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

[Frank the Tank]

Which specific cases & examples are you referring to?

Without too much time to spend on this issue right now, I think there is a thread around these parts that went in detail about Canada vs. Ahearne in the 1960's. OK, found it with a quick Google search:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=156734

I think it is clear the guy went out of his way to make Canada's life difficult, which is sad seeing that he was President of the IIHF for numerous terms.

 

[Canuckistani]

If that was the whole point of the thread then I don't see the point of it. Everyone knows the Soviets weren't really amateurs.

The point of the thread was to question why the IOC and IIHF went along with what everyone knew was a farce.

I understand the loopholes that were in play and the rules that allowed it.

What's harder to understand is why the IOC/IIHF refused to close those loopholes and instead insulted everyone's intelligence for 30+ years by pretending to not know a professional hockey player when they saw one. What was in it for them?

 

[Siludin]

Lmfao @ how uneducated people in this topic are. "Wahhh the Western countries' economic policies were incompatible with the wording of the IOC rules wahhh the Soviets cheated wahh"

No they didn't. That's the way the society was organized at the time. You did everything for the "people" and there wasn't very much selection in terms of "jobs" or "professions" when you were being monitored pretty closely by everyone around you.

Arguing that these players "were technically" professionals is wrong, untrue, and ignorant. They were people who were forced to play hockey for their country and forced to train as a team etc. It's not the same as capitalistically choosing to enter the NHL and signing a contract by your own free will and having the laws that bind that contract overlap with the rules of other Western-run organization (not to mention stepping on the toes of billionaires/millionaires who would oppose your inclusion anyway).

 

[FiLe]

What's harder to understand is why the IOC/IIHF refused to close those loopholes and instead insulted everyone's intelligence for 30+ years by pretending to not know a professional hockey player when they saw one. What was in it for them?

It's a rather easy answer actually. They followed the same ideal all the justice systems follow in the so-called developed countries. Simply put: Everything, and I emphasize, everything needs to be on record and accountable.

Yes, the Soviets were de facto professionals. However, de jure, they were amateurs. And for as long as there was no proper documentation that said otherwise, the IOC had no other option than to go along with it. Because if they hadn't, it would have created a very dangerous environment where you could block entry for any athlete by simply pointing a finger at them and claiming that they're really professionals. And given how the IOC is a multinational organization, you could damn well be sure that someone, sometime would have done so.

 

[Siludin]

The point of the thread was to question why the IOC and IIHF went along with what everyone knew was a farce.

I understand the loopholes that were in play and the rules that allowed it.

What's harder to understand is why the IOC/IIHF refused to close those loopholes and instead insulted everyone's intelligence for 30+ years by pretending to not know a professional hockey player when they saw one. What was in it for them?

Money. The only reason Canadians/Americans didn't go was really out of their commitment to their teams. In America, money talks. It's really the exact same reason the players might not go in 2018.

 

[Theokritos]

I think it is clear the guy went out of his way to make Canada's life difficult

There was certainly a fair share of frictions between him and the Canadians over time and I guess the prolonged tensions also embittered Ahearne on a personal level (hence the inept "naughty child" remark). However, "examples of former pro players" refused to play in IIHF tournaments due to "organizational bias against North American teams" I cannot find in the thread you have linked. We have a 1965 case where the IIHF threatened to ban five former pros because their names were not among those reinstated as amateurs by the September 1st 1964 deadline. What they overlooked of course was the fact that the five had actually been reinstated years ago. Once the Canadians pointed that out they were cleared to play.

 

[Theokritos]

What's harder to understand is why the IOC/IIHF refused to close those loopholes and instead insulted everyone's intelligence for 30+ years by pretending to not know a professional hockey player when they saw one. What was in it for them?

Why the IOC ignored "shamateurism"? Because otherwise they would have had to axe about 50% of the different sports in the Olympics. That's pretty much what IOC president Avery Brundage wanted anyway, back to pure amateurism, away with the Winter Olympics altogether. But this idealistic view was not met with wide support within the IOC, the majority was more realistic or pragmatic or dishonest, your choice to word it. Brundage prevented a liberalization, the many other interests in the IOC prevented a purification. And the IIHF, not wanting to drop out of the Olympics, had to deal with that situation.

The only reason Canadians/Americans didn't go was really out of their commitment to their teams.

You're aware that professionals weren't allowed to play in the World Championship (-1977) and in the Olympics (-1988)?

