Molchanova 101 CWT World record removed from books

[sross]

I'm not presently involved with AIDA, or even with freediving at competitions at the moment, but I must say that I would hesitate to be involved in AIDA based on what appears to me to be ex post facto rulemaking.

A common principle of all law in western tradition countries and Japan is that retroactive application of rules, regulations and laws (ex post facto legislation) is forbidden. The US Constitution, the Constitution of Japan, The Canadian Charter of Rights, The Russian Constitution all forbid retroactive application of laws, for example. In Europe, prohibition of ex post facto law is a condition of membership in the EU.

The reason for this prohibition of retroactive application of rules is obvious: it would be impossible to make plans if ex post facto rulemaking were to be allowed.

In the wider sociological sense it destroys the consent of the governed and brings the law into disrepute. Nobody could feel safe from the wrath of sanctimonious governing busybodies getting together to punish people for something someone had done to offend them, even though it fell within the scope of rules in place at the time.

Does AIDA have a clause in its constitution banning retroactive application of rules? If it doesn't, I would think that one of the most important things the AIDA membership could do would be to put a motion to the ballot in a general meeting to amend the constitution.

 

[efattah]

The IOC and IAAF commonly remove medals from athletes retroactively. They will even re-test doping samples taken years ago, if a new doping drug is discovered, and then retroactively remove the medal of the athlete.

There are other examples too. For example, Ivan Pedroso jumped 8.96m in long jump in 1991-1992, which was more than the world record. Some months later they found there was problem with the wind measuring equipment, so his record was removed, although he still won the competition.

 

[Roland]

efattah,

sross comments on retroactive application of rules. That means inventing new rules and applying those new rules to something that happened in the past.

That is a totally different issue than you imply with your examples, where it took some time to apply rules that were there when the event took place.

 

[efattah]

efattah,

sross comments on retroactive application of rules. That means inventing new rules and applying those new rules to something that happened in the past.

That is a totally different issue than you imply with your examples, where it took some time to apply rules that were there when the event took place.

The AIDA rules already stated that a coach cannot judge his/her athlete. That rule came into effect in 2001. It simply was not enforced until later on.

 

[Kars]

The AIDA rules already stated that a coach cannot judge his/her athlete. That rule came into effect in 2001. It simply was not enforced until later on.

I think you're getting close to the crux of a major problem: selective enforcement.

Not only a problem within sports associations, but also in general society. It's also known as: favouritism.

In this age of 'hate crime' (see "thought crime") it's one of things that I really hate, or dislike - thank God that is still political correct in this darkening age with it's new heresies, conformity, corruption and fear.

Did the fear really paralyse us into reacting so violently without long term consideration?

 

[dannybuoy]

The only question I have is whether something like this ‘special investigation group’ is featured in AIDA’s constitution. If it is, there really is no problem,

The decision seems based on rules that were in place for years –so no ex post facto, or carpe diem, or coitus interuptus or anything.

The decision is tough, but a similar decision was made in the case of Stepanek, so I really don’t see how favoritism applies. Or in the case of Bill S, falling-out-of-favoritism. It would have reeked of favoritism if, under these circumstances, the record was still claimed valid.

So was the (fair) decision made by people authorized to make this decision?

I don’t think comparing this situation to WWII or a 62-year old work of fiction about a possible future that happened 26 years ago is helping at all. It’s just needless and slightly hysterical shouting from the sidelines. AIDA is not big business, or Big Brother. It’s not even little sister, or tiny nephew, or microscopic twice-removed cousin. Most of us are friends and acquaintances, and I think it takes real guts to make a bound to be unpopular decision like this about someone we all respect and know did actually make that dive.

So maybe it’s all as transparent as the Blue Hole on a good day. I don’t know the rules, but if there is a paragraph about this special investigation group and the decisions it can make, all is clear. What’s left then is that Natalia got shafted, and that AIDA has some members with trust issues that probably say more about those members than it does about AIDA.

