Tournaments that produce unexpectedly high scores may require additional scrutiny.

[Horton]

ok @Bruce_Butterfield I'm coming to grips with the fact that "scrutiny" may have not been the right word.

[Gar]

In the 80’s they kept raising the EP requirements got to 5 @ 35 off at 36 mph. Heck my ski partner and I would chase tournaments the entire summer trying to qualify. Sites that produced good scores were a hit! We went!

[Drago]

...and some of those EP factories were cheating :(

[lpskier]

 

If you have ever participated in this “extra scrutiny” crap, and I have as a representative, you’d know this is a bad idea.

[Moffattra]

Alpine ski racing has a very good (but not fool proof...) system for equalizing performance across a variety of locations and conditions based on the performance of the top athletes at that event.

 

It would probably take a team of mathematicians to apply this kind of system to tournament waterskiing, but some version could at least let skiers and observers value skiing against other tournament scores.

 

Sit down though, here is how complicated it gets...

 

http://skiracehelp.net/media/TC1STUDYGUIDE121.pdf

 

 

[oldjeep]

Wow, i thought the system in skiing was fastest person to the bottom wins, regardless of wind, course condition or temperature.

[chris55]

I say yes because of so many different things are related to computer programing like ZO, the engine and so forth......and other things I don't even know........

[ScottScott]

We're just talking about scrutiny. To me scrutiny means we see unusually good scores and we go back to look if there was a reason that is outside of spec, where feasible. Double check rope lengths, re-measure course, check the boat timings, boat path video (if available.) Thats about all that could contribute in an unfair way. If all are good, then the scores stand, good job to the skiers and we move on.

 

Maybe there are some sites that ski better. Better wind protection, or a location that rarely gets any wind, or has just the right amount of wind in the right direction. Water temperature and depth. But if the course is in spec, then its the same as anywhere else and maybe you'll get higher scores there, but I doubt enough to create any kind of handicaping, or course rating, as mentioned above in alpine, or golf.

[6balls]

It might be worth looking if time and again it was the case at a site...a course survey. If it was my site causing speculation I'd want to end the questions.

 

When someone has a "hot" day that's just sports. I've had buoys in slow motion, I've had days where the b-ball hoop was mighty big, days where I can't miss a serve or volley in tennis.

 

But then that DR. Jim guy spoils it, right? Puts that shadow in your head that lingers.

 

I do know this, not much narrower on course is a big difference. The math whizzes could support or debunk but I believe a MUCH bigger difference than the same amount of extra rope given to a skier.

 

Friend had a portable and we always skied lights out...PVC was bowing for sure. A friend inconsistent at 35 elsewhere would run 38 sometimes. I was training at 38 like back to backing it and nearly ran 39. I knew it was "fake" my 35's and 38's were a joke. My ski partner was like no it's just "magic water". This course didn't even have 55's!

 

I still skied it and it was fun. An advantage was being on purple a lot really took away the head-game of being on purple...I became confident at purple even elsewhere on legit courses...and I ran a lot more of 'em that season than any other.

 

There are floats on the arms now, no 38's and rare 35's for my ski partner...none so far this year and I"m on damned IR again.

 

As an aside re: record tourney. I've judged same site with excellent towers class C, and back-up judged the record the next day for credit. Gates were judged with more scrutiny with video in the R for sure (and accurately so)...but I saw buoys just missed in the R (lotta spray, close to the ball but definite miss) get called and skier advanced in the R. Sure it could happen in C but I'm familiar with the judging tower views at that site and don't think so. These were not the skier ran over the ball/deflected the ball kind of close calls but rather sure got close but clear miss...typically late scramble 6.

 

I only make that point b/c the class C scores the day before, same course, good drivers, judging towers certainly wouldn't carry less weight or legitimacy than the class C in my head. A well run class C on a known legit course, ZO, known good drivers...I'm fine with their scores.

 

Feel bad for a guy ripping 41 twice and there is a firestorm...had to be coming out of his skin excited/proud etc...all the work coming together on a special day. It gets published and his colleagues are like yeah no way rather than holy crap congrats/great job. Sounds like he's a bad-ass skier, hope he does it again and doesn't feel too badly about it all.

[bishop8950]

@6balls "Feel bad for a guy ripping 41 twice and there is a firestorm...had to be coming out of his skin excited/proud etc...all the work coming together on a special day"

 

I would not be surprised if the skiers in the recent events came off the water thinking "huh, that felt pretty easy for 41? Is something off?" rather than patting themselves on the back. All of those guys know exactly what it takes to run 41 and if the rope/drivers/course are off by inches they know.

