Toggle sidebar

How did the Communist states used to get away with those "amateur" teams?

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
It was kind of a sham, but really it falls in line with everything else especially during those times. Yes many Olympians are 'amateur' athletes, but is it really the same when one athlete has to keep a job when another's country gives them a full free ride plus monetary awards for winning? I could be wrong but it seems like this is the loophole that let Soviet Block hockey players compete back then but not North American. Once you start making the accusation "he/she is not really an amateur athlete, they don't have a job and get to compete/train full time!', it could become a slippery slope for the IOC.
 
The whole army officer thing probably went back to the point where you had cavalry members participating in horse riding events, which is rather a professional application of their sport. But amateurism basically came from the idea of rich people competing as hobbies and rich people worked hard to keep that privilege.
 
Xokkeu said:
If the Canadians and NHL cared enough they could have set up the same thing. Bobby Orr getting paid to clean the arena on his off days, just playing hockey for fun. Oh the arena is dirty, darn...

They didn't do it because they didn't really care enough.
Click to expand...
Canada cared enough to boycott some tournaments (don't remember which). Sweden also joined the boycott a couple times..
 
jekoh said:
No, they were paid to be police or army officers.

Had they been paid to train and play, that would have made them ineligible.
Click to expand...
Officially they were officers being paid by the army but please, you don't have to pretend to be so naive. When the players are completely backed by the government/nation, they can say whatever they want about their status no matter the reality.
 
Canuck21t said:
Officially they were officers being paid by the army but please, you don't have to pretend to be so naive. When the players are completely backed by the government/nation, they can say whatever they want about their status no matter the reality.
Click to expand...
I'm just explaining why they were eligible and others were not. The OP makes it sound like the reason is a mystery all the while implying this was done with the purpose of favouring certain countries. He's wrong on both counts.
 
Frank the Tank said:
The bias the IIHF demonstrated towards European based teams for decades is one of the main reasons there exists such a disconnect between the IIHF and NHL to this day.
Click to expand...

I thought the reason for the disconnect these days is the NHL doesn't like the idea of players with NHL contracts playing in anything that isn't NHL sanctioned games without the league being financially compensated for it. If the NHL, and specifically the owners, had their way NHL players wouldn't be playing in IIHF tournaments. I am pretty sure most in the league office along with the owners would be totally cool if the IIHF reverted back to 'amateurism' and 'favouring' European teams.

I would think at the time Hockey Canada would have been much more bent out of shape over the IIHF/IOC's antiquated stance on amateurism than the NHL ever was. Of course all this was resolved 30+ years ago and the present day relationship between the IIHF and HC seems to be rather cozy.
 
jekoh said:
I'm just explaining why they were eligible and others were not. The OP makes it sound like the reason is a mystery all the while implying this was done with the purpose of favouring certain countries. He's wrong on both counts.
Click to expand...

No, I understand that there's no mystery as to the "official" rationale of the IOC/IIHF on the matter, not did I suggest it was done deliberately to favour certain countries.

My point was that everyone at the time knew the players in question were being paid to play hockey but decided to play dumb and look the other way.

The nagging question for me is why the IOC/IIHF decided to do this. No way were they as ignorant as they pretended to be.
 
lamini said:
Well, one thing is to know someone is cheating and another to prove it. You have refrigerator repairman that plays hockey in his free time. It's hard to prove wheather his amateur that plays for fun or professional
Click to expand...

That Dzurilla guy just happened to have LOTS of freetime.
 
WarriorofTime said:
This wasnt a unique rule olympic hockey, it applied to every sport.
Click to expand...

