t-and-f: Re: 1972 Vaulting Pole Snafu (formerly Eddie Hart . .)
On 2004-05-16 20:09, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > *Bob Seagren's poles. I'm trying to remember the particulars. Of all the > rulings in '72 this was the one I had the most problem with. It had to do > with the pole Seagren was using being on the "approved list". There was > something about the pole having to have been available worldwide at > least 12 months prior to the Games (so as to theoretically ensure an equal > playing field). There was a big on-the-field argument about whether the > 12 month requirement had been met- something that probably needed some > analysis about just HOW widely it had been available in those 12 prior > months. But my problem was with how it was enforced. There was > every indication that with Seagren being the 'hottest vaulter in the world', > the Games officials decided beforehand that they were gonna go after > Seagren on the pole rule, but they kept it a secret. Then when all > the vaulters were out on the field warming up with their poles, they made > a big live-on-TV to-do about declaring Seagren a 'cheater' and demanded > that he surrender the poles right there. Obviously had the concern been > communicated to him months earlier, he could have trained on other poles > and brought them with him. After a big argument he surrended the poles to > IAAF head Adrian Paulen, borrowed an unfamiliar one from another vaulter, > and still got the silver after being a huge gold medal favorite beforehand. > So my problem may not be so much with the basis for the ruling, but the > procedure which the officials chose to follow. It was an obvious case of > intentionally holding back a ruling until the worst possible time, in order to > embarass an athlete and make it almost impossible for the athlete to to find > a way to comply and compete. They intended to force Seagren to drop out by > taking away his poles and leaving him 'pole-less' with no time left for > Seagren to find an alternative means of competing. That another vaulter > came to his help is something they didn't figure on.. > It was obviously 'targeting Seagren' in my book- but it might be more because > he was 'on top' rather than just because he was an American. > Fortunately, SOME lessons were learned- many of the implement approval > procedures we have today seem exceedingly bureaucratic and complicated, > but they're a direct result of the Seagren fiasco. I think until after '72, > while > the rule said something about 12-month prior availability, the IAAF was not > in the business of publishing an "official approved list", making possible > on-the-field dirty dealing like happened to Seagren. Now we have approved > lists up the kazoo. Randy concludes his post with "I was 16 at the time," perhaps giving it somewhat more believability than Ray Cook's, since Ray admitted to being only 10 at the time. There's no reason to think my version any better than Randy's, except that I was 44 at the time-- As I remember the events at Munich, the IAAF first banned the carbon-fibre poles a month before the games, then reversed itself four days before the prelims; then, after some highly questionable bench tests the night before the event, reinstated the ban on the basis of the carbon poles not meeting some sort of ad hoc stiffness-to-weight ratio limit. That worked to the disadvantage of world record holder Seagren, but also that of former record holder Kjell Isaaksson, bronze medalist Jan Johnson, Canada's Bruce Simpson, the fifth-place finisher, Sweden's Hans Lagerquist, France's Francois Tracanelli, USA's Steve Smith, etc., etc.; all of whom had expected to use the Pacer Carbon. Talking later with the Pacer people, I was told that the argument of prior availability was ridiculous, since the carbon poles were universally available (and available gratis to any vaulter of Olympic calibre), and the basic reason for their disqualification was that Wolfgang Nordwig, former world record holder and the eventual champion, had used the carbon pole but had not benefited to the extent of most vaulters and had returned to fibreglas poles, objecting to any competitor being permitted use of carbon. Three personal perspectives: Since use of the carbon poles wasn't reinstated until four days before the event, I'd feel quite sure that all of the vaulters had taken their own fibreglas poles to the meet and that Seagren wouldn't have had to use a borrowed pole. I seem to remember that there was a considerable hullabaloo about Seagren's ceremoniously handing his fibreglas pole to Adriaan Paulen when the event concluded; prompting some demand for his forfeiting the silver medal for unsportsmanlike conduct. I'd think Paulen was rather lucky that Seagren didn't shove the pole up his butt. Four years later, I sat in the pole vault end of the Montreal Olympic Stadium, watching the finals with other vault aficionados. Late in the event, Paulen strode down the field toward the vault runway, to make sure everything
t-and-f: Re: 1972 Vaulting Pole Snafu (formerly Eddie Hart . .)
