Heather Mills has been involved in an incident concerning a new prosthetic leg+ski boot prepared for the Sochi Winter Olympics.
She, and her team, are in dispute with the International Paralympic Committee. ...
She changed the boot she had had approved. Whether the changes are cosmetic or not, it's a change and it wasn't approved. It smells a bit like "don't you know who I am" up till the point she's told no, and then it's "I'll tell everyone you were mean to me"
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Thu 19-12-13 11:12; edited 1 time in total
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
feef, more than smells like - the report I read said she actually played the "don't you know who I am card"
After all it is free
After all it is free
I think any athlete who has fallen foul of a technicallity before they can even compete would fight tooth and claw to get back into the competition.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Richard_Sideways, +1 especially when you look at how she has fought to come back from injuries incurred training for the events
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Think the report I read yesterday said that the originally approved boot/leg arrangement was causing blistering, bleeding etc... on her leg hence the need for a modification. Seems a bit harsh to not allow her to compete because of this but thems the rules apparently and the "tantrum" as reported on the bbc website is not the best way of trying to overturn the IPC decision.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
halfhand wrote:
Think the report I read yesterday said that the originally approved boot/leg arrangement was causing blistering, bleeding etc... on her leg hence the need for a modification. Seems a bit harsh to not allow her to compete because of this but thems the rules apparently and the "tantrum" as reported on the bbc website is not the best way of trying to overturn the IPC decision.
AIUI, the change was made without any consultation with the ruling body. The suggestion isn't that the change is illegal as such, but that it had not been approved. Perhaps too late to get it approved and that may appear unfair, but the rules are the rules and if she could have got the changes approved, and didn't then, well, tough.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
But FIS are letting her existing results stand, and some of those were with the modified prosthesis. If they are excluding her on those grounds, surely those results would be void?
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Richard_Sideways, I thought she had withdrawn rather than being excluded?
EDIT - from the BBC link
Quote:
Her management company claim an unfair IPC regulation had forced her withdrawal. The IPC denies those claims
Last edited by So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much on Thu 19-12-13 13:22; edited 2 times in total
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Dubaian, thats the bit that confuses me - they're saying she's not excluded but has to return to using the old prosthesis. If they are forcing her to go back to the ratified leg, and refusing to ratify the new one, why are they not voiding her results on the unratified leg? If the points stand then whats wrong with her continuing on the new leg as long as its not giving unfair advantage?
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Hmm sounds like a couple of egos got bruised, hopefully once tempers have settled on both sides it will get sorted.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
feef wrote:
halfhand wrote:
Think the report I read yesterday said that the originally approved boot/leg arrangement was causing blistering, bleeding etc... on her leg hence the need for a modification. Seems a bit harsh to not allow her to compete because of this but thems the rules apparently and the "tantrum" as reported on the bbc website is not the best way of trying to overturn the IPC decision.
AIUI, the change was made without any consultation with the ruling body. The suggestion isn't that the change is illegal as such, but that it had not been approved. Perhaps too late to get it approved and that may appear unfair, but the rules are the rules and if she could have got the changes approved, and didn't then, well, tough.
So what? It's not like she secretly had a new leg grafted on. The official involved sounds like an unreasonable and petty old bag to me.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Deleted , changed mind
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Thu 19-12-13 20:28; edited 2 times in total
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
NE1, well, maybe, but she reached a high standard in her event and might just be very frustrated and disappointed, as any athlete would be, about not being able to compete. We don't know the whole story - sounds like the spat might have been 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.
NE1, well, maybe, but she reached a high standard in her event and might just be very frustrated and disappointed, as any athlete would be, about not being able to compete. We don't know the whole story - sounds like the spat might have been 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.
Sounds like the official was jell.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
IPC guy seems happy to give an interview to the news bods claiming it was all her (Mills') fault. But then he would say that wouldn't he
IPC guy seems happy to give an interview to the news bods claiming it was all her (Mills') fault. But then he would say that wouldn't he
Yeah, he would. IPC need to get their lazy and inefficient backsides in order. Mills is missing a leg, so she's disabled and therefore eligible to compete.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Not in illegal boot(s)
After all it is free
After all it is free
Filthyphil30k wrote:
Not in illegal boot(s)
Why are the boots illegal? Is she not disabled enough?
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
As others have said..
