Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: Canadians may finally get lost medals of '64

  1. #1
    Banned hockeynomad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    596

    IIHF Canadians may finally get lost medals of '64

    Here is exerpt from National Post, Friday April 29,2005.
    Due to IIHF bias against Canada at the time, the Canadian team was robbed of a bronze due to the tweaking of the rules during a hasty meeting conducted just prior to medal ceremony. Wow, changing the rules DURING a tournament.
    Those were the infamous days of IIHF head Bunny Ahearne, from that hockey hotbed of Great Britain.


    Canadians may finally get lost medals of '64: 'Good excuse for a party': IIHF investigates possible bias of past committee



    CALGARY - Terry O'Malley is all for the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) investigation that might belatedly award bronze medals to the 1964 Canadian Olympic hockey team.

    O'Malley is looking on with equal parts interest and amusement as the IIHF re-examines the alleged chicanery that shoved the Canadians off the podium at the 1964 Winter Olympics in Innsbruck, Austria.

    The trouble started when Canada tied Sweden and Czechoslovakia for positions two-through-four in the final standings of the round-robin competition. Based on the goals for/goals against tie-breaking procedure as the Canadians understood it, Canada figured to claim at least a bronze.

    "So we show up to pick up our medals," recalls team member Paul Conlin, "and we were told we weren't getting them."

    The way O'Malley remembers it, the IIHF committee -- led by Irish-born president John Francis (Bunny) Ahearne -- held an emergency meeting before the medals ceremony and tweaked the tie-breaking formula. There are different versions as to exactly how the skulduggery was done, but in any event, the Canadians -- whose roster included future NHLers Rod Seiling, Marshall Johnston, Brian Conacher, Seth Martin, Ken Broderick, Terry Clancy and George Swarbrick -- believe they got the shaft.

    The IIHF's motivation, depending on the point of view, was sentiment that was either anti-Canadian or pro-European.

    "Mr. Ahearne was doing what he could to boost European hockey," says Conlin, now an Ottawa-based lawyer. "Our theory was that this was another example of that, a way of giving European hockey a shot in the arm, so that Europe would get three medals and Canada would get nothing.

    "We were terribly upset and disappointed at the time but there didn't seem to be anything we could do about it. We tried (to fight it) at the time, but I'm not sure how hard we tried. I think we became resigned to the fact that there wasn't a whole lot we could do about it and just let it die."

    So forgotten is the story, even Hockey Canada president Bob Nicholson had been unaware it.

    "When the phone call came," admits Nicholson, "it was right out of the blue. I know a lot of those players, from O'Malley to Roger Bourbonnais to Derek Holmes and it had never come up in any discussion. But now when it's brought up, they're all very passionate about it."

    The possible injustice got new life when a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation producer doing research for a hockey documentary came across accounts of the '64 controversy. The IIHF will discuss the matter during the meetings that coincide with the world championship, which begin this weekend in -- coincidentally -- Austria. A ruling is expected in short order.

    "It's going to happen before the end of the world championships," says Nicholson. "It'll be a great story if when all the information unfolds that they do get a medal."
    Last edited by hockeynomad; 26-06-2005 at 15:45.

  2. #2
    IHF Staff Jazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Southern Canada
    Posts
    6,449
    I heard on the radio driving into work this morning that the IIHF has reversed the decision and now the Canadian team will NOT be awarded the medals as previously thought. A former player was on saying (obviously) that he was dissapointed with the turn-around. They added that Hockey Canada (federation) president Bob Nicholson will be appealing the decision.

  3. #3
    IHF Member bling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    802
    That is very strange, Jazz. I had thought this was all a done deal. I wonder what happened to change the decision?

  4. #4
    IHF Staff Jazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Southern Canada
    Posts
    6,449
    Dunno Bling - I just heard the tail-end of the interview....

  5. #5
    IHF Member Karsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Northern Zealand (in Denmark)
    Posts
    11,637
    Click at the link in the newsticker for an explanation.

  6. #6
    IHF Member Skratch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Riga, Latvia
    Posts
    955
    What's the big deal - just award three sets of silver medals like they sometimes do in other Olympic sports e.g. gymnastics... :stupid:
    Nothing to declare.

  7. #7
    Banned hockeynomad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    596
    http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/artic...10_004049_5212

    "Oops, I (IIHF) did it again". :yelclap: :stupid: :seeingsta :sleeping: :scratchhe

  8. #8
    Banned hockeynomad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    596
    The decision by IIHF to renge their plan to award a belted bronze medal (wow that's a way to run an organization) may have deep consequence.

    Hockey Canada may opt out of IIHF competitions after 2006.

    Here is exercept from Sportsnet article:

    "We were playing for a gold medal in that game; we win and we're Olympic champions," recalls former Toronto Maple Leaf and current NHL Alumni executive director Brian Conacher, who was a member of the original Bauer Bunch.

    That left the USSR with the gold at 7-0, but three teams -- Canada, Czechoslovakia and Sweden-- tied for second at 5-2. Under IIHF world championships goal differential rules, Sweden should have been placed second, Canada third and the Czechs fourth.

    But when the Canadians showed up at the rink for the medal presentations, they weren't allowed to take part. IIHF president Bunny Ahearne -- whose name and perceived anti-Canadianism were mostly reviled by Canucks -- had convened a rules-amending meeting during the very last game (there were no playoffs in those days). They decided that for the Olympic part of the tournament, the tie-breaking formula would be altered to include ALL games in the tournament.

    So, among others, those earlier Canadian victories by 4-2 over Germany and 6-2 over Finland would count on goal-differential, as would the Czechs' 11-2 and 4-0 triumphs over the same opponents. That was enough to give the bronze to the Czechs and send Canada to fourth.


    and more here:
    http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/colum...509_120740_964

    That "Bunny" Ahearne from Great Britain was really something. :013: :devileek: :076:

  9. #9
    IHF Staff Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    4,245
    Quote Originally Posted by hockeynomad
    That "Bunny" Ahearne from Great Britain was really something. :013: :devileek: :076:
    He was actually Irish... :D

    Graham.
    "It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
    ---
    "Night Watch", Terry Pratchett

  10. #10
    Banned hockeynomad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    596
    Dancan,

    Did you delete a thread here just now, regarding to the Sportsnet article.

    Your response was that the Canadian journalists offered very erroneous and biased information regarding the '64 Olympics bronze medal affair.

    You indicated that the IIHF and IOC had two different tie breaking formulas,
    and since the situation had not arisen till what seemed a possibly at the end of tournament, this rule lacked clarity.

    Interesting. What is the source of this information?

    This may refer to that hastily called for meeting prior to the medals ceremony,
    where these journalists feel a deliberate attempt to tweak the rules against Canada was behind this.

    The fact that Mr. Ahearne was very Anti-Canadian and what he viewed as professionalism was very obvious. I know that for a fact. Listening to some of the interviews conducted with Mr. Ahearne during his tenure, one would quickly surmise the guy was a bit of a buffoon.

    The article also states the Czechoslovaks refused their bronze, if that is true.
    Last edited by hockeynomad; 17-06-2005 at 14:39.

  11. #11
    IHF Member Karsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Northern Zealand (in Denmark)
    Posts
    11,637
    Reading these articles, I think its discomforting to read how Canadian hockey journalists are adding fuel to age-old anti-IIHF Canadian sentiments. That's one thing. Another thing is that some of the articles, in particular the last one referred to by hockeynomad are grossly misinforming their Canadian readers.

    The article leaves the impression that the rules were very clear and that Canada was denied not only the IHWC bronze medal, but also the Olympic bronze medal.

    CBC producer Terry Walker noticed this discrepancy, pointed it out to both the IIHF and Hockey Canada last November, and waited. He and reporter Tom Harrington kept pressing the IIHF, as did Hockey Canada, and 10 days ago it was announced that Canada would get its world bronze medals. But nothing was said about the Olympic bronze, because that would cast a huge shadow on the IIHF itself. The world bronze medals were easy to award. The whole thing was portrayed as an oversight that was now being corrected. And there couldn't really be any argument -- the rules of the day were right there in black and white. To go after the Olmpic medal, however, is a different quest, even though it was the same tournament, with the same on-ice results. To admit that Canada deserved an Olympic bronze medal -- hey, they could share it with the Czechs, as Sale and Pelletier shared their gold with the Russian pair -- the IIHF would have to admit that there was something sinister afoot in Innsbruck 41 years ago.
    But, hey, the rules were not so clear. As we all know, the 1964 Olympics comprised two championships in one tournament: an olympic competition and a IIHF world Championship. The problem was that the two tournaments had different tie-breaking rules. The Olympics took the goaldifferential for the whole tournament as the tie-breaking rule, while in the World Championship it was results of mutual game(s) that counted.

    Following this, and contrary to that the Canadian hockey journalists believe, Canada was never entitled to the Olympic bronze medal. But they were clearly denied the IHWC bronze medal because 'Bunny' Ahearne forced through a change of the IHWC rules in the run up to the last game.

    As in all previous Olympics, there was only one ceremony where the olympic medals were awarded. Since the Czechs won olympic bronze and Canada should have been awarded IHWC bronze, this would have implied that four flags should have been raised at the medal ceremony. This sometimes happens at the Olympics, but the problem here was that one of the flags - the Canadian - didn't win a olympic medal.

    Bunny Ahearne rigged the rules alright, and the IIHF attempted to put the record straight by awarding Canada the bronze medal at the 2005 IIHF Congress in Vienna. The decision was taken unanimously by the Council.

    I tend to believe that most council member thought it was pure neglect on IIHF's account. In the Olympic games it is the olympic medals that count and nothing else. So the IIHF could very well have forgotten about the different rules.
    But the Canadian CBC journalist wouldn't let up after Canadian had been awarded its bronze medal. He also believed that Canada was entitled to the Olympic bronze medal (read the article hockeynomad is referring to), so he decided to dig deeper. He managed to retrieve the minutes from the IIHF council held days after the 1964 Olympics.
    These minutes stated that Czechoslovakia had been awarded the Olympic bronze medals as well as the IHWC bronze medals . This gave rise to the a more troublesome matter. The thing is that the IIHF is perfectly aware that some odd decisions have been taken from time to time and that the rules have been changed frequently. To reverse the conclusions the 1964 IIHF council meeting would open up a Pandora's box as IIHF members might be tempted to challange every odd decision the IIHF has made throughout the years.
    As Murray Costello, a Canadian member of the IIHF council, has explained: "If we do that [i.e. reverse the IIHF's original decision], there's any number of decisions along the way that could be questioned. We'd open a Pandora's box that would lead right up to the present-day council and the decisions that they're making."
    (quote from this much sounder article, which however still not get it right - there was no medal round in the 1964 olympics):
    http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/artic...10_004049_5212

    So perhaps you should thank the persistent CBC journalist for Canada not beeing awarded its IHWC medal after all. There was never a chance that Canada would get the Olympic bronze medal so perhaps he should have stopped researching after Canada was awarded the IHWC bronze medal. Cheers mate! :drinker-g

    ------

    Btw, contrary to what the article says, Canada was by no means a slow starter in the tournament. The team started with a convincing 8-0 victory over Switzerland. In comparison, the Czechs only beat the Swiss 5-1. It was only much later in the tournament that Canada slowed down with minor victories over W. Germany and USA.

    And just for the record, the Czechs beat Canada 3-1 in the second-to-last round. Had the Czechs not suffered a big defeat (3-8) to Sweden in the last round, there had been no fuss. Canada would have ended up 4th in both tournaments.

  12. #12
    Banned hockeynomad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    596
    Quote Originally Posted by Graham
    He was actually Irish... :D

    Graham.
    Irish. So I stand corrected. An IIHF chief from that hockey hotbed of Ireland.
    Same with Rene Fasal from Switzerland.


    You'd never see an American head of FIFA. That would be a denigration of the sport of football.

    I'm repeating myself. I think I've mentioned this before.
    Last edited by hockeynomad; 19-06-2005 at 00:21.

  13. #13
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    France
    Posts
    743
    Switzerland is certainly more an ice hockey nation than USA is a soccer nation.

    By the way the FIFA president is Swiss too...

    Why so many Swiss people ? Probably the famous Swiss mafia...

    Seriously, it's just Swiss have the diplomatic qualities to stay "neutral" (which they have always been politically) with all the passion involved with national prides and so on.
    These diplomatic qualities are important to a federation president. That's why you wouldn't do such a good president, sorry :003:
    That's the way it crumbles, cookie-wise

  14. #14
    Banned hockeynomad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    596
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc
    Switzerland is certainly more an ice hockey nation than USA is a soccer nation.
    Last I checked the US are ranked eight or ninth in FIFA rankings.
    Much higher than the Swiss.

    By the way the FIFA president is Swiss too...

    Why so many Swiss people ? Probably the famous Swiss mafia...

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc
    Seriously, it's just Swiss have the diplomatic qualities to stay "neutral" (which they have always been politically) with all the passion involved with national prides and so on.
    They are not the only neutral country. Come on this is sport. Get the best person, not the politically correct one. Disassociate sport with nationality.
    I guess that's not possible abroad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc
    These diplomatic qualities are important to a federation president. That's why you wouldn't do such a good president, sorry :003:
    Again, with respect to my nationality, I'm out of the running. :stupid:

  15. #15
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    France
    Posts
    743
    Switzerland is eighth in IIHF rankings.

    FIFA rankings (sorry, the "FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking", that says all) are a joke, as everybody knows. All the CONCACAF countries are overvalued. USA is not stronger than Italy, Costa Rica is not stronger than Colombia and Cameroon, Guatemala is not stronger than Hungary, and so on...

    Few countries have developed the notion of neutrality as much as Switzerland.

    Get the best person, not the politically correct one.
    I don't know what a "best person" is. You only need someone with certain qualities, and diplomacy is one of them. (not "politically correct", which is a North American invention, and which doesn't really apply to Fasel.)

    Disassociate sport with nationality.
    That's exactly why the Swiss offer the best package : because they don't try to favor their nation and dissociate sport with nationality.

    Disassociate sport with nationality. I guess that's not possible abroad.
    That doesn't seem possible considering the way the Canadian media reacts to this affair, indeed.
    That's the way it crumbles, cookie-wise

  16. #16
    Banned hockeynomad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    596
    Peace. brother. :023: Enjoy the summer. :drink2: :drinker-g

  17. #17
    IHF Member Peach's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Vsetin, Czech Republic
    Posts
    76
    I'm not sure you can compare hockey and football. 20th in football is pretty darn good. 8th in hockey is just verging on the top tier. :) Apples and oranges.

  18. #18
    Banned hockeynomad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    596
    Quote Originally Posted by Peach
    I'm not sure you can compare hockey and football. 20th in football is pretty darn good. 8th in hockey is just verging on the top tier. :) Apples and oranges.

    Hi Peach. I notice your avatar is Team Canada, but you are from Czech Republic. Are their Canuck fans there?

    Myself I like the Czech brand of hockey and repect the team very much.

    Not just that, but one day wish to visit there, particularly Prague a cultural gem.

  19. #19
    IHF Staff Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    4,245
    Quote Originally Posted by hockeynomad
    Disassociate sport with nationality.
    You could argue that was what the IIHF did by having an Irish president... :devileek:

    Graham.
    "It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
    ---
    "Night Watch", Terry Pratchett

  20. #20
    IHF Member Peach's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Vsetin, Czech Republic
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by hockeynomad
    Hi Peach. I notice your avatar is Team Canada, but you are from Czech Republic. Are their Canuck fans there?

    Myself I like the Czech brand of hockey and repect the team very much.

