Tarmoh quits

Obviously this is all speculation at this point but if Tarmoh does in fact file a lawsuit then she will being taking away a lot of attention from the other athletes who have great stories to share about making the team. I feel for Tarmoh, I really do, but given the facts that have been provided the most fair way would be to do a run off. We can argue about the timing of the run off all we want but the USATF, just like FIFA and the NFL, etc. make the rules that the athletes need to abide by. Is it fair to all parties involved? Absolutely not...

...but you know what? Life's not fair...and sports is supposed to be about having fun.

Frankly, I thought she was going to win the runoff. She had more incentive. Felix already made the team. I'm sure they both would have been going all out, but in a difference of hundredths or thousandths of a second, that incentive could have made the difference.

healdgator wrote:

Dave-O wrote:

healdgator wrote:
I will. I'll also be willing to change my mind if new facts come to light. At least you can feel secure in the moral superiority that comes with not weighing it until "all the facts are in".

I didn't claim any moral superiority. I am just trying to explain why Tarmoh's refusal to abide by the USATF's post hoc "run-off or coin flip" decision makes her neither a quitter nor a wuss, as you called her.

That's cool. We are all just friends talking here. I don't know why I take such offense to her decision (it's her life, doesn't affect me at all), but I do. This is the pinnacle in the sport she has chosen to make her life. When the going got tough, she bailed.

Again, assume that she has evidence that shows she actually won. Let's assume that it's 80% certain she will when an injunction. What if it falls the way of the 20%? She has given up on her chance of making the olympics if that happens. that offends me. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does.

maybe it's b/c I misheard the broadcast last night and thought the runoff was going to be shown during the later coverage last night, thus suffering through about an hour of gymnastics before I figured it out.

Don't worry, I think most share your opinion. I seem to be in the minority here that doesn't believe a run-off is the right way to determine the team. I feel that way mainly because that solution simply wouldn't work for longer events, and I think the rule should be uniform across the 100m to the marathon.

Deep down I'm sure Tarmoh knows she's a huge underdog to Felix, especially given that Felix has more strength being trained primarily as a 200m runner. I don't think a run-off is "fair" to Tarmoh.

If I had to speculate, my guess is that Tarmoh wanted the coin flip, but USATF and Nike pressured her into "agreeing" to the run-off last night. I'm sure she felt backed into the corner. I think she woke up this morning, said "fuck this new rule that was put in place after my race," I have a better chance fighting this with an injunction - especially given that she was declared the winner for about 3 hours.

Ben Z wrote:Obviously this is all speculation at this point but if Tarmoh does in fact file a lawsuit then she will being taking away a lot of attention from the other athletes who have great stories to share about making the team.

Or, one could argue that she'd be suing to protect the rights of all athletes present and future so as not to have to go through this debacle themselves....

[quote="Dave-O"]

healdgator wrote:

I seem to be in the minority here that doesn't believe a run-off is the right way to determine the team. I feel that way mainly because that solution simply wouldn't work for longer events, and I think the rule should be uniform across the 100m to the marathon.

That's a very valid point Dave that I didn't think about. I agree with you as I think about it. So what do they do then? Look at performance across the year(s)? In previous World Championships / Olympics?

I don't like this approach either because these athletes try to time their months / years worth of a peak for this single event.

So have a committee vote and decide? Then we get in to the NCAA football debate.

Off the top of my head I can't think of a better way then a run-off even if it would absolutely suck for the longer distances.

Dave-O wrote:

Ben Z wrote:Obviously this is all speculation at this point but if Tarmoh does in fact file a lawsuit then she will being taking away a lot of attention from the other athletes who have great stories to share about making the team.

Or, one could argue that she'd be suing to protect the rights of all athletes present and future so as not to have to go through this debacle themselves....

Oh I am sure you are right and that is how she would spin it, and perhaps she might feel that way, but deep down she knows it would be about her. And that's not necessarily a bad thing I suppose.

Ben Z wrote:

That's a very valid point Dave that I didn't think about. I agree with you as I think about it. So what do they do then? Look at performance across the year(s)? In previous World Championships / Olympics?

I don't like this approach either because these athletes try to time their months / years worth of a peak for this single event.

So have a committee vote and decide? Then we get in to the NCAA football debate.

Off the top of my head I can't think of a better way then a run-off even if it would absolutely suck for the longer distances.

I honestly haven't come up with an answer that doesn't have its own flaws.

My first instinct is say that in the event of a tiebreak, if one athlete makes the team in a second event, the tiebreak goes to the other athlete.

But I am aware you can rip that rule to shreds as well.

[quote="Ben Z"]

Dave-O wrote:

healdgator wrote:

I seem to be in the minority here that doesn't believe a run-off is the right way to determine the team. I feel that way mainly because that solution simply wouldn't work for longer events, and I think the rule should be uniform across the 100m to the marathon.

That's a very valid point Dave that I didn't think about. I agree with you as I think about it. So what do they do then? Look at performance across the year(s)? In previous World Championships / Olympics?

I don't like this approach either because these athletes try to time their months / years worth of a peak for this single event.

So have a committee vote and decide? Then we get in to the NCAA football debate.

Off the top of my head I can't think of a better way then a run-off even if it would absolutely suck for the longer distances.

I disagree with this. I do not believe all events need to be treated the same. The events are different and they are treated differently even in the normal course of qualifying. (Example: they don't run the marathon at the trials b/c nobody would be ready to run in the olympics if they did.) That said, there are certainly other (maybe better) ways to decide it than a runoff. I like the runoff idea, but you could go with best time of the year to date, or qualifying points, or something else based on actual performance. The concept that you would decide who makes the olympic team (and who doesn't) based on a coin flip was just unconscionable to me.

Dave, I'm interested from a legal standpoint what this part of her statement may mean for her ability to file a lawsuit to get herself on the team for London:

"I Jeneba Tarmoh have decided to decline my 3rd place position in the 100m dash to Allyson Felix," Tarmoh wrote in the email. "I understand that with this decision I am no longer running the 100m dash in the Olympic Games and will be an alternate for the event. As an alternate I understand that I will be asked to run if another 100m runner decides not to for personal reasons, and/or on the 4x100m relay."

Seems weird she would use those words if she is thinking immediate lawsuit for London, no?

healdgator wrote:I like the runoff idea, but you could go with best time of the year to date, or qualifying points, or something else based on actual performance. The concept that you would decide who makes the olympic team (and who doesn't) based on a coin flip was just unconscionable to me.

Agree on the coinflip.

The problem with the performance prior to the Trials argument, unless perhaps you take performance at the Trials (and would only work when you have heats leading up to the final), is that the whole idea of the US Trials is you have to be top 3 on the day / in the race. Everything that happens before is irrelevant.

If you are going to go down this path then I think you are better off doing what Kenya does to decide their team...it's a combination of top 1-2 in a specific race and then the third team member is decided past on recent performances altogether.

Ben Z wrote:Dave, I'm interested from a legal standpoint what this part of her statement may mean for her ability to file a lawsuit to get herself on the team for London:

"I Jeneba Tarmoh have decided to decline my 3rd place position in the 100m dash to Allyson Felix," Tarmoh wrote in the email. "I understand that with this decision I am no longer running the 100m dash in the Olympic Games and will be an alternate for the event. As an alternate I understand that I will be asked to run if another 100m runner decides not to for personal reasons, and/or on the 4x100m relay."

Seems weird she would use those words if she is thinking immediate lawsuit for London, no?

If she is planning litigation, her written statement was a mistake. That said, it's probably a very minor mistake. I did take that to mean she was giving up.

Ben Z wrote:

healdgator wrote:I like the runoff idea, but you could go with best time of the year to date, or qualifying points, or something else based on actual performance. The concept that you would decide who makes the olympic team (and who doesn't) based on a coin flip was just unconscionable to me.

Agree on the coinflip.

The problem with the performance prior to the Trials argument, unless perhaps you take performance at the Trials (and would only work when you have heats leading up to the final), is that the whole idea of the US Trials is you have to be top 3 on the day / in the race. Everything that happens before is irrelevant.

If you are going to go down this path then I think you are better off doing what Kenya does to decide their team...it's a combination of top 1-2 in a specific race and then the third team member is decided past on recent performances altogether.

Sure, there are problems with all the alternatives I suggested. Like I said, I prefer the runoff but there were tons of better options than a coin flip. I guess a coin flip is "fair", though.

Personally, I believe that 'the call on the field' should stand unless there is conclusive evidence to overturn. A tie should not overturn a call on the field. They should allow only for a call to be reversed, not nullified.

It will be interesting to see if her camp releases other "evidence" that she won. If there is another photo, I guess she argue about the angle of the photo.

1) USATF/USOC should have included her on the team.

2) USATF/USOC should have petitioned the IOC to see if they could have 4 athletes in the village and qualifying heats to show their support for the women and to acknowledge their mistake.

3) Even if the petition failed, they would have given both runners the pride of being on the team(I know AF is already on the team).

4) I have no doubt she was pressure to run off and I agree with Dave-O that you cannot use the run off as a fair measure to determine the 3rd place winner for all events. What if it had been a 10K OR marathon?

5) If there was no issue with having all 4 in Athlete's Village, the decision should not have been made until appeal to the IOC was heard. That would give enough time to find another solution than (not) racing tonight.

Bottom line, though--she should be going to the Olympics. Whether she gets to run or not would be the fair or unfair decision

They(IOC) award bronze to both participants if there is a tie--so there is already precedent(legally). I have no problem with her litigation, and I hope she takes it to the international court.

Ben Z wrote:Dave, I'm interested from a legal standpoint what this part of her statement may mean for her ability to file a lawsuit to get herself on the team for London:

"I Jeneba Tarmoh have decided to decline my 3rd place position in the 100m dash to Allyson Felix," Tarmoh wrote in the email. "I understand that with this decision I am no longer running the 100m dash in the Olympic Games and will be an alternate for the event. As an alternate I understand that I will be asked to run if another 100m runner decides not to for personal reasons, and/or on the 4x100m relay."

Seems weird she would use those words if she is thinking immediate lawsuit for London, no?

That's a good point. I would have used language such as "I understand that with this decision I am not currently eligible to run the 100m dash..."

Or perhaps instead of injunctive relief she will just file a lawsuit for money damages. How much is a spot on an Olympic team worth?

healdgator wrote:

Ben Z wrote:Dave, I'm interested from a legal standpoint what this part of her statement may mean for her ability to file a lawsuit to get herself on the team for London:

"I Jeneba Tarmoh have decided to decline my 3rd place position in the 100m dash to Allyson Felix," Tarmoh wrote in the email. "I understand that with this decision I am no longer running the 100m dash in the Olympic Games and will be an alternate for the event. As an alternate I understand that I will be asked to run if another 100m runner decides not to for personal reasons, and/or on the 4x100m relay."

Seems weird she would use those words if she is thinking immediate lawsuit for London, no?

If she is planning litigation, her written statement was a mistake. That said, it's probably a very minor mistake. I did take that to mean she was giving up.

The USOC/USATF probably scripted that for her.

Diego wrote:

healdgator wrote:

Ben Z wrote:Dave, I'm interested from a legal standpoint what this part of her statement may mean for her ability to file a lawsuit to get herself on the team for London:

"I Jeneba Tarmoh have decided to decline my 3rd place position in the 100m dash to Allyson Felix," Tarmoh wrote in the email. "I understand that with this decision I am no longer running the 100m dash in the Olympic Games and will be an alternate for the event. As an alternate I understand that I will be asked to run if another 100m runner decides not to for personal reasons, and/or on the 4x100m relay."

Seems weird she would use those words if she is thinking immediate lawsuit for London, no?

If she is planning litigation, her written statement was a mistake. That said, it's probably a very minor mistake. I did take that to mean she was giving up.

The USOC/USATF probably scripted that for her.

That doesn't mean that she had to sign it.

It's frustrating when it seems like 99% of the time this sport makes national news is from something negative.

If this is Tarmoh's evidence...

(In an interview with SI.com three days after the race, chief photo finish judge Roger Jennings described the pressured scene in the booth above Hayward Field. It was Jennings whose eyesight designated Tarmoh the unofficial third-place finisher, but it was also Jennings who protested his own decision and called for a USATF ruling because the high stakes in place at the Olympic Trials. In any other race in the U.S., it is likely that Jennings's initial ruling would have stood and Tarmoh would have been named to the team, with Felix as an alternate. Jennings will also be the photo finish judge for the runoff.)

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/olympics/2012/writers/tim_layden/07/01/felix.tarmoh.100.runoff.newser/index.html#ixzz1zV0l1L8i

And a second quote from Jennings to Letsrun:

"If I went back and read that photo 100 times, I would call it the same way every time (for Tarmoh)."

...which I suspect it is, she should have done the runoff. Jennings protested his own result and was overruled by USATF. We can argue it was in USATF's best interest for Felix to be on the team given she will get more press but that's how they decided. Period.

The real travesty in all of this is that the USATF didn't have anything in place to handle this sort of situation. Guess they were too busy banning and then unbanning headphones, so that who gets to run in the Olympics got lost in the shuffle.

A coin toss is abolutely not "fair." It requires one participant be given the right to "call" the toss, giving them more "control" over the outcome. A perceived advantage, at least.

A runoff also isn't "fair." Who wins the second time is not an indication of who won the first time.

The athletes should have to agree in advance of the competition to arbitration. Have an arbiter review any claims in a reasonable time to gather the evidence without everyone lawyering up big-time. If the arbiter can't decide based on the evidence, go to an equal number of ping pong balls for each competitor.

No way four competitors can go. Now you're on that slippery slope of how well run the preliminary races were. Lots of smaller nations, lots of politics.

This reminds me of France in FIFA World Cup 2010. Some players had big issue with the coach, then threatened to quit during the tournament.

Jurgen Klinsmann, now Team USA man's coach, commented that the players were making a big mistake. And someday when they look back, they will say to themselves:OMG, what I have done to my country and myself to maybe the only chance to play in the world cup.

This is different. It doesn't hurt the country anything. But someday Tarmoh may look back and says to herself the same thing: OMG, I blew the only chance I could compete for my country in Olympics.

Not surrounded with smart people for good advise at least.

It's a privilege, not a right.

Well said Jerry (the only time you'll EVER hear me say that... )

The latest quote from Tarmoh sums it up as I simply believe she is complaining because she felt like she won. I don't believe there is any other evidence other than she felt she was robbed because she was initially declared the winner and took her victory lap.

"I felt pressured into having to make a decision. They said, ‘Do you want to concede or do you want to run?’ I was like, ‘Are those my only two options?’ They said yes, so I said, ‘Yes, I will run.’ But then as I was going throughout the day, I thought about it and I ran that 100m, I took my victory lap, I went through the press conference, I got my medal, and then they tell me I have to run again, after I ran six rounds of the 100m and 200m? I just had a whole lot of emotions and was heartbroken because in my mind, I felt like my joy was kind of taken..."

Given her attitude and how she is letting her emotions take over I am happy she is giving up her spot to Felix. I believe Felix gives us a better chance at a medal given her composure.

Ben Z wrote:Given her attitude and how she is letting her emotions take over I am happy she is giving up her spot to Felix. I believe Felix gives us a better chance at a medal given her composure.

I saw her on the news last night, she seems very much at peace with her decision. She said that her heart just wasn't in it [a runoff]. Given that, if you aren't ready to put it all out there, then perhaps she was better off not running than losing by 10 meters.

I didn't see a woman that was complaining or bitter. She was smiling and seemingly very happy this ordeal is behind her.