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

As usual, a disqualification complaint is compromised by a slew of personal attacks instead of sticking to the facts, thereby invalidating the argument.

---

larry solderstein wrote:

As usual, a disqualification complaint is compromised by a slew of personal attacks instead of sticking to the facts, thereby invalidating the argument.

---

Ohhhh a "you work at Walmart" joke. So clever. Forgive me for expecting people to be able to frame a discussion with class and tact.

Following with the precedent set by the haters and conspiracy nuts here at LR, Walton must be a secret employee of Nike and thus he was able to control and influence the NCAA decision in this matter. Shame, shame.

Any update with this? I'm guessing the DQ stood.....if so that really sucks for him.

This falls on the Virginia Tech coaching staff for not knowing the rules on seeing the NCAA medical staff and informing the athlete about the ramifications for DNFing.

If he was allowed to run the 5000m, then it should be legal.

too long, didn't read

---

larry solderstein wrote:

As usual, a disqualification complaint is compromised by a slew of personal attacks instead of sticking to the facts, thereby invalidating the argument.

---

The first heat of the NCAA East Regional 5000m would be Virginia Tech senior Leoule Degfae’s last shot to make nationals. Soufiane Bouchikhi of Eastern Kentucky took it out hard, but Le stayed relaxed. With about 500 left, we could all see in his form that he was really straining, but one glance at his face said it all: a top 5 finish would be the only finish. Le closed in 57.8, crossed the line in third, and threw his hands up, the satisfaction of a national qualifying finish finally his. All of his teammates were moved by his inspirational performance: a female teammate of his was about to compete in the women’s 5k and she had tears in her eyes right before her own race. 4 years of hard training had finally resulted in the realization of a dream – until it was snatched away by a jealous opposing coach and a protest with no grounds in the NCAA rulebook.
Minutes after the second heat of the 5k finished, there was a protest filed by Harvard, whose athlete had come in 7th place in the first heat and was the first one out of the time qualifiers. Harvard’s coaches were attempting to disqualify Le on the basis of his “intent to compete” in the 10k two nights earlier. Le started near the back, but worked his way up over the course of the race. But, when he got close to 8000m in, his hamstring tightened up and was seriously affecting his stride, so much so that he had to drop out of the race for fear of injury. The all-knowing Harvard coaches, however, apparently read Le’s mind and determined that he dropped out of the 10k because he had a better shot at making NCAA’s in the 5k, and therefore did not have intent to compete. The NCAA officials apparently agreed: Le should have shown “intent to compete” completed the 10k and risked injury rather than look after his own health. Never mind that he had finished 13th in the 10k at regionals as a sophomore (1 spot away from NCAA’s) and 14th in the 10k as a sophomore (2 spots away) – this year was going to finally be his year to make it in the 10k and he gave it the best effort he could without injuring himself. There was also speculation because he did not see the NCAA’s medical staff after dropping out of the 10k, as if that was standard procedure. Athletes are familiar with their own team’s athletic trainers and if they are feeling hurt at a critical meet, that trainer is the only person they would want to see, which is what Le did.
Also, why should current head coaches of same state rival schools (in this case Bill Walton of James Madison) be allowed to influence the officials decision on a DQ protest? Walton was in official's meeting arguing for Le Degfae to get the DQ.
To sum things up, the Harvard athlete did not perform well enough to make it to nationals on his own, so the coaches decided to go under the table to get him there. Le has held his head high, knowing he did what it took to qualify for NCAAS on the track. If anyone is deserving of a final chance to compete at NCAA’s, it is Le Degfae. He had been a role model for me all year, and he is beloved by the entire team and coaching staff at Virginia Tech. This injustice to him is not acceptable, and it could happen to any student athlete without any written rule to back it up. It is another disappointing case in the recent trend of unclear rules and unethical interpretation of laws by track officials.

Require that any DQ of a student athlete be justified in black and white in the rulebook and pre-meet manuals.
The rulebook does not state that a DNF is equivalent to not competing. And if honest effort is a component of the DQ, how is running 8800m of the 10k between 15th-20th place out of 48 not an "honest effort"?

(This link to 10k splits shows Le went thru 8800m)
http://results.flashresults.com/2014_Meets/outdoor/05-29-NCAAEast/008-1-01.htm

In short haven't we student athletes had enough of being DQ'd by grumpy officials and rival coaches with an axe to grind?
Congrats Harvard "Coach", your athlete steals a NCAA spot from a 5th year senior who just ran the race of his life.
Congrats "Coach" Walton, you get to bury that axe you have to grind with VT in a hard working model student athlete's back.
How long do we continue to allow the officials and coaches who should be supporting our sport to undermine athletes' efforts with unfair decisions?

---

Kipketer_Pumpkin_Eater wrote:

---

larry solderstein wrote:

As usual, a disqualification complaint is compromised by a slew of personal attacks instead of sticking to the facts, thereby invalidating the argument.

---

Hey Larry ol' buddy, what's your two cents on the Andrew Bumbalough DQ from USATF Indoor Nats? ya know, the big story Letsrun covered? :)

---

---

BooHoo wrote:

This falls on the Virginia Tech coaching staff for not knowing the rules on seeing the NCAA medical staff and informing the athlete about the ramifications for DNFing.

---

Any coach that does not know or understand the honest effort rule in NCAA competition does not have his/her athletes best interests in mind. Failing to get checked and cleared by trainers, addressing the topic with officials 'before' a protest, and having a plan ready to go concerning the first race and potential aftermath is coaching 101. This falls on the coach who did not provide a safety net for his athlete, not the coach who was looking out for his own athletes.

I do not know the entire situation so I am not necessarily heaping my criticism at the VT coach. I am speaking more in general terms.

No way an opposing coach at this meet can tell that kid is going to race until they are on the line. The meet is a circus and you are lucky to be able to find and talk to your own athlete before the race, nevermind figure out if the 23 others in his heat have shown up and plan to race. Is a ridiculous suggestion.

All coaches should know this rule and be prepared for it. Especially since it was specifically reviewed at the coaches meeting the day before the 10k. This exact type of scenario was talked about and every coach was told what must be done in case of a dnf. VT holds the responsibility in this case, nobody else.

He needed Makhloufi's agent.
Didn't line up in the Olympic 800 prelim but argued his way onto the the start of the Olympic 1500m final.

I have nothing to do with this but in classic letsrun fashion here are my two cents:

First, he shouldn't have been in the 10k to start. Why run a 10k right before an event you have the better shot in? This was probably coaching mistake #1

The girl crying before her race line had me laughing. Hilarious. Hope they go out on a date.

Yes, he should have gone to the trainer (Coach mistake #2), then get cleared to compete. But right after a 10k at night it was probably "stretch it out, ice it and we will see how you feel tomorrow."

Once he knew he wasn't going to make it, the thought likely crossed his line that he should drop. Maybe he was tight, I mean who doesn't tighten up in a 10k, but it is really hard to judge effort.

If he would have cruised (I mean tightened up) for three more laps would he have been DQd? Three laps isn't much, could have and should have finished. But also constitutes a full effort no?

Honest effort is a tricky rule. In my opinion should mean only that if you scratch an event you are then out the rest of the meet. How do you judge effort. Personally the official would need to interview the athlete. Who is the judge and can judge effort?

Harvard coach made an appeal after the 5k finish, after his kid didn't get in? Why would they do this? So if his kid made it they would have been ok with it? Crappy selfish move by the coach. This kind of play usually never benefits you in the short or long term and looks bad. Harvard should be ashamed. Hardly is defendable by "fighting for your athlete."

I didn't read the whole thing either, but did read the part about almost making it to 8,000 meters in the 10K. Moronic DQ

Food for thought direction from the document that attempts to address scratches, failure to participate, honest effort & DNS situations.

Full document here: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Explanation%20of%20Scratches%2C%20Did%20Not%20Start%2C%20Failure%20to%20Participate%20and%20Honest%20Effort%20%28Posted%205%3A29%3A13%29%20.pdf

"Participation, defined in Rule 4-2.2b, is mandated in Rule 4-2.2a. In an overly simplified statement, a competitor, if declared,
must start the event. If not, then it could be considered Failure to Participate. The challenge is in determining whether a
DNS satisfies the conditions for violation. The Referee is responsible to make the determination on one major element. That
element is the existence of any condition or circumstance beyond the control of the competitor. When none exists, the
determination is straight forward. A violation of this rule imposes the removal from all remaining participation in the
competition, except for events that are ‘in-progress’. An ‘in-progress’ event is one in which attempts are currently being
executed. A Combined Event is defined as a single event and once the first of its stages has started, the entire Combined Event
is 'in-progress'. ‘In-progress’ does not include an event in which one round has completed and a subsequent round has not
started. There is no requirement that the Referee or Games Committee wait for a complaint or protest before determining the
existence of a violation of Failure to Participate. In many Championships this is the automatic result of a report from the Clerk,
or an observation by a member of the Committee.

A very common circumstance that fits this category and invokes the most controversy is best described as a temporary
medical ailment. Proper documentation and administration of this condition can yield a non-violation ruling and therefore not
mandate automatic removal from subsequent competition. There is no requirement that there be a clerk check-in or that the
competitor be physically present at the event site. The Referee or Games Committee must be presented with evidence
documenting a sufficient medical condition whereas the competitor's participation in that specific event is deemed to be
physically detrimental to the welfare of that athlete. The condition may be of the nature that would make it detrimental in one
specific event/activity and would not be detrimental in another event requiring another skill. Or it may be such that immediate treatment would produce a result that relieves the medical condition. In any case, Rule 3-19 requires a ‘certificate of fitness’
for continued participation to be prepared by the medical advisor approved by the championship committee. The medical
clearance to compete is not an authorization to compete. The Referee must determine and allow further participation only if
the competitor is eligible for further participation based on any other pertinent rules.

A situation that is cited frequently involves a competitor who is physically present at a running event, makes an attempt by
participating in the start and then after a very few steps, withdraws from the event or fails to attempt to be competitive during
the event. This is not by definition a Failure to Participate, therefore not a situation covered in Rule 4-2.2. However, it may be
an Honest Effort situation. Contrary to some belief, Honest Effort does exist, and Honest Effort is not the same as Failure to
Participate. Honest Effort requires a competitor to compete in an honest and sporting manner to the best of their ability within
an event, Rule 4-2.1. Not doing so is a violation and treated as Misconduct or Unsporting conduct. Unsporting conduct, such
as issues of behavior, intentional false starts or non-competitiveness, are all treated in the same manner.

As with Failure to Participate, there is no requirement that the Referee wait for a complaint or protest before determining the
existence of a Misconduct or Unsporting conduct (Honest Effort) violation. Many Championship Committees are proactive
upon witnessing a performance that appears to not be the best competitive ability, and initiate an investigation. However, it is
more common for a report of this violation to come to the Referee in the form of a protest. The responsibility of the Referee is
to determine if just cause exists for the apparent lack of best ability. If declared, a competitor must not only ‘participate’ but
must also ‘compete’, Rule 4-2. The determination may include any evidence relevant to making a decision, such as medical
information or competitor actions. With regard to Unsporting conduct, a basic question to answer is: ‘Was there legitimate
reason for the competitor’s action?’"

We could always start a social media campaign to "encorage" Tom Purnell. It worked against Jordan Hasay this spring.