ethics question

[Mr Epee]

Why SHOULDN'T a fencer compete in qualifiers for events s/he has no intention of competing in? It's another opportunity to fence. If it weren't a qualifier, but merely a local tournament would the fencer fence? If so, then s/he is completey justified in fencing it when it's a qualifier.

The second question is an interesting, albeit likely completely hypothetical scenario. Should someone compete to intentionally bar others from qualification. Mmm. Not at all what we're talking about, but a potentially interesting conversation. Perhaps rephase it to be when, if ever, is it acceptable for someone to compete for the purpose of, and with the intention to, take up a qualification slot, barring someone else from qualifying.

Sub-topics on when the person being so blocked is known or not known in advance.

To be honest, this is an interesting question, and one that I do not have strong opinions about. It is very common to bolster the ranks of qualifiers with young fencers who are simply not competitive in order to up the number of total qualifiers for the division.

I raised the questions because I was more than a little disturbed by someone bouncing around telling less than half of a story, challenging the ethics of someone who is not present to defend themselves, and building a loaded poll to validate their position.

[RebelFencer]

If they can't qualify on their own merit, no matter who of their opponents is actually going, they shouldn't go.

[Basquet]

The Bout Committee members should be ashamed of themselves. On the other hand, fencers who have a very good chance of placing in a qualifier but who know that they will not or cannot go to the actual competition, should contemplate not going to the qualifer - it seems fairer not to take up a spot that someone else could and would use. It's a different story if you're an auto-qualifier, because as such you don't use up one of those precious qualifying spots.

But ... if you DO go to a competition, any competition, you should fence it to the end and to the best of your ability. That's the honorable (old fashioned concept, isn't it?) thing to do. And nobody should ask you to do otherwise.

[random fencer p]

I agree with what someone said in a previous post, the question is kind of flawed. By the original post it seems as though you lost the semi final and then due to the fact there was a fence off for 3rd you were asked if you were going. The other semi final 'loser' did want to go, you had no plans(?) of going and are now offended that you were asked to 'let' the other fencer have 3rd?

If I have this right.... This seems to be a somewhat legit question. Although I wasn't there some other questions come up.

1. Although I disagree with it, it does beg asking why you were there is you had no intention of going, for whatever reason. But you want to fence so that's fine and I doubt anyone has a problem with that idea. Many have claimed that only those who actually want to go should compete in any qualifiers but that brings up other problems and could limit qualifiers from the division or section.

2. Seems as though you were not asked to forfeit or 'throw' a bout but asked if you would let this other person go since they are able to or really want to go. Now if someone asked you to lose intentionally that is a completely different issue, the original post doesn't mention either way. If you did fence the bout were you asked to lose it intentionally? If so, hello can of worms, if not and you were allowed to fence with your own skill to win or lose the bout then the question seems harmless.

3. Were you allowed to fence the bout? If so, then seems as though there is no real problem here, if not, again a different issue. If you did fence were you rushed through it or were you allowed to fence at the pace the bout would have gone anyway? Were you told to hurry up or made to feel as though it was a burden for some reason?

4. Did you want to or can you go to JOs? Seems moot but if you can or want to go then fine, if you can't or don't want to then that's fine also either way the question isn't that bad.

5. Other events that were big enough, did they have a fence off for 3rd? Or, did the people running this event put one 3rd and one 4th, essentially causing the same kind of thing with one fencer not being given the choice and being given 4th whether they like it or not. With so many events not having a fence off for 3rd, as a common practice now, it usually doesn't matter but with national event qualifiers there can be no tie at all for any reason. Every tie must be 'dealt with' some how. If one fencer doesn't care and takes the lower position then fine but that is there choice. With larger events if there was no fence off for 3rd because 4 or 5 qualify that does not make it any more right as one fencer will be forced to take 4th even though they didn't fence for it.

Bottom line, not sure anyone stepped on ethical standings but others will see that differently and so be it. You were asked this question, boils down to this: Did you want to fence? If so, were you allowed to fence? Were you asked to lose intentionally so the other person could go? Were other 3rd's fenced off for even though more than 3 qualified? Were there logistical issues, limited strips, things taking too long? It would seem that shouldn't matter but if the people running the event were stressed over getting things done without being there too late it could have factored in.