Interesting, how much our memories of this occasion vary, after 32 years. Thanks to Ed Grant for chipping in. I think I've switched sides on the authority of recollection as a function of age at the time. It just may be that those who have responded as teen-agers at the time have a few more brain cells still alive than I do. Firstly, I think I may have been wrong about the pole that was banned. In a parallel thread on the VaultCanada mailing list, Doug Ross commented: "I was 15 at the time and at that point I was still buying into the whole "Olympic Ideal". So I had an interest in the whole scam. My memory is that the pole in question was the Green Catapole 550+." Okay, only another teen-ager, so I could ignore that; but Gérard Dumas, who was in attendance, describes the pole in question as "perches vertes," which would be the Catapole 550+. I can hardly ignore Dumas' authority, since his qualifications as vaulter include at least one competitive result every year since 1948 and his qualifications as vault statistician are unmatched. I'll copy his full post below, but for now I'll try to understand my mistake. At the 1976 USA Olympic Trials, I had conversations with the designers of both Catapole and Pacer. Both were vehemently disgusted with Paulen. In retrospect, that probably would have been Catapole objecting to the ad hoc bench tests that were finally advanced as reason for banning the 550+, when it was clear that the argument of unavailability of the pole for all competitors wouldn't wash. For Pacer, the disgust would have centered on Paulen's similarly ad hoc ruling, shortly before the Trials, that the usual practice of western vaulters of placing a towel in the box to absorb some of the impact of planting was illegal, "because it changed the dimensions of the box." Pacer thought the absorption of impact by the towel permitted a better transfer of energy in the plant and decreased the chances of pole breakage. Okay, mea culpa. I'd like to copy one other VaultCanada post in addition to Gérard's. This one is from a competitor in the Munich vault, Kirk Bryde of Canada, whose memory may help to clarify the sequence of events, although apparently he remembers the pole in question as the Pacer Carbon, as I did. Incidentally, the thing that was different about the 550+ was that it was manufactured with a slight pre-bend that permitted most vaulters a smoother take-off. Apparently this was not an advantage for Nordwig. Bryde wrote, "I have a very keen interest in this thread, since I competed in the qualifying round, and in several meets leading up to the 1972 Olympics. I did not qualify for the Olympic Final, but I was certainly in on the buzz, as I watched from the stands. "This story probably gets stretched by people every time it's retold. I can offer a first-hand perspective, but I caution you that I too may not recollect the entire sequence of events. It was 32 years ago! "Certainly, there was an Olympic rule requiring that all poles must be available to all athletes world-wide, or else they would be declared an unfair advantage. I cannot recall whether the carbon poles made by Pacer were available 12 months before Munich. I used them, and so did most other North American vaulters. Wolfgang Nordwig preferred the older "pure fibreglass" poles that he'd been using for many years. "In my experience, there was really no appreciable difference between the carbon poles and the pure fibreglass poles. The availability of carbon poles was in fact "world-wide" in that any Olympic calibre vaulter - including Nordwig - could get free poles from Pacer for the asking. "My recollection was that Adrian Paulen was East German, but I may be wrong about that. I'm trying to recall the exact year that East and West Germany competed as separate Olympic teams. I'm thinking that they competed separately in Munich, but I might be off by a few years. "However, what I clearly recall without a doubt is that Paulen was very PRO-Germany. There was no indication in the buzz amongst us vaulters that he was ANTI-American. Isaakson actually didn't compete in Munich. He was either injured or eliminated in Sweden's trials. (The other big 'surprise' that year was that both Dave Roberts and Steve Smith lost in the US trials - they all cleared 5.50 at the US Trials. Tough break! The pundits had predicted that it would be Seagren and Roberts to represent the USA.) "At any rate, IMHO, what happened was that the German officials took it upon themselves to alter the rules so that Nordwig had an advantage over the Americans (Seagren and Johnson). With Isaakson, Roberts, and Smith not competing, there were no other 18-footers in the competition, with the exception of Chris Papinicolaou who hadn't repeated his WR 18-0.25 since his one-and-only 1970 clearance. "Had Isaakson been competing, or had Papinicolaou still been in his prime, I think the same thing would have happened - devise a way to interrupt the non
RE: t-and-f: Re: 1972 Vaulting Pole Snafu (formerly Eddie Hart . .)