 

[Frank the Tank]

There was certainly a fair share of frictions between him and the Canadians over time and I guess the prolonged tensions also embittered Ahearne on a personal level (hence the inept "naughty child" remark). However, "examples of former pro players" refused to play in IIHF tournaments due to "organizational bias against North American teams" I cannot find in the thread you have linked. We have a 1965 case where the IIHF threatened to ban five former pros because their names were not among those reinstated as amateurs by the September 1st 1964 deadline. What they overlooked of course was the fact that the five had actually been reinstated years ago. Once the Canadians pointed that out they were cleared to play.

The argument over former or "reinstated" pro players extended beyond 1965. From my reading it is the main reason that Canada withdrew from the IIHF Championships through most of the 1970's because the IIHF would not let them field a team that contained some former pro players.

Why single out Canada (and the US to some extent) over all these years and yet turn a blind eye to what the Communists countries were doing? It was the IIHF president pursuing his personal agenda against that "naughty child" Canada (hence the claims of organizational bias).

 

[Theokritos]

The argument over former or "reinstated" pro players extended beyond 1965. From my reading it is the main reason that Canada withdrew from the IIHF Championships through most of the 1970's because the IIHF would not let them field a team that contained some former pro players.

Reinstated pros were not the issue. Carl Brewer played in 1967 etc. What Canada asked for was the use of currently active pros in the 1970 World Championship and that's why they withdrew:

what the IIHF tried to do was to water down the ban by allowing a couple of pros from the minor leagues to play in the 1969 World Championship. They thought the IOC would swallow that. Unfortunately the IOC was having none of it and swiftly issued an ultimatum: No pros in the WChs or else everybody who plays there becomes ineligible for the Olympic Games.

Note: It's actually the 1970 World Championship, not 1969.

Why single out Canada (and the US to some extent) over all these years and yet turn a blind eye to what the Communists countries were doing? It was the IIHF president pursuing his personal agenda against that "naughty child" Canada (hence the claims of organizational bias).

Not exactly. Canada was singled out because of open professionalism:

As long as you were not openly professional the IOC usually didn't have much leverage against you, so for all practical purposes "shamateurism" was more or less ignored, whether it concerned Soviet "state amateurs" or Swedish hockey players or NCAA beneficiaries or Canadian National Team members. Unfortunately for Canada they were the one hockey nation with openly professional leagues & openly professional players - which made their best players ineligible, while the best players of other countries remained eligible for a long time as they were amateurs on paper. Hence the unfair disadvantage Canada was put at in international hockey.

 

[Halibut]

Are you playing devil's advocate or do you seriously accept that Soviet players were soldiers who just played some amateur hockey on the side?

They were a special forces unit designed to protect the Soviet Union from attacks on ice with small spherical rubber weapons. That's why they spent so much time training on skates and without rifles.

 

[Xokkeu]

The point of the thread was to question why the IOC and IIHF went along with what everyone knew was a farce.

I understand the loopholes that were in play and the rules that allowed it.

What's harder to understand is why the IOC/IIHF refused to close those loopholes and instead insulted everyone's intelligence for 30+ years by pretending to not know a professional hockey player when they saw one. What was in it for them?

The IIHF need/wanted the IOC to keep hockey in the Olympics. IOC President Avery Brundage didn't really care for hockey, even tried to have it banned from the Olympics in 1948. Brundage was also an idealist, which is to say that he valued sticking to his ideals much more than making practical decisions. Brundage spent much of his early career trying to convince the Soviets to join the IOC. If the IOC had forced the Soviets to dismantle their sport system, they most likely would have pulled out and defeated Brundage's goal of universal participation. For whatever reason Brundage visited the USSR and was very impressed by the Soviet sport program. Brundage was strongly in favor of the games being completely absent of politics and to deny the Soviet program, despite the Soviets not overtly breaking the rules, would be to make political judgements. So you have a multitude of factors. You have the IIHF trying to follow the IOC for years. You have a leadership of the IOC that was idealistic and a man who desperately wanted to avoid professionalism and commercialization of the Olympics and who was extremely committed to avoiding political decisions.

You directly trace the end of Olympic amateurism to Brundage's retirement. Killain succeeded Brundage but the IOC was a mess and he sort of floundered. Juan Samaranch was who essentially made the modern IOC which was profit driven and ended amateurism.


Next time I'd suggest if you really wanted to know the answer to such issues, read some books on the subject and not a random thread on a hockey site.


http://books.google.com.pr/books?id=nA3g4BDCVrUC&printsec=frontcover&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[cptjeff]

It's a rather easy answer actually. They followed the same ideal all the justice systems follow in the so-called developed countries. Simply put: Everything, and I emphasize, everything needs to be on record and accountable.

Yes, the Soviets were de facto professionals. However, de jure, they were amateurs. And for as long as there was no proper documentation that said otherwise, the IOC had no other option than to go along with it. Because if they hadn't, it would have created a very dangerous environment where you could block entry for any athlete by simply pointing a finger at them and claiming that they're really professionals. And given how the IOC is a multinational organization, you could damn well be sure that someone, sometime would have done so.

Laws can rules can, and often do, consider de facto status as well as or instead of de jure status. And there are ways of handling things to make sure one accusation is not enough- you can have hearings, standards of evidence, ect. The idea that the IOC didn't have the option to take what the Soviets were doing into account is insane. They absolutely had the option to address it. They chose not to.

 

[Hoser]

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.

The IIHF was, is and probably always will be biased toward Europeans because it is European. It was founded in Europe and is created in the European style of sport governance, where national associations are the governing bodies of entire sports in a given country, and the international association is the supreme governing body.

In North America that isn't the case. In North America money talks and bull**** walks; the NHL has loads of the former and IIHF is loads of the latter. As such the NHL has de facto control over hockey in North America, and has since the 1920s, because it is the biggest hockey business in North America (and the world...). The problem the IIHF has with North America is that hockey here operates outside of its control. This has always been its problem with North America. The NHL is seen as the defiant, bratty child that won't blindly listen to (self-appointed) "mother". As such the NHL is an affront to European sensibilities.

That will always be the problem between the NHL and IIHF. The NHL is a multi-billion dollar business; the IIHF is a group of self-appointed nannies of the sport who hold as much power as the (European) national associations let it have. The IIHF exists as much to protect "European hockey" from the NHL as it does to 'govern', whatever that means.

 

[Zine]

The IIHF was, is and probably always will be biased toward Europeans because it is European. It was founded in Europe and is created in the European style of sport governance, where national associations are the governing bodies of entire sports in a given country, and the international association is the supreme governing body.

In North America that isn't the case. In North America money talks and bull**** walks; the NHL has loads of the former and IIHF is loads of the latter. As such the NHL has de facto control over hockey in North America, and has since the 1920s, because it is the biggest hockey business in North America (and the world...). The problem the IIHF has with North America is that hockey here operates outside of its control. This has always been its problem with North America. The NHL is seen as the defiant, bratty child that won't blindly listen to (self-appointed) "mother". As such the NHL is an affront to European sensibilities.

That will always be the problem between the NHL and IIHF. The NHL is a multi-billion dollar business; the IIHF is a group of self-appointed nannies of the sport who hold as much power as the (European) national associations let it have. The IIHF exists as much to protect "European hockey" from the NHL as it does to 'govern', whatever that means.

What makes this an NHL vs 'European' issue?

For instance, nowadays Hockey Canada is more in line with the IIHF than the NHL.

 

[Roomtemperature]

Its the Olympics. They're not above turning a blind eye to certain things if the palms are greased enough.

 

[ThirdManIn]

1) Draft all of the athletes into the military
2) Force them to train constantly
3) ?????
4) Medal

 

[Canuckistani]

Next time I'd suggest if you really wanted to know the answer to such issues, read some books on the subject and not a random thread on a hockey site.

Sorry to have bothered you, sir.

 

[FiLe]

Laws can rules can, and often do, consider de facto status as well as or instead of de jure status. And there are ways of handling things to make sure one accusation is not enough- you can have hearings, standards of evidence, ect. The idea that the IOC didn't have the option to take what the Soviets were doing into account is insane. They absolutely had the option to address it. They chose not to.

You promptly ignored my closing comment, where I said it was not only about hockey.

Yes, perhaps the IOC could have had a chance to curb the Soviet-style "amateurism". However, that would have opened a door to take far more issues than just that of hockey under review. While some of it would have been justified, some would very likely have been nothing but some folks trying to strengthen their positions in the back rooms rather than on the venue. The IOC is such a mammoth that while it would have perhaps led to a fairer stage in one sport, some would have endured even worse abuse in others. Which, incidentally, is the stain in most justice systems as well. Some practices exist to ensure everyone a fair footing, but there are still those who see them as nothing but loopholes to be exploited.

It was far from a clear-cut issue. And rather than go and poke that particular can of worms, the IOC saw it as lesser evil to simply ignore it.

The only possible fair-for-all fix was to allow full-on professionalism. But at the time it was kinda hard, because the head honcho back then was vehemently against it.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

The IIHF was, is and probably always will be biased toward Europeans because it is European. It was founded in Europe and is created in the European style of sport governance, where national associations are the governing bodies of entire sports in a given country, and the international association is the supreme governing body.

