|
|
Post by the ranker on Oct 6, 2004 10:16:03 GMT -5
Guelph cant put anyone ahead of windsors top 4..lets be serious..and guelph might put 2 or 3 people ahead of windosrs 5 and 6...
theres no way windosr is gonna lose..
windsor will ride brandon young to the moon!!!..and just think hes still got another year after this!!
Also there is noway John B can do 18 girl pushups..last year he could only do 5..if hes almost quadrupled his strenght since last year...then theres something fishy in the windosr water
|
|
|
|
Post by somethings fishy on Oct 6, 2004 15:03:13 GMT -5
Well in response to the Dal guy's response, something don't quite add up with hilary Burn.... Notre Dame has some great results archives at: und.collegesports.com/sports/c-xc/archive/nd-c-xc-archive.htmlund.collegesports.com/sports/c-track/archive/nd-c-track-archive.htmland you can see that Hilary had 3 or more races (ie. used a year of eligibility): 1998/1999 season 1999/2000 season 2000/2001 season 2001/2002 season - so there's 4 years....it's all right there in the archives.... she then sat out as you claimed in the 2002/2003 season. she ran a 5th year last year for the 2003/2004 season- when she probably shouldn't have been eligible.... now she's running a 6th year this year? something's doesn't add up |
|
|
|
Post by HS on Oct 6, 2004 17:27:25 GMT -5
If it's indeed true that 3 races in a season = a year of eligibility, then that is definitely not right... Maybe she was cleared last year, but this year??
CIS should put their foot down against people breaking the rules as to not make a mockery of the Canadian system.
Is there some techincality that makes her eligible? I've been confused before about how eligibility rules can change when you cross the border.
|
|
|
|
Post by US Rules on Oct 6, 2004 18:13:38 GMT -5
actually, the ncaa eligibility rules are even tougher than CIS rules, cause in the US if you suit up for one event you use a year. And an event counts even as a practice during the season- as long as you don't red shirt.
either way, it seems that Burn shouuldnt' be eligible this year year- by either the cis or the ncaa set of rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by CIS Ruler on Oct 6, 2004 19:10:38 GMT -5
HS is right. It is confusing when athletes cross the border. Maybe CIS should simplfy their rules, but under current rules Hilary is clearly eligible and has received an official CIS ruling for last year and this year. There I don't know the rationale but if the CIS has said she's eligible (and they have) then there is no eligibility issue.
I'm sure discussion and speculation will continue but you can count on Burn in.
|
|
Jimmy
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by Jimmy on Oct 6, 2004 20:14:04 GMT -5
actually, it was an asu ruling, not a cis ruling. from my understanding, the cis simply accepted the ruling, but they still have the power to overturn the ruling.
anyways, the reason that she got the eligibility was that the competed in 4 years, but only used 3 years in each sport (indoor, outdoor, and xc). under cis rules, if you participate in any sport in a year, you use up that year of eligibility. thus, she used 4 years in the states (clearly shown in a previous post). last year she used her 5th year. this year, she should be ineligible under both cis and ncaa rules (although ncaa rules are irrelevant, now).
from my understanding, dal found some nice loopholes to get her eligible last year (all the power to them), but this 6th year of eligibility is wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Oct 6, 2004 20:51:40 GMT -5
I disagree with the previous post.
If there is a compelling arguement saying that she has only done three years in the US then she gets 2 years more up here. On the other hand if she did 4 years in the US she gets zero here.
It's either two or zero!
She gets two. Good for her, good for Dal, good for competition.
|
|
|
|
Post by you are wrong on Oct 6, 2004 21:19:29 GMT -5
Actually my friend that was the old rule until the Burn exception came in, time will tell that Ms. Burn is done.
|
|
|
|
Post by mob on Oct 6, 2004 23:13:30 GMT -5
i say we throw tomatoes at her during the race at CIS' for cheating our sport
oh and we can boo her too!
off with her head!
|
|
CIS APPEAL COMMISION
Guest
|
Post by CIS APPEAL COMMISION on Oct 7, 2004 7:41:35 GMT -5
The CIS has 2 reasons for appeal.
1.) Injury exemption- Any athlete not completing in more than 25% of the regular season games and did not play in the championship tournament, can appeal to get that year back if they missed the 75% or more because of injury or illness.
2.) Compassionate grounds- This appeal is used for situations such as, death in the immediate family, divorce, pregnancy, diseases(that aren't seen as injuries such as chrones disease).