 

Take a guy like JT, who is a TC, an all star Official, Pro Event host and stud skier who can run 41. If he came to my lake after my survey and took a set and came in and said "your course is narrow" or "ropes are off" I would take another look. On the one hand if we survey and measure properly we should have confidence in that. But on the other these guys know.

[eleeski]

I have built 5 lakes. All courses were measured on dry land to as close to actual as possible. One lake skis much better than the others. That lake is relatively shallow but slightly deeper at the buoys. It is well protected so there is typically a headwind with ripples on the glass. It is narrow with some shoreline growth to keep down rollers. No sunlight or glare issues. Wonderful desert conditions. Worth several buoys. Cheating? More scrutiny?? Figure out what works so it can be repeated!

 

It's horrible that every great performance (anywhere in today's athletics) is greeted with skepticism and accusations of something amiss. Sometimes nothing is wrong and everything is right.

 

Eric

[Horton]

@eleeski should we have given Doctor Michaels his scores?

[Chad_Scott]

100% agree with everything @bishop8950 has stayed. These guys know when something is off. As a driver they can usually tell you where you have the boat at each buoy and what the driver did. They know what it is supposed to feel like. And if they had questions why shouldn’t others.

[gjohnson]

I was on a dock in Florida listening to a couple of pro skiers discussing the differences they felt in the drivers they had at a tournament. I don't remember the details. But, I was struck at the nuisances they were talking about. One of the drivers was @Chad_Scott

[The_MS]

Plenty of scrutiny already. Look at what happend at Cottonwood.

[Chad_Scott]

Stated

[Chad_Scott]

@gjohnson that’s never good. Lol

[gjohnson]

@Chad_Scott It wasn't negative. However, to your point, they knew the little differences between you and another driver. If memory serves, they were discussing -41 10.25.

[eleeski]

@Horton To compare the Michaels situation to Spain is exactly the wrong thinking that bothers me. How many skiers are there? VS confirmed cheaters? The Michaels case is absurdly rare. Yet it fuels the paranoia.

 

Shall we convict the innocent or accept the guilty?

 

Eric

[Horton]

@eleeski

Well, let's be clear about one thing. I have maintained that something is quite odd about the event in Spain. I have not ever suggested that any of the skiers were involved in anything dishonest and no one I have spoken to knows why the scores were abnormally high. There are any number of conspiracy theories. It's as likely that there was an unintentional use of long ropes as any other more nefarious explanation. We will likely never know.

[rfa]

Maybe I am just naive or do not understand the "politics" in waterskiing (if any). But with all due respect to all, I struggle to understand how it is possible to continue to speculate about this, without any officials, lake owners and skiers setting the record straight (unless they have and I missed it). Using @Horton post above, we're still speculating...either an unintentional long rope type scenario, or a nefarious one. In either case, it seems inconceivable to me that no official explanation has been received. Even the lower level tournaments I attend, have videos for boat path, gates, etc. They measure my handle, the boat ropes, etc. Supposedly this is a world class site...is it even possible it's not surveyed? Seems to me that those things could be checked pretty easily. The Dr. Michael's scenario does not make any sense for comparison here.

This is not a sport that moves millions of $s...I have a hard time believing officials, lake owners, professional skiers would conspire to sully their reputations...

I sincerely hope I am not just naive...

 

 

[jipster43]

What could possibly be off? The ropes? Every class C tournament I have been to used meticulously measured ropes. Boat times/path? Automatically reviewed. The only thing that could be off is the course. Survey it and put the issue to rest if need be. I don’t see waterski tournaments requiring more scrutiny than presidential elections.

[matthewbrown]

Our course has 2 settings for the turn buoys. We have an actual setting that was used when the course was surveyed, but we also have an inside setting which is 4.5" narrower than the actual setting. It's still within tolerance and would pass any tournament inspection. The idea is to put the buoys on the narrower setting in the spring, to avoid handle/ski throws and yelling at the driver, and then move to the actual settings in the summer and fall when the elements are a little more cooperative.