 

[efattah]

I think you're getting close to the crux of a major problem: selective enforcement.

Given that Bill was the president at the time the supposed infringement occurred, it is pretty clear that he would not make a case against himself at that time. So I don't think this is a case of selective enforcement. Selective enforcement would be one person who choose to enforce rules at one time but not another.

 

[sross]

The AIDA rules already stated that a coach cannot judge his/her athlete. That rule came into effect in 2001. It simply was not enforced until later on.

Thank you for the update, Eric! That sheds a whole new light on the issue

The reason I was assuming retroactive rulemaking was going on was this post from Sebastian Naslund of AIDA:

Freediving as a sport is growing. We are still learning, shaping our rules and our organization.

Not all situations are covered by rules.

Even though a procedure/behaviour is not forbidden in the rules it does not mean it is OK.

The task of a board is to act when rules/policies does not cover a situation.

This special investigation group was formed by The AIDA president, feeling he had to deal with this unusual situation.

Sebastian never mentioned the 2001 rule in his post, which surprises me. Could it be that he was uninformed, since he specifically refers to "rules/policies does not cover a situation"?

Anyhow, even though the situation was covered by a regulation, in the future, the board of this organization should keep something in mind when dealing with a new situation where rules are not in place.

It is very true that The task of a board is to act when rules/policies do not cover a situation. The board can't just take any action, on the whim of board members, though.

The actions the board must take are to:

1) debate and develop new policies or regulations or consititutional amendment in a properly convened board meeting

2) pass the regulations/policies by motion & vote in the meeting if they are of an executive nature

3) take the proposed regulations/policies for motion & vote at a general members' meeting if they are of a fiduciary or particularly serious nature, and of course, any changes to the constitution must be brought to a vote at a general meeting of the membership

4) inform the membership of the new rules & policies as widely as possible, and in particular, follow through by informing anyone who applies to perform any function at an event affected by the rule changes


What the board should not do is put together an "investigation group" that can be perceived as a group of angry board members banding together to apply "frontier justice" to someone who has offended them.

And, yes, it may stick in your craw that someone "got away with" some action that wasn't covered by the rules- but doing things in the open, with constitutional procedures being followed, is the only way to ensure everybody can get along in an organization.

 

[dannybuoy]

On the AIDA site today:

"The May Aida Board meeting addressed a difficult and emotional issue. A report from the investigation into the “Ruler of the Deep” competition was presented by a workgroup led by Sports Officer Pim Vermeulen. The other members of the group are; Robert King (attorney, Aida E level judge), Dieter Bauman (Aida judge instructor), Panagiota Balanou (Aida BD level judge), Susan Kluytmans (former Aida secretary, Aida C level judge), and Grant Graves (Aida vice president, Aida judge instructor). The Board unanimously approved the decision reached by the group. Pim published a statement informing the Assembly of the results of the inquiry and subsequent action to be imposed."

Whole article is here: Aida Board Meeting May, 2010 » AIDA International Blog

 

[mermaidgirl]

All members of the Aida Assembly are encouraged to participate in Aida projects.Rather than gripe here to no avail- why don't some of you (Kars) volunteer and offer assistance. The Board is currently seeking applications for Secretary and Treasurer- both of these are important Board positions. Every month following the Board meeting ,the report is published here on DeeperBlue and on the Aida website. Transparency and access for members are a priority. If you have any topics you wish to discuss;please contact any Board member. .
The Board Members are: Kimmo Lahtinen,Pim Vermeulen, Grant Graves, Stavros Kastrinakis, John Fitz-Clarke,Sebastian Naslund, and Greg Piazzola. There are committee members needed to serve in project areas such as; DC, Medical, IT,Judging/rules, sports etc. Additionally, there will be a General Assembly Meeting in Okinawa next month at the Team World Championships. All are encouraged to attend and bring ideas for the direction of the future of Aida.

Carla