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 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 was being conducted properly. When that entire end of the stadium erupted in boos, he apparently decided it was, turning on his heel and beating a hasty retreat. Cheers, Roger