Two cents, don't really have a problem with the question getting asked as if one wants to go and the other doesn't or can't then doesn't seem to be as big a deal. If you were asked to let someone else win a bout you actually fenced so they could go and you would not even though you want or wanted to, again can of worms time. Also, this isn't the first time I have seem this happen. Limited resources, sending all you can from a division, one person can't go but the other does and can, not that bad of a question. You went to fence, no problem but do or did you want to go?

Lastly, I have a hunch that this happens way more often than we think and due to the common practice of not fencing off for 3rd I could see how that bout would get over looked, 'Oh yeah we have to fence off for 3rd'.

[grotto]

ok I don't have a problem with it, I personally don't even go to qualifying events I don't intend on persuing, but it did spark an interesting conversation. so I brought it here to see what you all think, because it was pretty evenly balanced. I Did not intend for this to be about any particular event. and I tried to keep any of MY bais out of the poll.

[oiuyt]

With larger events if there was no fence off for 3rd because 4 or 5 qualify that does not make it any more right as one fencer will be forced to take 4th even though they didn't fence for it.

Assuming that I'm parsing your sentence correctly (no guarantee there), it seems as though you are saying that in events large enough to have 4+ qualifier slots that it's wrong to not fence off for third. This is no longer the case. The BoD, at the September meeting, made it explicit that ties only need to be fenced off if the affect the final qualifing slot. If there are 5 slots and a DE format that would normally have tied-3rds, you can still have tied-3rds. No one is forced to take 4th.

Personally I have a problem with even asking the question. This is true even if the questioner isn't trying to exert influence on the decision. By asking the questioner is interfering with the fencer. Why would we consider it acceptable to unnecessarily interfer with the tournament preparation of an athlete? By raising the question one has now disrupted the athlete's mental preparation, in many cases has started raising doubts and other outside concerns that the fencer shouldn't have to be burdened with while trying for athletic excellence. If the questioner IS trying to influence the decision then, rather than merely thoughtless, s/he is doing something morally wrong. Trying to "help" the situation is not an excuse. We all know where the path paved with good intentions leads...

-B

[downunder]

you guys are reading into this way too much

The organisers were querying if a barrage needed to be fenced. A one word answer solves this problem. If this screws up your mental game/preparation, you are clearly not made for this sport.

[oiuyt]

you guys are reading into this way too much

The organisers were querying if a barrage needed to be fenced. A one word answer solves this problem. If this screws up your mental game/preparation, you are clearly not made for this sport.

Perhaps because we've seen too many cases where the intent WAS to get the bout conceded where it wouldn't otherwise happen?

Regardless, if the point of the competition is to determine the top 3 (or top 25%) of the field and there's a tie for that last spot, it should be fenced off and not decided because one fencer REALLY, REALLY wants to go and the other doesn't care. If you want to qualify, you just have to do well enough to qualify. If you can't win the barrage and therefore drop to the slot just out of qualification, oh well, you didn't do well enough on this day to qualify.

I have both experienced and, on several occasions, witnessed others being pressured about fencing in sectional championships and division IA. A few years ago I witnessed an on-strip shouting match between two clubmates in a IA event where the (eventual) loser was irate at her opponent for even being IN the event, despite already having an A (in weapons other than ME it seems that the primary use of IA is to get up-and-coming fencers their A classification -- MEist tend to see it as one more opportunity to fence which results in a significantly stronger tournament many years). The referee completely lost control over his strip as the screaming and name-calling continued over multiple touches.

I've had several occasions where I've been in a qualifer where I was already qualified for the following event and was asked more or less seriously (mostly less seriously) whether I would consider throwing a bout to allow my opponent to qualify. Similar conversations/speculations have come up regarding throwing a bout to allow someone to earn a classification that I already had (or exceeded). Generally anyone who knows me well enough to think of approaching me on a topic like that should also already know that they'll get a negative answer and not bother. That said, I've witnessed cases that gave every appearance of being someone throwing a bout for one of those purposes.

And then there's the story a fellow referee told from a NAC earlier this season. He was reffing a DE bout. At the conclusion (15-4, or thereabouts) the winner went over to the loser, talked for a few seconds, and then approached the referee. She had a flight to catch and didn't think that she'd be able to stay for the subsequent round. She asked the referee to intentionally mis-record the score of the bout, expressing a willingness to sign the erroneous scoresheet to allow her opponent to advance in her place. The referee, quite rightly, refused to do so.

These things happen. They have no place in our sport and anyone engaging in such behavior should receive scorn from those of us who want a clean sport with a fair and level playing field.

-B

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

I've heard of coaches paying off fencers to throw bouts, just so their student would qualify, or place higher. If someone offered me an envelope full of bills to throw the bout, I'd take the money, win the bout, and run off. Anyone else been in this situation before?

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

As I see this… The bout committee asks if you intend to continue to the next event? How did the group present this to you, one person or the entire group? I’m not sure if the answer is important just wondering. I don’t know the relationships of the fencers, coaches and BC at the event. But the bout committee has no reason to ask the question in the first place.

As a fencer I would take great exception to the question. The BC is directly trying to influence the outcome of the event. That question itself takes away the level strip on which I fence. How should I answer? Will the referee call the bout evenly or will the BC’s influence show through? Has the refereeing already effected the event up to this point? Yes, I would take great exception to this question.

I don’t have my rule book handy right now but if memory serves, if you deliberately effect the outcome by not fencing to your best ability that is a black card. All right I went and looked. T.87 first paragraph, The competitors must fence faithfully…
Then in t.88 Competitors must fence to their utmost ability in a sportsmanlike manner until the end of the competition … etc and etc in the end it’s a black card for collusion and further a black card for the other fencer for profiting from collusion. So both fencers would get black cards. Neither you nor the other fencer would go, if there is collusion. And I think, clearly there is the appearance of collusion in this question.

I think I would begin with the head referee for the event and the event organizers and work my way up. Next the Division Chair, then the Section Chair then the USFA Board.

I think questions like this are very bad for fencing.

My 2 cents

Chiz

I think chiz cuts it pretty clear here. If you do not fence to the best of your ability, no matter the circumstance, you're a cheater.

[cfaustus]

Ok, here's another one.

Pools near completed. One of the top fencers announces that he is forfeiting and leaves for the locker room. One of the members of the bout commitee asks one of his team mates whether he is injured or not, (because it will make a difference in whether a card is given). Committe member calls after team member sent to find out, suggesting to him that the fencer had best be injured. Of course the response comes back that the fencer is injured.

Upon seeing fencer at another tournament I inquired as to his injury. I was informed that he simply did not like how he was fencing that day.

[1e1hfppe]

Let Combat Decide. If you can't earn the spot then you will (probably) get creamed at the event and waste alot of money. Ratings, qualification spots, medals. All of these things are meaningless if let each other win.

[downunder]

Ok, here's another one.

Pools near completed. One of the top fencers announces that he is forfeiting and leaves for the locker room. One of the members of the bout commitee asks one of his team mates whether he is injured or not, (because it will make a difference in whether a card is given). Committe member calls after team member sent to find out, suggesting to him that the fencer had best be injured. Of course the response comes back that the fencer is injured.

Upon seeing fencer at another tournament I inquired as to his injury. I was informed that he simply did not like how he was fencing that day.

and?


....

[CvilleFencer]

I've heard of coaches paying off fencers to throw bouts, just so their student would qualify, or place higher. If someone offered me an envelope full of bills to throw the bout, I'd take the money, win the bout, and run off. Anyone else been in this situation before?

If they had been and accepted or even failed to report it had they declined, they would be in rather a spot of trouble.

In a simliar vein, anyone here ever killed anyone outside military/law enforcement duties or embezzled lots of money? If so lets all chat about it on the internet.

[Mr Epee]

I'm chipping in $5 for babysitters at next year's Div 1-A Nationals.

Please call me when scientists identify a more pathetic event. I find it amusing that they have a special event for people who can't make it out of the first round of Division 1.

Wouldn't that event be better titled as "next year".

[JackSparrow]

In a simliar vein, anyone here ever killed anyone outside military/law enforcement duties or embezzled lots of money?

Check ... check
Well, you have to make a living somehow.

[rcmatthews]

I'm chipping in $5 for babysitters at next year's Div 1-A Nationals.

Please call me when scientists identify a more pathetic event. I find it amusing that they have a special event for people who can't make it out of the first round of Division 1.

Wouldn't that event be better titled as "next year".

Yeah, apperently they also have events for people who haven't gotten a C yet either. It's ridiculous. Only those people who can advance out of the first round of Div Is should be allowed to fence. All the other people should just take up another sport.

[KD5MDK]

Or who can afford to fly to only one fencing event a year, and find Summer Nationals better scheduled for this than a NAC?