In North America that isn't the case. In North America money talks and bull**** walks; the NHL has loads of the former and IIHF is loads of the latter. As such the NHL has de facto control over hockey in North America, and has since the 1920s, because it is the biggest hockey business in North America (and the world...). The problem the IIHF has with North America is that hockey here operates outside of its control. This has always been its problem with North America. The NHL is seen as the defiant, bratty child that won't blindly listen to (self-appointed) "mother". As such the NHL is an affront to European sensibilities.

That will always be the problem between the NHL and IIHF. The NHL is a multi-billion dollar business; the IIHF is a group of self-appointed nannies of the sport who hold as much power as the (European) national associations let it have. The IIHF exists as much to protect "European hockey" from the NHL as it does to 'govern', whatever that means.

This is a very good summary of the problem. The main issue is that the IIHF structure gives Europeans a massively disproportionate amount of power in the organization relative to the size of their hockey program. The split today in terms of the size of their hockey participation and infrastructure is roughly 70% NA and 30% Europe, yet at the IIHF European nations hold 34 seats vs 3 from NA. The current system is extremely undemocratic, but Europeans are happy to keep it that way and North Americans don't care enough right now to push for changes.

 

[canuckster19]

The IIHF was, is and probably always will be biased toward Europeans because it is European. It was founded in Europe and is created in the European style of sport governance, where national associations are the governing bodies of entire sports in a given country, and the international association is the supreme governing body.

In North America that isn't the case. In North America money talks and bull**** walks; the NHL has loads of the former and IIHF is loads of the latter. As such the NHL has de facto control over hockey in North America, and has since the 1920s, because it is the biggest hockey business in North America (and the world...). The problem the IIHF has with North America is that hockey here operates outside of its control. This has always been its problem with North America. The NHL is seen as the defiant, bratty child that won't blindly listen to (self-appointed) "mother". As such the NHL is an affront to European sensibilities.

That will always be the problem between the NHL and IIHF. The NHL is a multi-billion dollar business; the IIHF is a group of self-appointed nannies of the sport who hold as much power as the (European) national associations let it have. The IIHF exists as much to protect "European hockey" from the NHL as it does to 'govern', whatever that means.

Which is funny because the IIHF has adopted many of the rules put in place by the NHL the past few years.

 

[VMBM]

Vladimir Dzurilla! Fridge repairman, fat, unathletic, best goalie in Czechoslovakia before Hasek!

And yes, he really repaired fridges for a living!

No, he was the 2nd best goalie in Czechoslovakia before Hasek - after Jiri Holecek.

To call Dzurilla a 'backup goalie' might be somewhat degrading, but that's what he basically was for much of the 1970s on the Czechoslovak national team.

 

[lamini]

Laws can rules can, and often do, consider de facto status as well as or instead of de jure status. And there are ways of handling things to make sure one accusation is not enough- you can have hearings, standards of evidence, ect. The idea that the IOC didn't have the option to take what the Soviets were doing into account is insane. They absolutely had the option to address it. They chose not to.

Wonder how you would draw the line between fake and real amateurs? Ban those that play in organized leagues? Hearings? You think anyone from Esatern block would tell the truth? And can you imagine the number of witnesses from eastern block testifiing that western athletes are in fact professionals.

If you ban members of army from olympics, easter block players would go and play for clubs where friends from same company play together, if you block players that have some job, they would be students playing for same university....when goverment has everything in the country under their controll, anything is possible and I'm sure western countries would run out of athletes they can send long time before eastern block countries

Edit: also, during his military service, Czech ex-president Vaclav Klaus played basketball for army team, was he professional?

 

[Rekin]

This is a very good summary of the problem. The main issue is that the IIHF structure gives Europeans a massively disproportionate amount of power in the organization relative to the size of their hockey program. The split today in terms of the size of their hockey participation and infrastructure is roughly 70% NA and 30% Europe, yet at the IIHF European nations hold 34 seats vs 3 from NA. The current system is extremely undemocratic, but Europeans are happy to keep it that way and North Americans don't care enough right now to push for changes.

Maybe the North Americans have one voice for their seats, but the Europeans definitely do not. I really don't see a reason to cry about diversity, this is the only way that allows smaller hockey nations such as, say, Iceland have their voice heard at all. In terms of real influence the situation is anyway much more balanced, no one would seriously claim that the voting rights of Iceland or Croatia are somehow hurting Canadian hockey.

 

[Riddarn]

Why is this limited to the Communist block?

The Swedes were 'amateurs' up until the formation of the Elitserien in 1975.

Well kinda, but the situations were not comparable. Our Elitserien players had part time jobs to support themselves, some of them well into the 90's.

 

[fedfed]

To OP: Just like all countries got away with putting pro skiers, biathletes, runners, etc.