Yup. It didn't get changed until late 70's or early 80's, when pretty much all the track & field athletes were already pros etc. Via Wikipedia:

The ethos of the aristocracy as exemplified in the English public school greatly influenced Pierre de Coubertin.[130] The public schools subscribed to the belief that sport formed an important part of education, an attitude summed up in the saying mens sana in corpore sano, a sound mind in a sound body. In this ethos, a gentleman was one who became an all-rounder, not the best at one specific thing. There was also a prevailing concept of fairness, in which practicing or training was considered tantamount to cheating.[130] Those who practiced a sport professionally were considered to have an unfair advantage over those who practiced it merely as a hobby.[130]
The exclusion of professionals caused several controversies throughout the history of the modern Olympics. The 1912 Olympic pentathlon and decathlon champion Jim Thorpe was stripped of his medals when it was discovered that he had played semi-professional baseball before the Olympics. His medals were posthumously restored by the IOC in 1983 on compassionate grounds.[131] Swiss and Austrian skiers boycotted the 1936 Winter Olympics in support of their skiing teachers, who were not allowed to compete because they earned money with their sport and were thus considered professionals.[132]
As class structure evolved through the 20th century, the definition of the amateur athlete as an aristocratic gentleman became outdated.[130] The advent of the state-sponsored "full-time amateur athlete" of the Eastern Bloc countries further eroded the ideology of the pure amateur, as it put the self-financed amateurs of the Western countries at a disadvantage. Nevertheless, the IOC held to the traditional rules regarding amateurism.[133] Beginning in the 1970s, amateurism requirements were gradually phased out of the Olympic Charter. After the 1988 Games, the IOC decided to make all professional athletes eligible for the Olympics, subject to the approval of the IFs.[134] As of 2012, the only sports in which no professionals compete is boxing and wrestling, although even this requires a definition of amateurism based on fight rules rather than on payment, as some boxers and wrestlers receive cash prizes from their National Olympic Committees.
Click to expand...
 
flybynite77 said:
The Red Army 'amateur' army team was basically Mr. Burns softball team from the Simpson's.
Click to expand...

Haha, great comparison, but spot on.

Canuck21t said:
Officially they were officers being paid by the army but please, you don't have to pretend to be so naive. When the players are completely backed by the government/nation, they can say whatever they want about their status no matter the reality.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why anyone is getting upset with anyone here. No one is being naive here. Just telling it how it was, historically. I doubt anyone disagrees with you in terms of 'fair play', but it was what it was. OFFICIALLY, that's the key word here, they were officially not professional hockey players. They were in the army, and happened to play for the company hockey team. For legal purposes and on paper, they were outside of that with a loophole. Also at the time, you have to look at the power balances of the times. Russia was a superpower for a long time. There wasn't a whole lot of backlash against it because... why would a country risk any political issues over something as trivial sports. Other countries at the time, either 1. didn't care. 2. didn't have a loophole of their own.
 
Last edited:
Canuckistani said:
Sure it's hard to prove the truth when dealing with a system willing to fabricate jobs for their professional players, as the Soviets were. But everyone at the IOC and IIHF knew the truth and just played dumb.

In no other country do "army officers" find the time to play a fully domestic league hockey schedule, as well as several international events, plus daily practice time.

You almost have to respect the Soviets for having the gall to present such a cover story.
Click to expand...

It's not a cover story, it was the standard of the IOC back then.
I mean, why are you having problems understanding that?

They didn't have professional hockey contracts. It's as simple as that.

Also, there are about a gazillion other army officers/soliders in the Olympics, from Sebrle to Zelezny to just about every single biathlete, etc.

Back before the silly sports got introduced (snowboarding etc.), half the Winter Olympics were basically athletes employed in some way in their national army - mostly in Nordic events.
 
Research the name john f. "bunny" ahearne.
It will provide an answer.

Note- you need to go farther than his wikipedia page.
 
Frank the Tank said:
Because IIHF president Bunny Ahearne had no problem repeatedly hurling such accusations at Canadian players. (...) There are examples of former pro players looking represent Canada and the IIHF refused to allow them to play in IIHF tournaments because of organizational bias against North American teams.
Click to expand...

Which specific cases & examples are you referring to?
 
