In 2023, with the international expansion through collaboration with various organizations, FinalRep has decided to establish an independent board of national head judges. This committee has granted the authority to assess the quality of the current rules and further develop the FinalRep Streetlifting rulebook. One part of this is the review of rulebook violations. Based on reported rulebook violations, the judging committee has the right to vote on legal actions to preserve the integrity and validity of the rules and the sport.
About this article
The following is an official statement, collaboratively written by Tim Reichel, the Managing Director of FinalRep and Joshua Bock, the Global Head Judge. This statement refers to a voting and decision that has previously being made by the Judging Committee, based on a reported rule violation that took place in one of the WORLDS 25 Qualifier competitions.
This statement was written and published by public request of Marc Nassif (LINK IG REEL), who has been involved in one decision that has previously been made by the Judging Committee.
Clarification about the case
In the second week of July, the information has reached the Judging Committee, that a major rulebook violation has occurred at the USC competition (WORLDS 25 Qualifier). It was reported, that the athlete Marc Nassif was judged 3 times with a „no rep“ on his squat, which lead to an invalid competition total. After the competition, the first squat got overruled which lead to a valid total. This total made him qualify for the FinalRep WORLDS in the m+101kg category.
First intervention by the Judging Committee
Since this case contains a crucial rulebook violation (it is not allowed to overrule an attempt after the end of the competition) and a WORLDS 25 qualification, the committee decided to investigate on this case.
The investigation included:
- Review of the publicly available video material (LIVESTREAM LINK)
- The consultation with the head judge of the competition
- The consultation with the athlete
The evidence provided by the livestream alone shows a clear violation of the rules, which would have resulted in Marc Nassif’s immediate exclusion from the WORLDs. For reasons of fairness, the Judging Committee gave the athlete the opportunity to make a statement in order to get a complete picture of the situation and make a judgment based on this.
Based on the information gathered, the committee brought this case to vote. The voting thesis was „Marc Nassif is allowed to compete at WORLDS 25“. The result was „No“.
After the decision has been made, the FinalRep Management executed on it. This included informing the athlete about the voting by e-mail (plus attached process documentation) and the removal of the athletes approval in the WORLDS 25 registration (in the FinalRep App).
Review of the case
Shortly after this message, Marc’s coach respectfully mentioned his concerns and critics about this decision. He presented the case, that independent to the rulebook violation, it has to be taken into account, that the WORLDS registration is already running. The starter fees have already been paid, since the approval in the app has been made.
This position has then been brought again to the committee. Another extensive discussion about this issue has lead to a second voting about the same thesis. Although the voting weights shifted slightly to Marc’s favor, the result remained the same.
The decision and the voting documentation has again been share with Marc and his coach.
A third objection
Some days after this e-mail, a member of the Libanese Calisthenics Academy reached out to FinalRep to again present the case. It was requested to again review the given data on which the decisions previously have been made. In this conversation, a new information has been shared which gave a differed perspective of the events onsite. It was presented, that an overruling already happened after the first squat attempt, which just got not transmitted into the official scoreboard / FinalRep App. The reason for the delayed overruling was due to a allegedly technical error.
To complete the gathering of information, another and independent consultation with the head judge of the competition took place. This person confirmed the perspective shared in the previous conversation with the athlete’s representative.
This newly collected information was once again presented to the Judging Committee.
Final decision
Based on the information brought to the table as a „second review“, the committee reentered the debate about this case. Now, the discussion had three layers:
- Would the newly presented information lead to a new outcome, if a third voting would be conducted?
- Is the information presented reliable?
- Would a third voting undermine the credibility of the committee’s decision-making ability and the validity of the votes?
The committee concluded with majority, that the case presented now after second defense on the athletes side, the reliability of the information presented still remains questionable:
- Except the two statements, no verifiable proof exists (compared to the livestream recording which proofs 3 invalid judged reps)
- A personal consultation between the head judge and the athlete’s representatives cannot be ruled out
Furthermore, the members of the committee concluded, that a third voting would undermine the credibility of the committee’s decision-making ability and the validity of the votes.
The decision within the committee therefore was, to not bring the case to a third vote, and the result of the second voting remains.
Reflection of the situation
The case presented here has shown us – FinalRep as an organization and the Judging Committee – that handling such cases is a very sensitive and complex issue. The consequences that follow decisions like this can have a very broad impact. The expression of concern, critics and the request for public clarification from the athlete’s side has well demonstrated us, that this is more than „just a technical decision“.
Since its foundation, the overall purpose of FinalRep was to support the sport and serve the community, especially the athletes. We would therefore like to emphasize that both the decision and its implementation by the management were by no means easy. We as FinalRep, whether if it is the Management, the Judging Committee or any other future body that will be implemented in the sport structure, will always do our best to serve the sport and the athletes.
As Marc has showcased at this competition, he is indeed one of the strongest athletes in his weight category worldwide. However, this is not the only dimension that has to be taken into account here.
It is important to highlight, that the exclusion from the WORLDS has been made on the fact, that all 3 squat attempts have been judged initially as invalid and that this got irregularity overruled.
Implications for the work of the Judging Committee
This case has taken up a lot of resources in the recent days, both on the part of the FinalRep Management and on the part of the Judging Committee. Accordingly, there is a large amount of information and lessons learned that now need to be integrated into the further development of the structure.
Both the FinalRep Management and the Judging Committee – represented by the authors of this article – have agreed on prioritizing the development of a clear and transparent code for the work of the Judging Committee.
We are committed to improve the structure of the committee and the transparency of their work. We are convinced that this is one more necessary step towards fairness and professionalism within the sport.
With sincere regards,
Tim & Joshua
Join the FinalRep network
If you have read this article to its end, you might be one of a few who are really into the Streetlifting sport. If you are interested to support the work of FinalRep and share our vision to grow this sport, here are some links that might be interesting for you:
