Still don't understand why Hasay can now affect GG's status

It's called compromise.

You're right, it makes no sense. So in the vein of that nonsense, let's all demand that Salazar withdraw his protest of Bumbalough, since apparently withdrawing a ruled upon protest days after the fact is a thing that you can do...

I mean we wouldn't want USATF to admit that THEY screwed up, would we?

I have to agree that withdrawing the protest after it has been ruled should not give GG the victory.

It could place her on the World team since there are no other qualifiers.

But USATF would have to give her the victory, not her competitor.

What about every other athlete in the field that moved up in place?

Vaughn was given second place. How could Hasay/Salazar's decision put Vaughn back to third?

"Siegel’s conversations included Paul Doyle, Grunewald’s representative, and Alberto Salazar, Hasay’s coach who had filed the initial protest and subsequent appeals. Salazar made clear that Hasay felt withdrawal was the right thing to do, and with the agreement of all parties, Grunewald was reinstated".

Agreement of all parties would imply that the protest which led to the disqualification had been withdrawn. GG was only disqualified after the protest by Salazar was lodged and subsequent appeals heard. The meet officials didn't lodge the protest themselves, they merely alerted to a possible infringement. No protest = no disqualification. I'm assuming that all finishing places have reverted to their original finishing positions.

But there was protest, that cannot be denied. The jury reviewed and ultimately ruled that there was a foul. If there was a foul there should be no going back on that call.

USATF should have just said the proper rules and procedures were not followed thus the initial denial still stands and GG is the winner.

This is making a mockery of the protest and appeals process.

Yes, but USATF in the end ruled the DQ.

Picture this:

NFL game. A team snaps the ball on 4th down.

They are tackled just short of the goal.

The offensive coach throws a challenge flag.

In essence, protests the call.

The officials decide that on further review, it's a touchdown.

They win the game with the help of that score.

Then the next day, the coach says he revokes the challenge.

They take back the score and the other team wins.

That would be ridiculous wouldn't it?

Agreed. Just shows how ridiculous it all was right from the start. Completely avoidable if commonsense had prevailed in the beginning. The longer it dragged on, the more complicated it became for everyone.

So this is scary looking forward. Imagine a different situation where a Brooks athlete filed a protest against a Nike athlete and the Nike athlete was DQ'ed. A few days later Brooks athlete withdraws the protest after some "conversations" with the Nike camp and the Nike athlete is reinstated. Easy to see how these type of rules could lead to easy corruption.

Agreed, THIS MAKES NO SENSE. What if there was a false start? No one catches it, the athlete wins, then a coach protests after the race and shows that there was a false start. The athlete is DQ'ed. Even if the protest is later withdrawn, the infraction still exists, and the DQ will remain.

I don't think USATF should get away with it this easily... show us the 'enlarged, digital footage of the legs and feet of both athletes'... what an f'ing joke! What did they 'enlarge'? Just about every screen from smartphones to computer monitors are full HD... what resolution was the original footage? Even if they had a 4k camera, the image would only be enlarged by 2x on an HD monitor... there's hardly anything to enlarge!! This isn't the good old days of enlarging analog footage on CRTs... even from a technology standpoint, this argument is such BS!

According to the article in the WSJ today, USATF stated that the protest withdrawal was separate from reinstating Gabe.

There was no explanation.

Read the article to see if it makes sense to you.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304834704579403090546953468?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304834704579403090546953468.html

* wrote:

Yes, but USATF in the end ruled the DQ.

Picture this:

NFL game. A team snaps the ball on 4th down.

They are tackled just short of the goal.

The offensive coach throws a challenge flag.

In essence, protests the call.

The officials decide that on further review, it's a touchdown.

They win the game with the help of that score.

Then the next day, the coach says he revokes the challenge.

They take back the score and the other team wins.

That would be ridiculous wouldn't it?

As ridiculous as this sounds, this is an exact analogy of what we're being told happened. How can the USATF expect us to agree that this is a rational way to manage a sport? They've set the sport back 60 years when arrogant, unchecked officials ruled with absolute authority.

Your dog has a boil on it's ass. You take fog to the vet. Vet scrapes off boil. Dog very unhappy next day after boil is removed. You take dog back to vet. Vet says cannot reattach boil. Major dog food company intercedes. Vet says OK, reattaches boil.

RULE 146

PROTESTS

4. In races where a false start control apparatus is used, if an immediate oral protest is made regarding a decision by the Starter to charge a false start, the Referee may, if in any doubt, allow an athlete to compete under protest in order to protect the rights of all concerned and provide the time required to determine if the information provided by the apparatus is obviously inaccurate and other evidence is inconclusive with regard to the commencement of the start.

NOTE: After being allowed to compete under a false start protest, all future false starts

charged to the same athlete in the same race shall be treated independently. If in this

case a subsequent false start results in disqualification, the Referee may declare all of the

athlete’s previous false start protests invalid.

5. Whether or not there is any warning or disqualification, the Referee shall have the authority to declare the event or part of the event void and that it or part of it

shall be held again if in his or her opinion justice demands it.

NOTE: The right of protest and appeal for Rule 146.5 shall apply whether or not a false start control apparatus is used.

* wrote:

Yes, but USATF in the end ruled the DQ.

Picture this:

NFL game. A team snaps the ball on 4th down.

They are tackled just short of the goal.

The offensive coach throws a challenge flag.

In essence, protests the call.

The officials decide that on further review, it's a touchdown.

They win the game with the help of that score.

Then the next day, the coach says he revokes the challenge.

They take back the score and the other team wins.

That would be ridiculous wouldn't it?

Now Imagine if the NFL was in charge of the appeals process, they follow procedure and Salad bar is denied 3 times end of story. This new video is submitted and they are at this point confused why its the same video. They say ruling stands end of story go home.

At the point when the same footage is presented as new its like you said no to the mafia the first 3 times. They now have you surrounded by mafia members and say look at this one more time are you sure thats what you saw. Oh well uh hmmm okay yeah DQ...

NFL follows procedures. You can say they made the wrong call all day but procedures are followed.

USATF does not follow procedures apparently and for those who say they did because new footage was introduced then you are saying that the people who are in charge of the video lied about the new footage. They said no new footage was presented.

Also its disappointing that so many people believe the contact deserved a DQ. I have raced indoors many times and I have been on both sides. I have accidentally made contact and have had the same happen to me. I never thought for a minute someone did it on purpose. Its indoors it happens, Hasay did not go down which means she was barely touched. Yes GG last lap was out of control but thats the only thing she is guilty of.

R2D3 wrote:

5. Whether or not there is any warning or disqualification, the Referee shall have the authority to declare the event or part of the event void and that it or part of it

shall be held again if in his or her opinion justice demands it.

I agree. They should have re-run the 3,000. Maybe they still can.

Yes, by the rules only Rowbury should be going. GG disqualified. Hasay withdraws. Hasay withdrawing her appeal should not have any effect. If USATF rules GG disqualified based on Hasay's appeal, then Hasay's withdrawal affects only herself -- not GG.

It gets worse and worse.

If witnesses recant in law, it's solid grounds for an appeal and even vacation of the decision.

jjjjjjjjjjj wrote:

If witnesses recant in law, it's solid grounds for an appeal and even vacation of the decision.

Actually, it's generally not grounds for an appeal, much less "solid grounds." At most, it's grounds for a trial court to reconsider its own judgment, and in most criminal cases (where this kind of thing occurs rather often), it's usually pretty weak grounds for vacating the judgment. There are all kinds of reasons for witnesses to recant their testimony, and those reasons are usually not based on a sudden desire to stop lying under oath and start acting like honest people.

But in any event, this situation isn't closely analogous to witness recantation. Jordan Hasay is not, as far as I know, recanting an earlier allegation that she was impeded by GG. She's simply purporting to withdraw her protest of a referee's decision, apparently because the subsequent events have put her in an unpleasant situation.

A more analogous situation, I think, occurred in the 1972 Olympic trials. The first three finishers in the 10,000 meters were Shorter, Galloway, and Anderson, who crossed just ahead of Bacheler. After the race, Bacheler was disqualified for interfering with Anderson. In the marathon trials, Shorter and Moore finished first and second, and Bacheler and Galloway finished third and fourth. Bacheler and Galloway proposed that they be allowed to switch events, with Galloway running his preferred marathon and Bacheler running his preferred 10,000 meters. The officials refused to allow that, unless every other finisher in the 10,000 meters agreed to give up their rights as Olympic alternates in the 10,000 meters in order to allow Bacheler to be "reinstated" as the fourth finisher with the right to take Galloway's place in the 10,000 meters. The proposed switch did not occur.

In the GG-Hasay case, USATF is apparently claiming that "all parties" have agreed to the reinstatement of GG, but I haven't seen any indication that USATF ever sought the approval of all other finishers in the race. Reinstating GG may be a good resolution for GG, Hasay, Salazar, USATF, Nike, and some others, but it's not obvious that it's good for any of the other finishers in the race. And even if it were acceptable to all of the other finishers, it's still not clear to me that it would be an appropriate outcome.

This ^^

Whether it's false start, impeding, bumping, tripping, they're all fouls. This person uses the example of a false start. The point is, that person ran 1m less than everyone and if they get caught, it's always going to be a DQ, because that person got an advantage over the whole field. If USATF ruled this wrong, they have to stand on their word. You can't just reinstate GG w/ evidence that it wasn't a foul. And the other thing is, from the 2nd to 3rd protest, what did they see different?