    Not just that, but one day wish to visit there, particularly Prague a cultural gem.
    Well, as far as I know I'm the only Canuck fan in the town I live in, but that's because I am Canadian (it's a lonely existence sometimes). In fact that's a major reason for me joining this forum; to speak about hockey in a non-partisan, rational environment (not that I claim to be rational nor by any means non-partisan). My wife is Czech and I run a language school here.

    Prague is great, but there's much more to see here... Let me or the other Czech members know if you come and we'll set you straight.

  21. #21
    Banned hockeynomad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    596
    Quote Originally Posted by Peach
    Let me or the other Czech members know if you come and we'll set you straight.
    Hi Peach. Interesting about you moving to your spouse's homeland and settling there. You're seeing more of people relocating in eastern europe.
    Usually its the other way around.

    My background is slovenian and there is an effort there to reclaim some of
    their expatriates.

    Did I lose something in translation, about "setting me straight"?

    Cheers.

  22. #22
    IHF Member Peach's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Vsetin, Czech Republic
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by hockeynomad
    Hi Peach. Interesting about you moving to your spouse's homeland and settling there. You're seeing more of people relocating in eastern europe.
    Usually its the other way around.

    My background is slovenian and there is an effort there to reclaim some of
    their expatriates.

    Did I lose something in translation, about "setting me straight"?

    Cheers.

    Sorry Hockeynomad, I meant point you in the right direction in what's worth seeing, maybe visiting and going for a pint, whatever....

  23. #23
    IHF Prospect
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3
    Just to clarify some things for you.

    The CBC Producer from the new series 'Hockey - A People's History', noticed that on the IIHF website, that Canada was listed as third place (bronze) winners in the WC in 1964. He started asking questions about why no bronze medals were awarded. That started the chain of events. There was a story in the making so a CBC reporter aired the story on the National News.

    It was the players from that 1964 team who wanted to proceed with the investigation of Olympic Bronze and they based their request on information that they have. It was something they believed strongly on based on what had happened in 1964. Members of that team are now lawyers and hockey historians and they have thought this out.

    The CBC reporter merely ran this follow up story and of course, like a good journalist, started accumulating facts on the new quest. (like a good journalist should do).

    Also, the Canadian players have reported that they were encouraged NOT to run up scores against the weaker teams and to play with 'sportsmanship'. The players also report that they were told that the scoring from those games would not count in any tie-breaking formula. That will explain the 'minor victories' you talk about.

    Finally, it looks like the IIHF is worried about the 'odd decisions' made over the years that may now be challenged. It makes you wonder what they are afraid of.

    I think that if you were following international hockey events from the 1960's in Canada, you may not think its so 'discomforting' to believe there was an anti-Canadian sentiment in the IIHF at that time. Bunny Ahearne's actions are a big part of that.

    HockeyNomad has it right and the arcticles are not 'grossly misinforming' Canadians as you say. There is always more to the story.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dancan
    Reading these articles, I think its discomforting to read how Canadian hockey journalists are adding fuel to age-old anti-IIHF Canadian sentiments. That's one thing. Another thing is that some of the articles, in particular the last one referred to by hockeynomad are grossly misinforming their Canadian readers.

    The article leaves the impression that the rules were very clear and that Canada was denied not only the IHWC bronze medal, but also the Olympic bronze medal.

    But, hey, the rules were not so clear. As we all know, the 1964 Olympics comprised two championships in one tournament: an olympic competition and a IIHF world Championship. The problem was that the two tournaments had different tie-breaking rules. The Olympics took the goaldifferential for the whole tournament as the tie-breaking rule, while in the World Championship it was results of mutual game(s) that counted.

    Following this, and contrary to that the Canadian hockey journalists believe, Canada was never entitled to the Olympic bronze medal. But they were clearly denied the IHWC bronze medal because 'Bunny' Ahearne forced through a change of the IHWC rules in the run up to the last game.

