- Jan 30, 2011
- 99
- 24
so basically 7 out of 13...more than half are Varsity representation?
Whether the numbers are,
7 of 13 = 53.84615%
7 of 16 = 43.75%
7 of 21 = 33.33%
How many times would you have risked your professional career choices upon a 33-54% positive results? At least 1 out of every 3, especially if you were right 1 out of every 2 attempts … right?
So ... when you factor in VB controlled business connections or business links the appearance is support of a business agenda has more significance or support than a few people were "severely handicapped by inexperienced & untrained Judges." This was The International Title, RIGHT? Why were inexperienced & untrained Judges allowed into a position of prominence? ONE can call it "conspiracy theory" if you like, however in my life events surrounding VB it is simply one more illustration or piece of evidence of one more backroom VB business transaction, which supports the growth of their business overseas, not the rules as outlined by USASF/IASF.
Why haven’t the Judges mistakes been reversed by now ... if USASF/IASF believes the rule was violated?
The performance was on tape … correct, so how difficult is the decision to replace the correct winner with the title & to support everyone who signed the same competition agreements and followed ALL the rules? Did they violate the rules or not? Is this the concept of "you only need to be close to the rules" kind of like hand grenades, but not exactly follow them, or will USASF/IASF simply allow this one to slide because it would be more of an embarrassment to change the winner, thus supporting the rules, and are willing to live with the PUBLIC harrassment of placing under trained & inexperienced Judges in positions of authority for which they were unable to fulfill completely?
I’m just saying …. looks can be deceiving. There is more here than the rules, or this decision would have already been reversed by a video replay, which would confirm for the Coach they had “too many boys on the floor!”