OK...I was only 10, but hadn't the USA won every pole vault gold prior to Munich with the exception of 1906? OH...and every basketball gold prior to Munich? And I remember our coach in high school telling us they had the poles in 1972 so they were readily available. It sure sounds like the fix was in to me. Seriously though I'm not a conspiracy theorist but it does make for an interesting thread. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Ruth Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 5:56 PM To: t-and-f Subject: t-and-f: Re: 1972 Vaulting Pole Snafu (formerly Eddie Hart . .) On 2004-05-16 20:09, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > *Bob Seagren's poles. I'm trying to remember the particulars. Of all > the rulings in '72 this was the one I had the most problem with. It > had to do with the pole Seagren was using being on the "approved > list". There was something about the pole having to have been > available worldwide at least 12 months prior to the Games (so as to > theoretically ensure an equal playing field). There was a big > on-the-field argument about whether the 12 month requirement had been > met- something that probably needed some analysis about just HOW > widely it had been available in those 12 prior months. But my problem > was with how it was enforced. There was every indication that with > Seagren being the 'hottest vaulter in the world', the Games officials > decided beforehand that they were gonna go after Seagren on the pole > rule, but they kept it a secret. Then when all the vaulters were out > on the field warming up with their poles, they made a big live-on-TV > to-do about declaring Seagren a 'cheater' and demanded that he > surrender the poles right there. Obviously had the concern been > communicated to him months earlier, he could have trained on other > poles and brought them with him. After a big argument he surrended > the poles to IAAF head Adrian Paulen, borrowed an unfamiliar one from > another vaulter, and still got the silver after being a huge gold > medal favorite beforehand. So my problem may not be so much with the > basis for the ruling, but the procedure which the officials chose to > follow. It was an obvious case of intentionally holding back a ruling > until the worst possible time, in order to embarass an athlete and > make it almost impossible for the athlete to to find a way to comply > and compete. They intended to force Seagren to drop out by taking > away his poles and leaving him 'pole-less' with no time left for > Seagren to find an alternative means of competing. That another > vaulter came to his help is something they didn't figure on.. It was > obviously 'targeting Seagren' in my book- but it might be more because > he was 'on top' rather than just because he was an American. > Fortunately, SOME lessons were learned- many of the implement approval > procedures we have today seem exceedingly bureaucratic and > complicated, but they're a direct result of the Seagren fiasco. I > think until after '72, while the rule said something about 12-month > prior availability, the IAAF was not in the business of publishing an > "official approved list", making possible on-the-field dirty dealing > like happened to Seagren. Now we have approved lists up the kazoo. Randy concludes his post with "I was 16 at the time," perhaps giving it somewhat more believability than Ray Cook's, since Ray admitted to being only 10 at the time. There's no reason to think my version any better than Randy's, except that I was 44 at the time-- As I remember the events at Munich, the IAAF first banned the carbon-fibre poles a month before the games, then reversed itself four days before the prelims; then, after some highly questionable bench tests the night before the event, reinstated the ban on the basis of the carbon poles not meeting some sort of ad hoc stiffness-to-weight ratio limit. That worked to the disadvantage of world record holder Seagren, but also that of former record holder Kjell Isaaksson, bronze medalist Jan Johnson, Canada's Bruce Simpson, the fifth-place finisher, Sweden's Hans Lagerquist, France's Francois Tracanelli, USA's Steve Smith, etc., etc.; all of whom had expected to use the Pacer Carbon. Talking later with the Pacer people, I was told that the argument of prior availability was ridiculous, since the carbon poles were universally available (and available gratis to any vaulter of Olympic calibre), and the basic reason for their disqualification was that Wolfgang Nordwig, former world record holder and the eventual champion, had used the carbon pole but had not
Re: t-and-f: Re: 1972 Vaulting Pole Snafu (formerly Eddie Hart . .)
My recollection was that Paulen was Belgian, but Dutch means I was close. They named a big meet after him after he died, didn't they? Where is that? Ivo van Damme (the Van Damme meet named after the 800m runner) is Belgian, so I guess the Paulen meet must be in the Netherlands. Although Paulen didn't have the racist reputation of Avery Brundage (Brundage was IOC head in '72 while Paulen was IAAF head- I think Paulen moved up to take Brundage's place not too long after '72, right?, anyway- Paulen was stilled viewed as the typical amateur athletics bureucrat who was stodgy, upper crust elitist, set in his ways, and extremely stubborn. Also, I think the first time the Germans were in the Olympics after WWII was 1964, where they fielded a joint team (a very odd pairing considering that it was the height of the cold war- "Dr. Strangelove" time). But after that they split, and had separate teams beginning in '68 (and of course in '72 as well). Wait a minute- didn't Armin Hary compete in Rome in '60, and wasn't he German? RT
Re: t-and-f: Re: 1972 Vaulting Pole Snafu (formerly Eddie Hart . .)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My recollection was that Paulen was Belgian, but Dutch means I was close. They named a big meet after him after he died, didn't they? Where is that? Ivo van Damme (the Van Damme meet named after the 800m runner) is Belgian, so I guess the Paulen meet must be in the Netherlands. Paulen was Dutch. Although Paulen didn't have the racist reputation of Avery Brundage (Brundage was IOC head in '72 while Paulen was IAAF head- I think Paulen moved up to take Brundage's place not too long after '72, right?, anyway- Paulen was stilled viewed as the typical amateur athletics bureucrat who was stodgy, upper crust elitist, set in his ways, and extremely stubborn. At Munich, the head of the IAAF was The Marquis of Exiter (Lord Burghley), 400 m champ in 1932. Paulen succeeded him, I believe, and was in turn succeeded by Nebiolo. Also, I think the first time the Germans were in the Olympics after WWII was 1964, where they fielded a joint team (a very odd pairing considering that it was the height of the cold war- "Dr. Strangelove" time). But after that they split, and had separate teams beginning in '68 (and of course in '72 as well). Wait a minute- didn't Armin Hary compete in Rome in '60, and wasn't he German? Germany fielded a joint team in '60. They had separate teams in '72 and I think in '68. Not sure about '64., RT -- Wayne T. Armbrust, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computomarx (TM) 3604 Grant Ct. Columbia MO 65203-5800 USA (573) 445-6675 (voice & FAX) http://www.Computomarx.com "Know the difference between right and wrong... Always give your best effort... Treat others the way you'd like to be treated..." - Coach Bill Sudeck (1926-2000)
Re: t-and-f: Re: 1972 Vaulting Pole Snafu (formerly Eddie Hart . .)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef: > My recollection was that Paulen was Belgian, but Dutch means I was close. Some Europeans would not take that one lightly in any other way than sheer geographyl. To them, it would be saying 'my recollection was such-and-so was Mexican, but American means I was close' (ok, Canadian is the better parallel, but still one gets my point). > They named a big meet after him after he died, didn't they? Yes they did. > Where is that? Ivo van Damme (the Van Damme meet named after the 800m > runner) is Belgian, so I guess the Paulen meet must be in the Netherlands. Yes indeed. The IAAF Grand Prix currently named Fanny Blankers-Koen Games was called Ad Paulen Memorial up until a few years ago. It was (and is still) held in the Fanny Blankers-Koen stadium in Hengelo, The Netherlands. The next edition is held on May 31. I'll refrain from commenting on earlier allegations/accusations around Paulen, because I do not have all the information nearby. But maybe later... Regards, Wilmar Kortleever
RE: t-and-f: Re: 1972 Vaulting Pole Snafu (formerly Eddie Hart . .)
Hi All. Some comments related to several impressions voiced here by the "youngsters at the time". 1) Adrian Paulen was not the head of IAAF at that time. Lord Burgley (the 1924 400m hurdles Olympic Champion) was. Adrian Paulen served as IAAF president later, between 1976 and 1981 and in fact did a good job. Just to remind those who do not know (but might care): Paulen was an outstanduing 400-800m runner in the 1920 and in World War 2 risked his life more than once in resistance to the Nazi conquest. 2) There was certainly no scheming to leave Seagren without any poles. Adrian Paulen would not dream of scheming anything like that. Unfortuantely, preventing Seagren from using his own pole did almost definitely coast him the gold. 3) The really annoying part of this all - to the best of my recollection as someone who attended the competition in the stands - still one can always err- was that in the Bru-ha-ha that erupted, Issakson (the Swede who studied and competed in the US, former world record holder, but no more in the shape he had been earlier) did in fact compete using the same kind of pole that has been taken away from Seagren! That, if I remember corrcetly, was the real travesty there. In all, Adrian Paulen, whom I got to know well during the late 1970s and early 1980s, was a man of integrity, who in the Munich case overplayed it and unfortunately ended up hurting only one man, Bob Seagren. UG === Quoting Ray Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > OK...I was only 10, but hadn't the USA won every pole vault gold prior to > Munich with the exception of 1906? OH...and every basketball gold prior to > Munich? And I remember our coach in high school telling us they had the > poles in 1972 so they were readily available. It sure sounds like the fix > was in to me. > > Seriously though I'm not a conspiracy theorist but it does make for an > interesting thread. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Ruth > Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 5:56 PM > To: t-and-f > Subject: t-and-f: Re: 1972 Vaulting Pole Snafu (formerly Eddie Hart . .) > > > On 2004-05-16 20:09, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > *Bob Seagren's poles. I'm trying to remember the particulars. Of all > > the rulings in '72 this was the one I had the most problem with. It > > had to do with the pole Seagren was using being on the "approved > > list". There was something about the pole having to have been > > available worldwide at least 12 months prior to the Games (so as to > > theoretically ensure an equal playing field). There was a big > > on-the-field argument about whether the 12 month requirement had been > > met- something that probably needed some analysis about just HOW > > widely it had been available in those 12 prior months. But my problem > > was with how it was enforced. There was every indication that with > > Seagren being the 'hottest vaulter in the world', the Games officials > > decided beforehand that they were gonna go after Seagren on the pole > > rule, but they kept it a secret. Then when all the vaulters were out > > on the field warming up with their poles, they made a big live-on-TV > > to-do about declaring Seagren a 'cheater' and demanded that he > > surrender the poles right there. Obviously had the concern been > > communicated to him months earlier, he could have trained on other > > poles and brought them with him. After a big argument he surrended > > the poles to IAAF head Adrian Paulen, borrowed an unfamiliar one from > > another vaulter, and still got the silver after being a huge gold > > medal favorite beforehand. So my problem may not be so much with the > > basis for the ruling, but the procedure which the officials chose to > > follow. It was an obvious case of intentionally holding back a ruling > > until the worst possible time, in order to embarass an athlete and > > make it almost impossible for the athlete to to find a way to comply > > and compete. They intended to force Seagren to drop out by taking > > away his poles and leaving him 'pole-less' with no time left for > > Seagren to find an alternative means of competing. That another > > vaulter came to his help is something they didn't figure on.. It was > > obviously 'targeting Seagren' in my book- but it might be more because > > he was 'on top' rather than just because he was an American. > > Fortunately, SOME lessons were learned- many of the implement approval > > procedures we have today seem exceedingly bureaucratic and > > complicated, but they're
Re: t-and-f: Re: 1972 Vaulting Pole Snafu (formerly Eddie Hart . .)
A word on Kirk Bryde's message; He "can clearly recall without any doubt" That Adrian Paulen (possibly an East german according to him) was very pro-German, while in fact the Dutch mines engineer Adrian Paulen all but was executed by Germans during World war II. Shows that you can compete in Olympic Games and have not the vaguest idea who are the individuals functioning there. Just erase all these imaginary pro-German motives from the error that Paulen did ceratinly commit UG = Quoting Roger Ruth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Interesting, how much our memories of this occasion vary, after 32 years. > Thanks to Ed Grant for chipping in. I think I've switched sides on the > authority of recollection as a function of age at the time. It just may be > that those who have responded as teen-agers at the time have a few more > brain cells still alive than I do. > > Firstly, I think I may have been wrong about the pole that was banned. In a > parallel thread on the VaultCanada mailing list, Doug Ross commented: > > "I was 15 at the time and at that point I was still buying into the whole > "Olympic Ideal". So I had an interest in the whole scam. My memory is that > the pole in question was the Green Catapole 550+." > > Okay, only another teen-ager, so I could ignore that; but Gérard Dumas, who > was in attendance, describes the pole in question as "perches vertes," which > would be the Catapole 550+. I can hardly ignore Dumas' authority, since his > qualifications as vaulter include at least one competitive result every year > since 1948 and his qualifications as vault statistician are unmatched. I'll > copy his full post below, but for now I'll try to understand my mistake. > > At the 1976 USA Olympic Trials, I had conversations with the designers of > both Catapole and Pacer. Both were vehemently disgusted with Paulen. In > retrospect, that probably would have been Catapole objecting to the ad hoc > bench tests that were finally advanced as reason for banning the 550+, when > it was clear that the argument of unavailability of the pole for all > competitors wouldn't wash. For Pacer, the disgust would have centered on > Paulen's similarly ad hoc ruling, shortly before the Trials, that the usual > practice of western vaulters of placing a towel in the box to absorb some of > the impact of planting was illegal, "because it changed the dimensions of > the box." Pacer thought the absorption of impact by the towel permitted a > better transfer of energy in the plant and decreased the chances of pole > breakage. > > Okay, mea culpa. > > I'd like to copy one other VaultCanada post in addition to Gérard's. This > one is from a competitor in the Munich vault, Kirk Bryde of Canada, whose > memory may help to clarify the sequence of events, although apparently he > remembers the pole in question as the Pacer Carbon, as I did. Incidentally, > the thing that was different about the 550+ was that it was manufactured > with a slight pre-bend that permitted most vaulters a smoother take-off. > Apparently this was not an advantage for Nordwig. > > Bryde wrote, > > > "I have a very keen interest in this thread, since I > competed in the qualifying round, and in several meets > leading up to the 1972 Olympics. I did not qualify for > the Olympic Final, but I was certainly in on the buzz, > as I watched from the stands. > > "This story probably gets stretched by people every time > it's retold. I can offer a first-hand perspective, but > I caution you that I too may not recollect the entire > sequence of events. It was 32 years ago! > > "Certainly, there was an Olympic rule requiring that all > poles must be available to all athletes world-wide, or > else they would be declared an unfair advantage. I > cannot recall whether the carbon poles made by Pacer > were available 12 months before Munich. I used them, > and so did most other North American vaulters. > Wolfgang Nordwig preferred the older "pure fibreglass" > poles that he'd been using for many years. > > "In my experience, there was really no appreciable > difference between the carbon poles and the pure > fibreglass poles. The availability of carbon poles was > in fact "world-wide" in that any Olympic calibre > vaulter - including Nordwig - could get free poles from > Pacer for the asking. > > "My recollection was that Adrian Paulen was East German, > but I may be wrong about that. I'm trying to recall > the exact year that East and West Germany competed as > separate Olympic teams. I'm thinking that they > competed separately in Munich, but I might be off by a > few years. > > "However, what I clearly recall without a doubt is that > Paulen was very PRO-Germany. There was no indication > in the buzz amongst us vaulters that he was > ANTI-American. Isaakson actually didn't compete in > Munich. He was either injured or eliminated in > Sweden's trials. (The other big 'surprise' that year > was that both Dave Roberts and Steve Smith lost in the > U
Re: t-and-f: Re: 1972 Vaulting Pole Snafu (formerly Eddie Hart . .)
re: Paulen being "almost executed" by the Germans in World War II Politicians who did something meritorious four decades prior should be commended, but should not get a "free pass" for the rest of their life solely because of it with regard to their current ability to lead. The primary consideration for effective leadership should be "what have you done for me lately". [yes, there is a parallel American message here- sorry, couldn't resist... :) ] I personally don't think that Paulen had any particular favoritism toward Nordwig, and I doubt that he "had it in" for any particular nation or region. I just think that he did not exhibit the leadership qualities which were needed in the 1970's in the areas of reform and progressive movement toward making Athletics a professional sport in all the best senses of the word. He was a cog in the amateur sports bureaucracy which prevailed at the time and which were determined to mantain the sham status quo of amateurism, "Olympic movement", etc., at all costs, which really served to maintain the elitist top end of sports administration for many many years. RT
Re: t-and-f: Re: 1972 Vaulting Pole Snafu (formerly Eddie Hart . .)
The thing I most remember Paulen for was at the 1980 Olympics. The Moscow crowd around one corner of the stadium was roaring on Konstantin Volkov and jeering Wladyslaw Kozakiewicz. The officials were cheating too; holding up flags for the Soviet vaulter to judge the wind but not for Kozakiewicz. Paulen, as President of the IAAF, went down to the vaulting area and sat there to make sure that fair play was done to all. Randall Northam On 24 May 2004, at 18:23, Randy Treadway wrote: re: Paulen being "almost executed" by the Germans in World War II Politicians who did something meritorious four decades prior should be commended, but should not get a "free pass" for the rest of their life solely because of it with regard to their current ability to lead. The primary consideration for effective leadership should be "what have you done for me lately". [yes, there is a parallel American message here- sorry, couldn't resist... :) ] I personally don't think that Paulen had any particular favoritism toward Nordwig, and I doubt that he "had it in" for any particular nation or region. I just think that he did not exhibit the leadership qualities which were needed in the 1970's in the areas of reform and progressive movement toward making Athletics a professional sport in all the best senses of the word. He was a cog in the amateur sports bureaucracy which prevailed at the time and which were determined to mantain the sham status quo of amateurism, "Olympic movement", etc., at all costs, which really served to maintain the elitist top end of sports administration for many many years. RT
Re: t-and-f: Re: 1972 Vaulting Pole Snafu (formerly Eddie Hart . .)
As it happens this was not quite the case. While Nebiolo would go ahead and instituted many necessary changes, Paulen was cognizant and even supportive towards the move to fromally cahnge the status in regard to payments into trust funds for athletes. There is documentation from the 1978 IAAF Congresses in Puerto Rico and 1981 in Rome to show this, apart from my personal impression having attended those meetings, but I don't think this list should or can be loaded with detail. Sincerely, Uri === Quoting Randy Treadway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > re: Paulen being "almost executed" by the Germans in World War II > > Politicians who did something meritorious four decades prior should be > commended, but should not get a "free pass" for the rest of their life solely > because of it with regard to their current ability to lead. The primary > consideration for effective leadership should be "what have you done for me > lately". > > [yes, there is a parallel American message here- sorry, couldn't resist... :) > ] > > I personally don't think that Paulen had any particular favoritism toward > Nordwig, and I doubt that he "had it in" for any particular nation or region. > I just think that he did not exhibit the leadership qualities which were > needed in the 1970's in the areas of reform and progressive movement toward > making Athletics a professional sport in all the best senses of the word. > He was a cog in the amateur sports bureaucracy which prevailed at the time > and which were determined to mantain the sham status quo of amateurism, > "Olympic movement", etc., at all costs, which really served to maintain the > elitist top end of sports administration for many many years. > > RT > > > > +++ > This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System > at the Tel-Aviv University CC. > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