The difference between the two settings for an elite skier, one who is looking to run 39 every round and have a crack at 41, is absolutely ridiculous. It takes a 2 to 3 at 41 off skier, and turns them into a 4,5 and 6 at 41 off skier. You throw in a rope that is 3" longer than actual and on top of that you get a driver who is 2" on your side at most of the buoys(all within tolerances) and you've got quite an advantage over a different ski site that has their buoys on actual settings, actual ropes and super tight driving. Even for 35 and 38 off skiers the advantage is huge.

I'm not saying this is what happened in Spain at all, but I think what @Horton is saying is that there has to be a specific set of reasons why some scores at some sites get inflated, other than everyone was pumped up and feeding off of everyone else. Even if the reasons are legitimate and merely just pushing boundaries, it's tough to compare those scores to scores from tourney's where everything is super tight. We took away the ability to give the skier a 16.28 with speed control and everybody is on the same page with that. I would be very surprised if everybody was on the same page with course, rope and driving dimensions.

[Kelvin]

A course where every buoy is 4.5 inches narrow will NOT pass the survey. Overall, the average for all six buoys is 2 cm narrow. Now a single buoy may be narrower that 2 cm, but the average for all 6 can't exceed 2 cm.

[matthewbrown]

@Kelvin so that would only be 3/4” at each buoy but when you couple it with the max tolerance of the rope and driving, you still almost end up with a 6” advantage at each buoy, that’s plenty enough to make a big difference at super shortline.

[Mateo_Vargas]

@matthewbrown I thought non-American Soccer was the “Game of Inches”?

[eleeski]

Having set and measured courses, measured (and adjusted) ropes and judged driver paths, I would be incapable of deliberately setting conditions to the edge of tolerance. As a chief judge, my scatter might be to the "friendlier" side of tolerance as I don't want to knowingly make things harder on the skiers (I will choose the ropes that are right on over the "barely in" short rope) but I won't push the tolerances (that "barely in" long rope is too likely to stretch to out). Ropes that set records are pulled out for measurement again so questionable activities will come to light.

 

Tolerances are needed for the real world. There is a scatter and sometimes everything will go to get to one side of tolerance. But that's less likely to happen multiple times in a tournament than having multiple PBs (that include the scrutiny for national record performances of Sascha and Robert).

 

Sad to think that some think 41 can only happen with help. Except Nate who gets it so often. Yet when talented kids (and proven 41 skiers) do it, we question it? And ask for what? Technically impossibly tight tolerances?

 

Skifly was killed by gossip. @Horton is usually pretty good at censoring unsubstantiated accusations here. Not sure why this is getting so much traction (from him). If something comes out officially, report it! But online speculation is unfair to the tournament organizers and the athletes.

 

Eric

[Horton]

@eleeski I'm going to try to explain this one more time. I have spoken to some of the most elite judges drivers and skiers in the sport. Skiers in the top 10 on the world standings list. Judges and drivers who travel the world judging and driving. Every single one of them believes that the scores from Spain are basically implausible. I don't have an agenda. I'm not happy with negative content on my website. I simply have the responsibility to call bullshit when I think I see bullshit. If you think my opinion is incorrect you are welcome to your opinion. If you don't like the way I run my website start your own.

[Horton]

@rfa Monday morning the banker walks into the safe and money is missing but there's no sign of breaking and entering and there's nothing on the video camera. Was there a robbery?

 

Full disclosure: there are a bunch of conspiracy theories being talked about offline. Nobody knows if any of them are true. I simply stand by the fact that the scores don't make sense. Each and every one of those athletes is capable a running 41 but a cluster of scores that high is spectacularly improbable.

[Horton]

Also for the record.... anytime somebody almost convinces me that I could be wrong about this it scares the crap out of me. If everything that happened in Spain was legit then I am catastrophically out of line. I don't think that's the case so I'm standing my ground.

[RazorRoss3]

Innocent until proven guilty. The onus is on people who think something is funky to prove it was, speculation, conspiracy stories, amount to nothing beyond fake news unless someone is going to go out and find real evidence to back it up. This back and forth is just a big circle with no one introducing any new data, just jumping down each other's throats with ever more stubbornly set opinions.

 

If no one is going to introduce something new and of legitimate value then we're just damaging the sport. As it stands this thread has a much better chance of doing damage than resulting in anything positive.

[The_MS]

Nobody was accused of cheating by @Horton

[klindy]

Everyone complains about the length of the rule book(s) but, as you might expect, there are already rules which address issues like this.

 

In the IWWF rules, under Homologation Guidelines, the first sentences read. "It is the duty of each skier to report to the Chief Judge during the competition if he believes the rules are not being followed or adhered to. The issue will be addressed at the tournament".