Burns was deemed eligible last season and told that she had 2 more seasons. The only way that that would be overturned is the following:
If she was found to have competed in 5 state/provincial or national championships in 5 different academic years.
Once the ruling on 25% has been ruled, in a sport such as track and field / cross country, they are seen as the same or similar sport. So Burnsy could have competed in 40% of the XC season broke her leg, missed the championships and not come back to compete in track, and they could have given her the exemption based on that.
Dont base your results on 3 races, base it on championship meets.
Also the rule is 2 races or 25%, to whoever the moron is who thinks its 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by Loophole on Oct 7, 2004 8:10:33 GMT -5
Ask the new Athletic Director at Guelph about Hilary Burn's eligibility. He is the person who declared that she had 2 seasons remaining!
|
|
eligible not eligible
Guest
|
Post by eligible not eligible on Oct 7, 2004 8:24:14 GMT -5
all i know is that if Burn runs CI's, she''ll probably place in the top-7 and if I'm the girl in 8th or 15th and miss out being 1st or 2nd team All-Canadian or a team that is 4th, that would pretty much suck.
|
|
|
|
Post by DESYmone on Oct 7, 2004 9:27:21 GMT -5
ya it would really suck for them cause that means they did not earn there all canadian tatoo like me.
you have to be top 7 and 14 to get it.
8 and 15 can have some cheese with their wine, but the fact is they did not earn it
|
|
DaveByrnelife during wartime
Guest
|
Post by DaveByrnelife during wartime on Oct 7, 2004 21:12:36 GMT -5
If Hilary is eligible then a lot of others might come out of the woodwork too with the same interpretation of the rules.... this could get crazy...very crazy. And once precedence is set its harder to turn others away with similar cases. Six years seems ridicolous any way you interpret the rules...
I don't think people have their facts straight either. I've never heard of this 25% and 75% rule and I've been around the CIS for several years now, I could be wrong though...
|
|
|
|
Post by CIS AC on Oct 8, 2004 8:52:26 GMT -5
yes there is a 25% rule, that has been the new rule for 2 years now. Previous to that it was a certain number of games/ tournaments per season. 25% works better for all sports.
Compassionate grounds came in the same time that 25% took over for games played.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Oct 8, 2004 9:25:26 GMT -5
If you want to see woodwork check out the results from Laval this weekend.
Blouin - how is he not done
Gill -has daughter approaching university age
and no doubt a few others who are over 25, bald, with a wife and kids and somehow representing the rouge et Or.
|
|
|
|
Post by OCAA on Oct 8, 2004 9:53:35 GMT -5
Does competing at Canadian College affect eligibility?
98-99 James Gosselin, Cambrian
99-2000 James Gosselin, Cambrian
2000-01 James Gosselin, Cambrian
Now in third seson with Windsor = 6 years
|
|
|
|
Post by hotdog on Oct 8, 2004 10:23:08 GMT -5
when the goose was flying high for the OCAA, there was no national championship, thus he did not lose eligibility.
Deng Keul lost 2 years of eligibility by going to windsor this year because there was a CCAA national championship, but he does not have to sit out a year.
As for AP Beleanger, he is under review for the crazy space suit and might lose a year. he will have a chance to appeal the decision should he lose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Race day on Oct 8, 2004 12:14:36 GMT -5
Poll
Men
Windsor
Guelph
Manitoba
Dal
Uvic
Women
Guelph
Dal
Western
4th ?
5th ?
|
|
|
|
Post by IGNORANCE on Oct 8, 2004 12:57:46 GMT -5
"If you want to see woodwork check out the results from Laval this weekend.
Blouin - how is he not done
Gill -has daughter approaching university age
and no doubt a few others who are over 25, bald, with a wife and kids and somehow representing the rouge et Or."
You must be wrong..
Blouin raced with the Vert et Or for three years.. sat one year when he switched school, ran last year with ULAVAL (4th year) and will be done after this year.. No problem in his case
As for Gill...who cares !??
|
|
|
|
Post by Goose supporter on Oct 8, 2004 22:41:22 GMT -5
Who gives a flying fuck about Gosselin, I think ppl are just pissed that he is still rippin' shit up. All you fucking hater's that come on this site to talk shit or gossip about pointless stuff that does not affect your lives, but in turn only makes you all look like idiots. Just like me for even posting, I'm giving in to the bullshit. And yes for the record Gosselin ran three years at Cambrian and is now in his fourth year of eligibility with one still left in his pocket. So who knows after graduating, he may fly the coup, that is Windsor.
|
|
