Pushing Buttons: Breaking FIS "rules" About Social Media

This Fall, the "FIS Council" met to discuss a few agenda items, chief among them were the new equipment rules and "Improper Behavior."  The definition of the latter is as follows:

The Council agreed to develop a “Code” to deal with cases of improper behaviour that fall outside the competence of the competition jury to augment the existing rules, such as blasphemy on social networking sites or bringing the sport into disrepute.

So, before we start, let's clarify one thing:  FIS is neither God, sacred, nor inviolable, and therefore, by definition, cannot be blasphemed against. Although many of the higher-ups within FIS qualify as ESL, you would think that they might have taken the time to re-translate their document into more suitable language.  Ironically, by equating their fallible organization with an infallible God, they have, indeed, blasphemed before any of us even had the chance.

Ahem.

There have been a couple of close calls with this social networking thing lately.  First and foremost we have Frenchman Johan Clarey who was, quite surprisingly, leading the DH race in Val Gardena yesterday, with countryman Adrien Theaux sitting in 2nd place, when the decision came down from on high to cancel the race due to high winds.  Clarey was not happy and immediately launched his Twittership into the Twitterverse with this gem:

Translated:
Thank you FIS !!!! But next time tell us, we will bring the lubricant...

Ahem, indeed.

A short while later, he jumped back on his iMac (I'm guessing) and followed up with:

Perhaps, but from what we've heard it was legitimately pretty windy.  We're glad to get a snapshot of this kind of thing straight from the athlete, and we'd prefer to hear that kind of real emotion over the clean cut and buffed out versions we tend to get from a Lindsey Vonn or Benni Raich.  Is there anything wrong with truth?  Why shouldn't athletes be allowed to speak their minds?

Which brings us to our next case: Dustin Cook.  Along with Tucker Marshall, Dustin was DQ'ed at the second Nor-Am GS in Panorama for missing his start.  These guys are both veterans and should obviously know better, but we'll get to that in a second.  After the race, Dustin may have made some comments on Twitter that were not favorable in the eyes of the jury.  All that he has left there now is this:

We don't see anything objectionable about that Tweet, but it's possible that he took some others down.  Why would he do that?  Because word is that he's now in hot water with Alpine Canada over the whole ordeal.  Alpine Canada does not have a specific social media policy that we can find, but I think we've established pretty firmly that governing bodies only play by the letter of the law when it suits them.

Why DQ someone for missing their start?  Because it says you can do that in the rule book (613.6), even though it's no benefit to the athlete whatsoever and objectively makes no sense.  Why sanction someone for Tweeting about your bad decisions?  Because, as a governing body, you are an authoritarian regime that does not answer to your membership and is in no way compelled to represent the membership as the members see fit (Quite the opposite, in fact.  The paradigm is such that the membership represents the regime, so the regime better like what you're doing, or else...).  For the record, it should be obvious that this commentary is not directed solely at Alpine Canada (We have no beef with you, Canada.  We like your hats toques).

Which brings up one final point.  Let's all remember the job of the officials at a ski race: To hold a fair race.  Not to enforce every single rule, although that is the prerogative of the TD, but to simply have the race and make sure that it is as normal and fair as possible.  Would allowing these two guys to start have been unfair?  Absolutely not.  Too often, these sorts of situations arise from poor officiating.

RACE OFFICIALS:  Let's remember that, with the exception of the TD, who is essentially there to represent the interests of FIS, we are there to make the race happen for the athletes.  Not to stop them from racing because the rule book says we can.  Do everything you can to get every skier down the hill, and only make exceptions if doing so will provide someone an unfair advantage.

REFEREES:  The TD represents FIS and the rule book.  The Chief of Race represents the venue and organizers.  You represent the other third of the equation: The athletes.  Even if the TD and start ref (not on the jury, btw) say it's an obvious DQ, you should be advocating for the athlete if an unfair advantage will not be given.  Find out what happened and, yes, sometimes you have to make your case to the TD.  Your job is to advocate for the athlete in line with the rules of a fair race.

Ahem.  Indeed.  Are we all still friends?


-