. There is no story here.

5. This was a case of preventative officiating. The athlete was advised of her uniform violation prior to the event and given options to remedy it...IN ORDER TO PREVENT A DQ if she were to run.

6. The fact that officials have not enforced this rule on this athlete before could be because they were afraid of this exact episode. It's poor coaching on her coach's part to not know the rule better. This could have all been avoided. IT IS TO THESE OFFICIALS CREDIT THAT THEY MADE THE CALL THIS TIME. An official should be able to enforce rules without fear of repercussion.

7. The meet director is taking the heat on this, when he did not become involved until things escalated. He was the third official to try and help the athlete find an alternate solution. I can understand the buck-stops-here mentality, but I will not sit by and see his good name tarnished.

8. While Ms. Kelly may have competed in this meet last year with the same under-garment, she said in another story that she wore an all-blue (and legal) uniform 2 years ago. She has not been competing in the multi-colored one for three years.

9. I disagree with Mr. Volmer. A letter from her prayer leader should not grant her exception to this rule. The existence of the under-garment was not the issue, it was the fact that it was multi-colored. The color of the undergarment has nothing to do with religion.

Again, the rules should be enforced. I'm embarrassed to say that I've had athletes DQd for the same uniform rule a few years ago. They won their event and were DQd because one athlete had on white tights while the others had black. It may not be a good rule, but it's a rule...and I can tell you, it hasn't happened since on my team. Hopefully this incident will prevent any future interference with this young lady's career.

If my team were DQd and she was not, THERE would be the injustice. It had nothing to do with religion until the family made it about religion. (There was a muslim on my team that was DQd. I can assure you it was not about faith then either.)

Interesting that the Post reporter who was at the meet, the one that the parents ran to, and the one who interviewed the meet director, was not the one to write the story...a story that was not written until 3 days after the meet. It seems like the reporter who was there showed a bit of integrity and recognized that there was not story.

I think any official that allowed her to wear something that was in violation of the rules should be the one receiving scorn, don't blame someone that actually enforced the rules.

"But officer, I've driven 85 in this 55 speed limit zone for years and the other cops let me by, why are you discriminating?!"

The rule is a legitimate one. It may be silly (or not), but it applies to everyone. If they made exceptions for someone's religion then the rule would no longer be legitimate.

She's asking for special treatment - she doesn't want the rules to apply to her.

Yep, a meet official's most important task is to check every uniform or hair band and enforce the rules.

That was a really SH!TTY analogy you laid down, just plain stupid.

Half steppers shadow wrote:

Yep, a meet official's most important task is to check every uniform or hair band and enforce the rules.

That was a really SH!TTY analogy you laid down, just plain stupid.

I never said it was a track officials most important task, but it is part of their job.

It's a legitimate analogy. There is a rule in place, someone broke the rule and instead of complying, complained.

The easy solution would have been to follow the rules.

No meet official should receive scorn for missing a uniform violation. Try to get some perspective. In the grand scheme of things it is up to the coaches to know the rules and make their athletes comply with them so they don't get the DQ. It is also up to the parents to comply with the meet rules laid down. The meet officials presented alternatives. As per usual, the media was selective with their reporting, left details out, and sensationalized it and turned it into a race and religious issue.

Meet officials have more important things to do than check every friggin' uniform. That's why other coaches will go crying to a meet official post race to get another team DQ'd to take their points and elevate their own. Many HS track meets or advancing in tournament play have been changed by the other coaches playing uniform Nazi after an event has ended.

As for the speed limit analogy. It sucks. Speed limits are a matter of safety. I never heard of an injury or death at a track meet as result of not following a uniform rule and there is virtually no way a police officer would let someone off for going 85 in a 55 unless said person was another officer, city official, or family friend. Yes, your analogy sucks.