 

This give everyone involved the potential chance to verify compliance and make whatever corrections are required, including rerides, etc. Likewise, 6.06 says that the CJ and appointed judges need to sign a statement stating that the tournament followed the rules explicitly and note any exceptions allowed.

 

So the question is did any of the skiers or even officials alert to the CJ that something might be outside the rules? If yes, what did the CJ do to address it? Did the CJ note anything in the tournament report that they didn't follow the rules or something wasn't right?

 

I understand that if everyone is skiing lights out, it's hard to complain, but if someone who was on site feels something isn't running according to the rules, then they need to speak up.

 

The best time to deal with any issue is at the time it's discovered, not hours, days or weeks later.

[BRY]

@Horton Do I have this right you are "adamantly standing your ground" that "something wasn't right" in Spain? Your admitting no evidence of any kind what so ever other than peoples feelings and beliefs?

 

No one, not one person apparently, has been able to say why it was wrong. You, with one of the largest and loudest platforms in skiing, are proclaiming the results invalid based on feelings and beliefs. Essentially "It can't be so it isn't."

 

Experts and athletes used to say a 4 minute mile could never be run. And then it was. Now its routine for top runners. There are countless such achievements throughout history. Just because some, even experts, feel and/or believe it can't be does not mean it is not and never can.

 

Monday morning the banker walks into the safe and there's no sign of breaking and entering and there's nothing on the video camera. All the banks procedures, checks and balances were in place. Returns on investments were high, for some at their personal bests, but not a Record return. Some customers and some unrelated to the bank (in fact most never ever been to the bank) feel something is wrong. Was there a robbery?

 

Just throwing out assertions and innuendo's to see what sticks is what your doing. You feel/believe somethings wrong but are clueless as to what. A journalist, a term you used in another post, (journalism is mostly dead today) would investigate. Look at boat path video, look at TC reports and so forth. Then report what was found without bias, that would be journalism. That's hard.

 

Here's my getting banned part: Dancing around saying "just want to question" or "have a conversation" is sophistry. Specifically "something boosted scores". Great site, stars aligned, perfect conditions and the like are not illegal, part of the sport and if they boost scores that has been long accepted. In this case the only way to boost scores is through dishonesty (cheating) and/or incompetence. So say you feel/believe there was dishonesty (cheating) or incompetence.

 

Did the skiers cheat? All 4 who ran -41? And no one caught them, no official and in particular the other competitors with a vested interest and would know. All 4? That seems less likely than they all were legit. All the rules, checks and balances in an "R" level tournament seems evidence that leans towards the skiers are innocent.

 

Were the officials dishonest or incompetent? You are flat out saying, and doubling down, that some or all were one or the other or both. If scores were boosted then in particular the CJ and TC were at least incompetent and likely dishonest.

Was the course correct? If the course was out (measured just before the tournament per R requirements) then at minimum the TC is dishonest or incompetent.

Was ZO manipulated/reported/scored to skiers advantage? Lots of judges need to be complicit for that, at minimum boat judge and driver. For a couple rounds then several more judges involved. Seems highly unlikely.

Was boat path manipulated? At minimum driver(s) and path judge(s) complicit, CJ too. Clear evidence trail (video) also so seems highly unlikely.

Were the line(s) incorrect? Measured right before tournament, if out TC responsibility so at minimum the TC is dishonest or incompetent. Usually several people help measure. Did the -41's get the same off rope, across rounds, or multiple ropes were off? Possible but unlikely at this level. More likely BJ put wrong loop on but 4 times? Nah.

Time, boat path, course and line. How else could these 4 boost their scores at this site?

 

As @MattP stated "12 officials from 6 countries signed their name and reputation to this event." -41 skiers from different countries and sponsors. Just don't see the basis for any collusion of any kind or that it would go undetected.

 

There is damage done by publishing these assertions and innuendo's. Publishing them give them credence. @MattP stated "To be associated with controversy is a way to not be invited back to big events in the future or for skiers to attend your events." Reputations of people who donate so much to the sport are now tarnished. Many in the sport and out will believe it's true forever. @Horton you say you would be offended, I would be much more than offended. The guys who got the -41's will forever have an asterisk beside this performance. Pigozzi in particular. Great showing at Masters, proved he deserved to be in this group. Never met the guy but from what I have seen he has worked really hard for a long time. He's been knocking on the door. Finally pop's a -41 and it's "too good to be true." What if he gets hurt and cant ski anymore or just turns out it's his best ever performance? Forever this controversy to his performance. In that scenario I for one would be bitter. How can any of these people clear their name? How to prove the negative?

 

Gossip around the dock is one thing, publishing gossip to 10's of thousands in a community is another. Shame, Shame, Shame. Elevate the gossip with something substantial before doing so. Don't just Feel it, Think it though, Prove it.

[Andre]

How'bout the event and skiers sponsors who pay the bill?

They can't be happy being associated to ''suspicious'' events...

[GlassJunkie]

The problem connected with all the commentary on this thread is how we let our brains work. Humans form beliefs, then justify those beliefs by selecting data that fits. We see this pattern all around in our society (which gets worse as issues get more complex), including in skiing.

 

It takes a conscious effort to suspend judgement, ask questions, then reach a conclusion with facts (or back those that are in a position to have facts). It's not naturally how our brains are wired to work. But recognition is the first step to recovery :).

 

@bishop8950 said it well in his second comment on this page. It's essential to ask questions. It's not ok to form beliefs (and share them) without real data.

 

(Read more: The Believeing Brain)

[LeonL]

I don't really want to stir any more, but what if you had four runners all run a sub 4 minute mile in the same race, at the time it was rarely done? If the runners were surprised at their times would some people raise questions?

[BRY]

@GlassJunkie Excellent post, excellent.

[Horton]

@LeonL I ran a 4 minute mile once

[eleeski]

But you came in fourth.

[Horton]

well I ran for 4 minutes

[Deke]

I dunno, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around why this matters so much. It's like the argument is "my 41 was better than your 41." Isn't the tournament supposed to be about who was best on that course on that day? Seems like a lot of grumbling about who's allowed in the 41 club or not. "If he ran it, I would've run it (but I wasn't there)." This was not a record. Everyone else skied the same course under the same conditions and someone won. Forget the 41.

[Horton]

@Deke to the skiers at that level the rankings list is a big deal personally and for some financially. The rankings list also controls who gets to go to tournaments like the worlds and Masters.

[Intheday]

From way outside it seams a case of the could’ve, would’ve should’ve

I could’ve run 41

I should’ve gone I would’ve run 41

And now it to late and I didn’t run 41 and it not fair

 

As a casual outsider with an interest in skiing Strange topic to post up and I don’t think it helps the sport

 

 

[Deke]

@Horton that is the first mention of rankings in this whole thread. And, it makes sense for elite skiers when you consider that rankings are based solely on scores as opposed to placement or direct competition. Maybe qualifications at that level need to be based more on direct competition instead of a ranking system? Just thinkin' out loud.

[RazorRoss3]

The rankings list is a slight detour from topic. Closely related but I think the issues here boil down to the perception by some (with either no evidence or evidence not provided) of some funkiness (either through intention or incompetence) and then the broader idea of whether an event the produces scores at the extremes of expectations warrants a second look as it relates to courses, ropes, etc.

 

I think we all agree that no one should be milking tolerances and that we don’t want there to be any funny business at an event.

 

Where we have some issues is that some of us are frustrated by the accusations being framed without substantial evidence being provided. Some of us are not accepting uncommonly high scores as evidence of funkiness or at least not enough evidence on its own.

 

The rankings list certainly matters at that level but rankings list is a secondary issue to insuring a level playing field and how to handle suspected funkiness.

[Horton]

@deke I agree that why it matters is a completely different subject than if something was out of spec.

[BraceMaker]

@Deke that would get problematic wouldn't skiers then need to pick the same exact events to directly compete against each other? Which is to say, you would rather see open skiers compete more widely as opposed to them all skiing the same 8 events.

[Horton]

I guess I've heard it from enough sources to come right out and talk about what the suspected issue is. The site in Spain uses a cable course and the belief is that if they pull down the center cable tight enough and there's enough flotation at the ends of the arms the PVC arms bow and that the buoys move in. To put the buoys back out at a more correct width you simply need to take some tension out of the center cable. I've heard speculation that buoys were as much as 9 inches narrow. I tend to think it's more likely that it was more like three to 5 inches.

 

The problem with this is and the reason so many of you are super angry at me right now is that this is all speculation. There's no proof of anything. But I challenge you to call up your local Pro skier or world-ranked judge and ask them what they think.

[lkb]

Thanks for the explanation. That helps.