If i had a chance to represent my country, nothing just nothing would hold me back. Sure this technical stuff is annoying but come on, it could be sorted or improved somehow as there's some time left but to resign ( pull out) over it is... just acting up and ultimately showing off. Rules are rules, all sports men / ladies know and understand this, it's part of the contract.
Given the chance, with the flag on my back, i'd have a go on a lolly stick and give it my all!
Come on Heather, get back in the game.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Bode (not exactly known for diplomacy) was disqualified for wearing boots a one-hundredth of an inch too high in a World Cup slalom and dealt with it just fine. It all sounds very childish.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
narc wrote:
Bode (not exactly known for diplomacy) was disqualified for wearing boots a one-hundredth of an inch too high in a World Cup slalom and dealt with it just fine. It all sounds very childish.
She's the sort of person who could get into a fight in a room by herself
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
I would do it in a broom cupboard!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
........
Is she not disabled enough?[/quote]
A child I know was excluded from a school sports activity supposedly dedicated for the disabled because she was deemed "not being the right type of disabled child"
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
THE THING,
Quote:
I would do it in a broom cupboard!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Get into a fight .........or Heather ?
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
It'd be a clean sweep.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
big davski wrote:
........
Is she not disabled enough?
A child I know was excluded from a school sports activity supposedly dedicated for the disabled because she was deemed "not being the right type of disabled child"
Seems pretty simple to me, she says she changed her boots (make, model and modification). So do the rules say she has to get her new boots approved or set out technical requirements which the new boots don't meet? If so (and no matter if was for perfectly good reasons) Heather is in the wrong and the GB team needs to look very carefully at how it allowed the situation to arise in the first place. If the rules don't say anything about the boots then FIS is in the wrong and need to get its act together.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
davkt wrote:
http://youtube.com/v/EthX0eZU4KI for Heather's side of the story.
Seems pretty simple to me, she says she changed her boots (make, model and modification). So do the rules say she has to get her new boots approved or set out technical requirements which the new boots don't meet? If so Heather is in the wrong and the GB team needs to look very carefully at how it allowed the situation to arise in the first place. If the rules don't say anything about the boots then FIS is in the wrong and need to get its act together.
Yeah, but it gets a bit silly when an athlete with with only one leg can fall foul of officialdom in this way. I think the IPC needs to take a look at itself. This should be refereed to the Court of Arbitration in sport.
PJSki, Why is it a bit silly? This is top level racing and it should be down to who is best within the rules. If rules have been set that govern equipment specs then they need to be strictly applied. From what I can see this is no different to the occasional world cup racer who falls foul of an equipment rule, how is this different to say Tina Weirather been disqualified for wearing an arm guard that didn't make her faster and would have been OK last season or Bode Miller being disqualified over boot size a few years ago?
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
It's different because she's still only got one leg.
But presumably so has everyone she is racing against!
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
davkt, Sorry Dave but if that sequence of events is confirmed by others, Mestre has over reached herself. A clear case for the court of arbitration in my book. The boot was not measured or inspected. All Mestre did was see it was a different boot and disqualified her. As it was a training session not an official race, that sounds like officialdom gone mad. Even the top able-bodied racers have their boots measured before they are disqualified! Very unfair on Mills and the British Disabled Ski team in my view.
But I am not a big fan of the type of person climbing the corporate tree at the IOC, FIS or any of the other top race associations. I've seen enough cronyism among that lot to last me a life time. Most normal youngster are on a hiding to nothing in this sport, able-bodied or not, it's never what you can do, it is whose backside you lick that gets you furthest. Sickening which is why I left junior training and management.
After all it is free
After all it is free
The rules must be applied without favour. Even the extremely disabled have to comply. However if as Samerberg Sue, says above, these boots were not worn during a race why does the incident come under the jurisdiction of the governing body. She probably wears unapproved boots when she goes down to Sainsburys but will she be sanctioned for doing so ?
It can't be that simple, can it?
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
micky wrote:
She probably wears unapproved boots when she goes down to Sainsburys but will she be sanctioned for doing so ?
Some boots are less acceptable in Sainsbury's than others.
My Sainsbury's local, for example, were quite insistent that I shouldn't return in these:
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
u brain, I take it that you'll be reserving wearing those boots for special occasions like the Birthday Bash?......
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