    As in all previous Olympics, there was only one ceremony where the olympic medals were awarded. Since the Czechs won olympic bronze and Canada should have been awarded IHWC bronze, this would have implied that four flags should have been raised at the medal ceremony. This sometimes happens at the Olympics, but the problem here was that one of the flags - the Canadian - didn't win a olympic medal.

    Bunny Ahearne rigged the rules alright, and the IIHF attempted to put the record straight by awarding Canada the bronze medal at the 2005 IIHF Congress in Vienna. The decision was taken unanimously by the Council.

    I tend to believe that most council member thought it was pure neglect on IIHF's account. In the Olympic games it is the olympic medals that count and nothing else. So the IIHF could very well have forgotten about the different rules.
    But the Canadian CBC journalist wouldn't let up after Canadian had been awarded its bronze medal. He also believed that Canada was entitled to the Olympic bronze medal (read the article hockeynomad is referring to), so he decided to dig deeper. He managed to retrieve the minutes from the IIHF council held days after the 1964 Olympics.
    These minutes stated that Czechoslovakia had been awarded the Olympic bronze medals as well as the IHWC bronze medals . This gave rise to the a more troublesome matter. The thing is that the IIHF is perfectly aware that some odd decisions have been taken from time to time and that the rules have been changed frequently. To reverse the conclusions the 1964 IIHF council meeting would open up a Pandora's box as IIHF members might be tempted to challange every odd decision the IIHF has made throughout the years.
    As Murray Costello, a Canadian member of the IIHF council, has explained: "If we do that [i.e. reverse the IIHF's original decision], there's any number of decisions along the way that could be questioned. We'd open a Pandora's box that would lead right up to the present-day council and the decisions that they're making."
    (quote from this much sounder article, which however still not get it right - there was no medal round in the 1964 olympics):
    http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/artic...10_004049_5212

    So perhaps you should thank the persistent CBC journalist for Canada not beeing awarded its IHWC medal after all. There was never a chance that Canada would get the Olympic bronze medal so perhaps he should have stopped researching after Canada was awarded the IHWC bronze medal. Cheers mate! :drinker-g

    ------

    Btw, contrary to what the article says, Canada was by no means a slow starter in the tournament. The team started with a convincing 8-0 victory over Switzerland. In comparison, the Czechs only beat the Swiss 5-1. It was only much later in the tournament that Canada slowed down with minor victories over W. Germany and USA.

    And just for the record, the Czechs beat Canada 3-1 in the second-to-last round. Had the Czechs not suffered a big defeat (3-8) to Sweden in the last round, there had been no fuss. Canada would have ended up 4th in both tournaments.

  24. #24
    IHF Member Karsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Northern Zealand (in Denmark)
    Posts
    11,637
    Vintage hockey, thanks for your reply.

    Basically, there's nothing in your post that contradicts what I have already written. My point is exactly that things were more complicated than the CBC journalist would like his Canadian readers to believe. The journalist wanted his readers to believe that the rules were quite simple and what Bunny Ahearne and the IIHF council did was a matter of simple theft. That's what I am referring to when I say that the journalist is misinforming his readers and adding fuel to the age-old Canadian anti-IIHF sentiment -- which goes much further back than the 1964 Olympics!
    http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/colum...509_120740_964

    I have now taken the opportunity to read the article again...and I am still shaking my head. :shakehead

    Take for instance the following paragraph:

    This was a straight theft. No one knew at touranment's start that would be the rule, so the Canadians hadn't had the chance to run up the scores against the also-rans...And by the rules in force when the tournament started, they won that medal. Now they should get it.


    First, how can it be "straight theft" if "No one knew at touranment's start that would be the rule"? Second, if noone knew the rules, how could the Canadians be more disadvantaged than the other big teams? Third, how would the journalist know what rules were "in force when the tournament started" when no one knew the rules when the tournament started? :shakehead

    It may very well be that the Canadians were encouraged not to run-up big scores against the weaker teams and to play with sportsmanship. Interesting point by the way - for how does this square with Canada's demolishing of Yugoslavia (14-1) in the qualification round on 28 January 1964? - But that's not what the article says:

    At the 1964 Games, the Canucks won their first four games, trying to build momentum until the final three matches when they would play the three other main contenders, the defending gold medalist Americans, defending silver medalists Soviet Union and strong Czechoslovakia. So they didn't run up any scores, because under IIIHF rules for world championships, in any multi-team tie in the standings, the tie would be broken by goals for and against in games involving the top teams only. No use beating up on also-rans.