One of the greatest what if's of hockey is to imagine how things might have been different if the Hockey tournament had of been best vs best in the 40 years before Nagano.

You can have fun choosing the hypothetical rosters of the nations teams.
 
WhalerTurnedBruin55 said:
Haha, great comparison, but spot on.



I'm not sure why anyone is getting upset with anyone here. No one is being naive here. Just telling it how it was, historically. I doubt anyone disagrees with you in terms of 'fair play', but it was what it was. OFFICIALLY, that's the key word here, they were officially not professional hockey players. They were in the army, and happened to play for the company hockey team. For legal purposes and on paper, they were outside of that with a loophole. Also at the time, you have to look at the power balances of the times. Russia was a superpower for a long time. There wasn't a whole lot of backlash against it because... why would a country risk any political issues over something as trivial sports. Other countries at the time, either 1. didn't care. 2. didn't have a loophole of their own.
Click to expand...
Did I say YOU were naive? I replied to someone whom I thought (wrongly) was not laying out the whole picture based on the poster's wording, hence my accusation of pretending to be naive.
 
Corto said:
It's not a cover story, it was the standard of the IOC back then.
I mean, why are you having problems understanding that?

They didn't have professional hockey contracts. It's as simple as that.

Also, there are about a gazillion other army officers/soliders in the Olympics, from Sebrle to Zelezny to just about every single biathlete, etc.

Back before the silly sports got introduced (snowboarding etc.), half the Winter Olympics were basically athletes employed in some way in their national army - mostly in Nordic events.
Click to expand...

It was a cover story in that the Soviets were paid to play hockey. It was their only job, complete with full regular-seasons of league schedules.

Just because they didn't sign a piece of paper to that effect doesn't mean it wasn't so.

It was like Bobby Orr and Gordie Howe being given ceremonial army jobs while carrying on full-time with their NHL clubs, thus being granted "amateur" status for the Olympics.

Perhaps that would technically/legally work in the eyes of the IOC, but no one would honestly believe they weren't pros.

So I'm not saying I don't understand the IOC's position. I'm just saying it was total bulls***.
 
Canuckistani said:
It was a cover story in that the Soviets were paid to play hockey. It was their only job, complete with full regular-seasons of league schedules.

Just because they didn't sign a piece of paper to that effect doesn't mean it wasn't so.

It was like Bobby Orr and Gordie Howe being given ceremonial army jobs while carrying on full-time with their NHL clubs, thus being granted "amateur" status for the Olympics.

Perhaps that would technically/legally work in the eyes of the IOC, but no one would honestly believe they weren't pros.

So I'm not saying I don't understand the IOC's position. I'm just saying it was total bulls***.
Click to expand...

Yes. Yes, it did technically work, and yes, it was kinda bull.

And?

Welcome to the world of reality.

We live in a complex competitive world where people take advantages of loopholes in rules and where people skirt the clear intentions of the ruled by adhering to legal technicalities.

Soviet hockey players were "technically" army officers, even though they really weren't there to serve in a military capacity.

Collegiate players are "technically" student-athletes, even though many of the top ones don't attend classes and get free passes on exams or projects.

General Electric "technically" had no taxable income in the U.S. even though they reported billions in profits on their financial statements.

Hockey players will often "accidentally" break their sticks or get themselves kicked out of a faceoff circle after an icing call to give their teammates a little extra rest without "technically" getting whistled for a Delay of Game penalty, even though everyone and the ref knows they are delaying the game as much as they can get away with.

Every rulebook in every facet of life--in the sports world and beyond--has loopholes and technicalities that can and will be exploited to their fullest advantage by someone with the means and will to do so. They get away with it because lines have to be drawn somewhere, and someone will always end up on the advantaged/disadvantaged side of that line.

Such is life.

Canuckistani said:
Perhaps that would technically/legally work in the eyes of the IOC
Click to expand...

It did techincally/legally work in the eyes of the IOC.

If you're legally within the rules, then there's no other recourse. That's it. Full stop. The end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom