View Poll Results: Did British Fencing act ethically in its wildcard selection policy and procedure poll

Voters
95. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    20 21.05%
  • No

    75 78.95%
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Did British Fencing act ethically in its wildcard selection policy and procedure poll

  1. #1
    Senior Member AussieMongrel has a reputation beyond reputeAussieMongrel has a reputation beyond reputeAussieMongrel has a reputation beyond reputeAussieMongrel has a reputation beyond reputeAussieMongrel has a reputation beyond reputeAussieMongrel has a reputation beyond reputeAussieMongrel has a reputation beyond reputeAussieMongrel has a reputation beyond reputeAussieMongrel has a reputation beyond reputeAussieMongrel has a reputation beyond reputeAussieMongrel has a reputation beyond repute AussieMongrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    City and Scimitar
    Posts
    1,304

    Default Did British Fencing act ethically in its wildcard selection policy and procedure poll

    Did British Fencing act ethically in its wildcard selection policy and procedure poll
    Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 4.

  2. #2
    Senior Member AussieMongrel has a reputation beyond reputeAussieMongrel has a reputation beyond reputeAussieMongrel has a reputation beyond reputeAussieMongrel has a reputation beyond reputeAussieMongrel has a reputation beyond reputeAussieMongrel has a reputation beyond reputeAussieMongrel has a reputation beyond reputeAussieMongrel has a reputation beyond reputeAussieMongrel has a reputation beyond reputeAussieMongrel has a reputation beyond reputeAussieMongrel has a reputation beyond repute AussieMongrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    City and Scimitar
    Posts
    1,304

    Default

    this is the right one, please ignore the other thread.
    Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 4.

  3. #3
    Forum Rabbit Darling is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    9

    Default

    I wasn't going to comment in the 'wildcard' thread, as it was getting a bit out of hand, BF would have saved themselves a world of problems if they made the selection more transparent. Did they make some wrong choices? Absolutely. Was it unethical? Thats a harder one to call I think.

  4. #4
    ***** Legend hokers has a reputation beyond reputehokers has a reputation beyond reputehokers has a reputation beyond reputehokers has a reputation beyond reputehokers has a reputation beyond reputehokers has a reputation beyond reputehokers has a reputation beyond reputehokers has a reputation beyond reputehokers has a reputation beyond reputehokers has a reputation beyond reputehokers has a reputation beyond repute hokers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Woking/Guildford
    Posts
    2,894

    Default

    I think you're asking the wrong question here.

    Were the selection rules fair? - (No IMO, but I've belaboured the discretionary selection point now)
    Was the process followed correctly? - Yes according to the arbitration, though would be good to see the stats presented properly.)
    Have the correct fencers been selected? (No in the majority's opinion it seems.)

    I'm not clear how ethics comes into it unless you start accusing people of having other reasons behind their decision. We SHOULD have objected to the selection rules earlier and we have to wait for the justifications of the decisions before we can argue the case without speculation. For example, it's not specifically unethical to favour youth over results if that's what they genuinely believe to be right, though it's not the right decision.

    You and I are both of the same opinion about the selections here, but I want the arguments put forward to be absolutely crystal-clear and legitimate so there is no dismissing them.
    “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

  5. #5
    Senior Member pigeonmeister has a reputation beyond reputepigeonmeister has a reputation beyond reputepigeonmeister has a reputation beyond reputepigeonmeister has a reputation beyond reputepigeonmeister has a reputation beyond reputepigeonmeister has a reputation beyond reputepigeonmeister has a reputation beyond reputepigeonmeister has a reputation beyond reputepigeonmeister has a reputation beyond reputepigeonmeister has a reputation beyond reputepigeonmeister has a reputation beyond repute pigeonmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,469

    Default

    ridiculous poll

  6. #6
    Initiate overpaid is a jewel in the roughoverpaid is a jewel in the roughoverpaid is a jewel in the rough overpaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Haverstock/Gadaski
    Posts
    63

    Default Once again the BFA proves itself a total disgrace

    I have just finished reading the BOA's response to the BFA selection appeal. Not exactly glowing with praise for the BFA to put it mildly. It should be compulsory reading for every BFA member just in case they haven't yet figured out how bent the organisation currently is. The idea that an acting coach could be involved in the selection process in any way beggars belief. From a corporate governance perspective its like the BFA is in some kind of 1950's timewarp. Nobody with a commercial interest in the sport, who is participating at a national level, or is connected to one (be they parent, coach or sponsor) should be allowed to have any involvement with a BFA committee or serve as a director. In any normal organisation that would be in the articles of association.


  7. #7
    Initiate overpaid is a jewel in the roughoverpaid is a jewel in the roughoverpaid is a jewel in the rough overpaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Haverstock/Gadaski
    Posts
    63

    Default Just in case you haven't got the time/inclination to read the Sports Resolution

    These were the most interesting points made by the QC

    1. By not setting out in advance how many places would be awarded per weapon, and allowing potential performance in the next olympics as a selection criteria, the BFA allowed significantly too much subjectivity to enter into the selection process. Avoiding subjectivity is supposed to be one of the key principals of selection rules. (i.e. the BFA selection process was fundamentally flawed)

    2. The BFA did not properly manage the potential conflicts of interest within the selection groups, in the respect that it did not ensure that there were people on the panels with sufficient expertise in each weapon (or time), to properly challenge the recommendations made to them. (i,e the way the process was handled, particularly with regard to sabre selection was also flawed)

    3. Unfortunately the resolutions service cannot throw out a decision because the process is flawed, only if the process is not followed. There was insufficient evidence to prove conclusively that the process was not followed to the extent required to reject the nominations.

    4. The costs of the arbitration will be borne by British Fencing (if you understand how the law works, nuff said)

  8. #8
    Paul Sibert Foilling Around has a reputation beyond reputeFoilling Around has a reputation beyond reputeFoilling Around has a reputation beyond reputeFoilling Around has a reputation beyond reputeFoilling Around has a reputation beyond reputeFoilling Around has a reputation beyond reputeFoilling Around has a reputation beyond reputeFoilling Around has a reputation beyond reputeFoilling Around has a reputation beyond reputeFoilling Around has a reputation beyond reputeFoilling Around has a reputation beyond repute Foilling Around's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    No Longer Anonymous!! Coach at A&C Sword
    Posts
    4,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pigeonmeister View Post
    ridiculous poll
    Agreed, unethical implies a deliberate act as opposed to the more likely cock up.
    Qualified National Academy AASE Assessor
    Father of a Scotland Junior Commonwealths Fencer and a Senior Commonwealth Team Foil Gold Medallist

  9. #9
    Initiate overpaid is a jewel in the roughoverpaid is a jewel in the roughoverpaid is a jewel in the rough overpaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Haverstock/Gadaski
    Posts
    63

    Default the obvious question

    Why, in a sport with a well established and independently verified national and international ranking system, do you need a three tiered committee structure to make olympic selection decisions?

    Heaven forbid that it could be for the sole purpose of making several amateurish, retired, failed fencers feel important? And at the expense of ruining several substantially more successful fencers' sporting careers.

  10. #10
    Initiate Agricola is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Portsmouth
    Posts
    35

    Default

    I'm not sure if the selection was ethical or not since I don't know the people on the board personally. However judging by the results and if I had to bet my house, I'd bet it was not ethical.
    For certain the method that it was carried out was bound to lead to suspicions and create concerns depending on who was selected. I pity those fencers that were selected and have a cloud of suspicion hanging over their heads because their coach was on the selection comitee. I pity those that lost out, more so, despite the fact they have produced better results.
    A grown man should have known better and excused himself when he saw a definate conflict of interest, and I don't mean walking out of the room when they took the vote. His presence on that comitee could only have resulted this way if his students were to be selected and that is a stone cold fact.
    He should have stepped down long ago from the selection comitee if he believed his fencers would be selected upon their own merits. If I was one of those that lost a place I'd be furious and with good reason.
    As for this BS about selecting people based on potential for 2016 I read somewhere, please spare me! Who goes to the Olympics based on potential to win a medal at 2016? What happens at 2016, they get sent based on potential for winning medals at 2020?
    People go to the Olympics to win medals, end of story!
    As a member of the BFA I feel that I've been sold short on the London Olympics thanks to the horrendous handling of the selection of our athletes.

    Just my opinion.

  11. #11
    Initiate overpaid is a jewel in the roughoverpaid is a jewel in the roughoverpaid is a jewel in the rough overpaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Haverstock/Gadaski
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Out of curiosity, in the aftermath of the olympics, given that the selection committee went out on a limb with its subjective criteria, winding up both the Olympic association and much of the fencing community in the process, and then saw its more controversial selections bomb, did those responsible either tender their resignations, get booted, or are they still in situ?

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
    "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.”

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts