Australian Nationals - Curious sights!

Jimgo wrote:As disgusted as I was by the performance of "The Clown" don't vent your outrage on all JFA Directors and Board members for some very severe errors in judgment.  Neville Sharpe and Michael Picken are two of the most decent and thoughtful Judoka to be found anywhere.... just to name two.  

Who "Sharpe" and "Picken"? They directors? Organisers? What difference Director and Board member?

Steve Leadbeater wrote:Action will need to come from both National and State (NSW) Directors and it will need to be REAL ACTION, not just words.

As an aside to this debacle, but equally as serious, will those who fought for money be prevented from obtaining Kodokan recognition of their grade if applying for reciprocal grade and those who already have Kodokan recognition be prevented from obtaining promotion in accordance with Kodokan practice ??

Was the prize money in the form of airfares, accomodation or entry fees for overseas competition or something like that?

I believe the prizes were Cash/Cheques,
Thus negating any Amateur Status.

Steve Leadbeater wrote:I believe the prizes were Cash/Cheques,
Thus negating any Amateur Status.

Which elite judoka in 2013 still has "Amateur Status" ? This is 2013, no 1960.

Cichorei Kano wrote:

Steve Leadbeater wrote:I believe the prizes were Cash/Cheques,
Thus negating any Amateur Status.

Which elite judoka in 2013 still has "Amateur Status" ?  This is 2013, no 1960.

I know this is 2013 CK Sensei, however Aussie Judoka do not have the benefit of big time corporate sponsorship and fulltime training venues, thus still "technically", if not in reality, an "Amateur Status"

Steve Leadbeater wrote:

Cichorei Kano wrote:

Steve Leadbeater wrote:I believe the prizes were Cash/Cheques,
Thus negating any Amateur Status.

Which elite judoka in 2013 still has "Amateur Status" ?  This is 2013, no 1960.

I know this is 2013 CK Sensei, however Aussie Judoka do not have the benefit of big time corporate sponsorship and fulltime training venues, thus still "technically", if not in reality, an "Amateur Status"

That may very well be true, but there is no requirement to earn 'lots of money' or 'professional sponsorship' before being considered a professional rather than an amateur. A 70-year old judo instructor whose job is judo instructor and who barely earn his bread on the table is not an amateur. Most judoka, even many international elite judoka may not have corporate sponsorship, but they may have a formula where their employer is a government agency and their employment contract is a special "elite sporter contract" that was created especially for elite athletes. So there is no private company involved but they also do not have to go to work everyday to a standard company or institution but instead it is the purpose of their contract to facilitate their ability to combine elite sport with something that ensures a regular income. It seems to me that the ACE and other programs in Australia have also been developed with that kind of goal in mind: http://www.ausport.gov.au/ais/athlete_career_and_education

However, you obviously know the Australian situation much better than I and as you seem to suggest it may very well be that the people you have in mind (I do not know them) are not so fortunate to benefit from this. For that reason, let me clarify why I responded to this thread though I had so far stayed out of it.. You made a reference to the Kodokan. It was not clear from your post if you were talking about perhaps certain Australian internal regulations for Kodokan recommendation. In any case, I wanted to point out that since long the Kodokan could not really do anymore what it did to Kimura because of involvement in professional contests. Today even several people with Kodokan ranks and membership are active competitors in sports such as BJJ and MMA. Even though in the case of Ishii, there was some wrangling with regard to his judo future, clearly there is no restriction in case he wanted to come back. Moreover, others such as Komuro are even less bothered by the Kodokan, and Komuro is even an instructor at the Kodokan despite his participation in BJJ contests, production of commercial videos and other activities that one could hard call merely 'amateur'. For that reason, pointing out that it is 2013 and not 1960 is not meant as a sneer, but very seriously in a sense that the Kodokan simply has to evolve with its time and could not possibly interpret or apply certain things with the same level of strictness as it did 50 years ago or it would serious burn its own fingers. Specifically, the Kodokan today is not going to bother about your or anyone else's amateur or professional status with regard to promotion. There is not even any question in that sense on any of the Japanese applications for Kodokan rank. In fact there are people, although a small minority, who have established fame in Japan as professional adult actors/actresses with their judo credential being an important factor in the market they are aiming for and they hold and have received Kodokan ranks, so the fact that someone would accept a check for whatever amount of Assie dollars for a win or medal at a judo tournament is going to be the least concern of the Kodokan ... the one in Japan at least.

I don't think pize fighting is a good thing for Australian Judo. I do however think there is nothing wrong with assisting champions to go to overseas Judo events or to train at the kodokan.

e.g. Swedish Open AFAIR has given money for weight category winners. 500 € if I recall.

AussieJudoka wrote:I don't think pize fighting is a good thing for Australian Judo. I do however think there is nothing wrong with assisting champions to go to overseas Judo events or to train at the kodokan.

Amaturism ended around WW2 when the nation states entered the olymoic race.

Unfortunately the engkish speaking countries have not yet fully realsed this, especially in Judo.

Back to the original topic:
Apparently the JFA has taken action against "underpants man", but no public announcement has been made.  That is a pity.

Cichorei Kano wrote:Is it certain the rule was INTENTIONALLY breached, or was it rather and error, i.e. those responsible unaware or forgetting to apply the rule. Not that this may be a justification, but it is a difference. Human error happens all the time.

First.  A well qualified judo savvy doctor was on hand and was proactively checking all cadets on the receiving end of a strangle.  Second: referees rotate between bouts, with some 3 groups of referees being used, so it would be unlikely they would remember who was on the receipt of a strangle 5 or six bouts previously.  Third: As soon as the referee commission became aware that the rule regarding strangles was not being applied it was discussed with the sporting commission and the doctor.
Yes it was a mistake that the sporting commission did not record the result of strangles during the progress of the tournament.  Eventually a coach or team manager looked after their charges.

Me think more like official response to Wikileaks come  

Kiichisai wrote:

Cichorei Kano wrote:Is it certain the rule was INTENTIONALLY breached, or was it rather and error, i.e. those responsible unaware or forgetting to apply the rule. Not that this may be a justification, but it is a difference. Human error happens all the time.

First.  A well qualified judo savvy doctor was on hand and was proactively checking all cadets on the receiving end of a strangle.  Second: referees rotate between bouts, with some 3 groups of referees being used, so it would be unlikely they would remember who was on the receipt of a strangle 5 or six bouts previously.  Third: As soon as the referee commission became aware that the rule regarding strangles was not being applied it was discussed with the sporting commission and the doctor.
Yes it was a mistake that the sporting commission did not record the result of strangles during the progress of the tournament.  Eventually a coach or team manager looked after their charges.

So it was human error and not deliberately violating the rules which theoretically too could have occurred perhaps by someone who was a referee but also belonged to the same club as an athlete who had been choked out and who wanted to make sure that this certain athlete would receive the unfair advantage of being able to stay in the contest and still have a chance for a medal. Human mistakes in judo are best handled as an educational teaching moment of awareness and potential consequences of litigation. Negative facilitation is rarely a preferred option in judo and this for many reasons beyond this discussion. Let's leave capital punishment limited to Iran and China.

It could have been worse. In this case it was limited to errors of application of technical rules which, as I understand from you, were luckily still mitigated by a qualified physician assessing the athletes and taking the medical responsibility for her/his decisions. The educational moment thus should include the Refereeing Committee in future emphasizing the difference between medical responsibility and judo-technical responsibility. Depending on the level of the referee (both refereeing level and intellectual level) this may not always be as obvious to everyone as it may be to you and me.

A friend sent this to me and it  falls short of an appropriate response from the JFA board..
You will be aware of several incidents during the conduct of the recent National Championships which marred what was otherwise a spectacular and successful event. This was referred to in the Board's communication immediately following the Nationals. The JFA Board has received many complaints in relation to these incidents both from people in attendance and, due to social media exposure of the Open event, from people who were not. Though the majority arose from people present, the Board has responded separately to some who were not present including the Australian Sports Commission, the OJU and the IJF by placing the video footage in the context of the otherwise highly successful tournament.

The Board is working through the process of considering matters in relation to individuals who were the subject of these complaints (not all in relation to the Open event) and will inform you of the outcome after due and fair process.

Notwithstanding this process, the Board wishes to advise you that Mark Callaway has been suspended from holding official JFA capacities for one year - effectively until after the Nationals next year. The Board considered Mark's behaviour as inappropriate especially given his official position and he has accepted this sanction. In coming to this decision, the Board also took into account Mark's long standing positive contribution to the sport. When first contacted, and to his credit, Mark offered to apologise to those who were offended by his behaviour and he has done so via the attached letter which he has asked me to forward.

The Board is also tackling the issue of the behaviour of members in social media forums. This has most immediately followed Board action to successfully request removal of material on social media only to see it re-posted by others. You would have seen that the Board has recently published a new social media policy which is now available on the website. The Board will be taking strict action on those whom transgress this policy.  

If you have any comments or feedback in relation to the process that is being undertaken, please be in touch.

Thanks again to all of you for volunteering your time to the success of the Nationals and the many positive comments you have made. The Board is committed to making further improvements to what is already a fantastic showcase of our sport.

JFA Board of Directors

aussieJudo wrote:The Board is also tackling the issue of the behaviour of members in social media forums. This has most immediately followed Board action to successfully request removal of material on social media only to see it re-posted by others. You would have seen that the Board has recently published a new social media policy which is now available on the website. The Board will be taking strict action on those whom transgress this policy.

I've just had a look through the JFA web site and do not see anything new posted on the Policies and Documents page with respect to social media policy - Have you seen this policy that has been referred to?  In any event, I have a feeling that JFA may not be fully assessing the wider scope of social media with respect to individual rights and communication - This could be a losing battle for the JFA from the outset.

You be careful Mr aussieJudo. You tell too much true things and you maybe get trouble too.    

For the triumph of evil only takes good men to do or say nothing..I won't be silenced !

aussieJudo wrote:For the triumph of evil only takes good men to do or say nothing..I won't be silenced !

You try tell that to Mr Assange and Mr Snowdon!!!

It has taken over three weeks to come up with a plan to lay the blame for all that happened on one man who will be suspended for one year from "Official duties" and a poloicy to crack down on social media. Predicatable I suppose.

Incredible. The JFA board slap one man on the wrist by suspending him from official JFA capacities (no mention of Club or State capacities) for 12 months then threaten anyone who mighgt objected to the sexualisation of the Australian Womens Open event or future events. If the JFA conducts its' activities (including the Australian Womens Open) in a proper manner then they have nothing to fear from social media.

Fantastic and indeed utterly predictable reaction from the Board. They would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for that pesky social media.

If the JFA board think they can police social media they are arrogant fools out of touch with reality  

r12477 wrote:

aussieJudo wrote:The Board is also tackling the issue of the behaviour of members in social media forums. This has most immediately followed Board action to successfully request removal of material on social media only to see it re-posted by others. You would have seen that the Board has recently published a new social media policy which is now available on the website. The Board will be taking strict action on those whom transgress this policy.

I've just had a look through the JFA web site and do not see anything new posted on the Policies and Documents page with respect to social media policy - Have you seen this policy that has been referred to?  In any event, I have a feeling that JFA may not be fully assessing the wider scope of social media with respect to individual rights and communication - This could be a losing battle for the JFA from the outset.

Why doesn't the e-judo forum administrators place a copy of their social media policy on here and then take strict action on those who transgress this policy Especially regarding the behavior of lower belts to posters with higher grade! ;-(
We already know that in some countries they take strict action on those who transgress their social media policy

I am wondering how many days of suspension some members of this thread will get? I will probably be banned?

Does any other national board of management have a social media policy that prevents its members from making negative comments or criticism on social media blogs or forums ?

I'd love to see the 'social media' policy. Sounds almost Orwellian - no crimespeak or crimethink allowed!!

Lots of countries don't have specific rights to free speech such as the First Amendment but as a practical matter unless you control the social media any nitwit with a cellphone and an anonymous email account can post anything.

And will.