    As I pointed out above, Canada's opening victory over Switzerland (8-0) - the weakest team in the tournament- was much bigger than Czechoslovakia's victory over the same opponent (5-1). Also, Czechoslovakia's victory over Finland (6-2) - the third weakest team of the tournament - was not bigger than Canada's victory over the same opponent. Czechslovakia only ended up with a better goal difference because of its bigger victories against Germany (and to some extent USA). So for several reasons, I think that the journalist's (and the Canadian players') argument is flawed.

    Noting that under IIIHF rules for world championships, in any multi-team tie in the standings, the tie would be broken by goals for and against in games involving the top teams only the journalist goes on to note that I iss important to remember that from 1924 to 1968, the Olympic tournament also served as the world championships. So the same rules should have been in place for both tourneys, since they WERE exactly the same tournament.

    Right, apart from two facts:

    1) whereas the IHWC was a IIHF only sponsored tournament, the hockey tournaments at the olympics are OIC/IIHF sponsored tournaments.

    This implies that the IIHF council could not change the rules for the Olympic part of the tournament without getting endorsement from the OIC. And if, in fact, the OIC endorsed Bunny Ahearne's rule change, then the journalist should address the OIC and not the IIHF. In the minutes from the IIHF council of 64 you won't find any references to the OIC for one simple reason: Bunny Ahearne and the other IIHF council members did not change the Olympic rules, they 'only' changed the IHWC rules.

    In the years around 1964, the playing formats of the IHWC and the Olympics were different implying that they couldn't be compared

    The 1963 IHWC was similar to the 1964 Olympics in the sense that 8 teams played seven games without a medal round. The tie-breaking rule referred to applied in the IHWC tournaments. The two preceeding Olympics (1956 and 1964), however, had a medal round where the games from the preliminary round didn't count.

    You have to go back to the 1948 Olympics (in St. Moritz) to find an Olympic tournament with a format similar to the 1963 IHWC. And if you go back to this Olympic tournament, you will find the key to the difference in rules:

    In the 1948 Olympics, Canada and Czechoslovakia tied the first place, and hence the gold medal - each with 15 points. If you don't find this ironic, then get this: Canada won the gold medal because of its better overall goal difference (69 to 5 or +64 against the Czech's 80 to 18 or +62 - in other words' two goals difference). Now what would have happened if the tournament had used the IIHF tie breaking rules referred to by the Canadian journalist? It basically depend on what is meant by top teams? If the medal teams only included the medal winners, then Czechoslovakia should have been awarded the gold medal since the Czechs ran up a bigger victory than Canada against Switzerland, the bronze medal winner. If the top teams involved the six best teams - as in the 1956 and 1960 medal round - then the Czechs should also have been awarded gold (both teams's goal difference would have been +17 but the Czechs would have won the gold on more goals scored - 28 vs 21). Canada would only have won gold if the top teams excluded Great Britain (#6). But what sense would it make ti exclude Great Britain - the bronze winner of the 1936 Olympics - and a team that was almost as good as USA and Sweden (Great Britain played very even games vs these two teams and only lost narrowly 3-4 in both games)?

    But Czechoslovakia did not win the gold medal since it was the overall goal difference that counted. Consistently, the same Olympic rules applied in 1964 and this time to the Czech's advantage.
    The reason for all the confusion in 64 was that the format of Olympic tournament looked like 1963 IHWC tournament, but the Olympic part of the 1964 tournament was played under Olympic rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by vintage hockey
    Finally, it looks like the IIHF is worried about the 'odd decisions' made over the years that may now be challenged. It makes you wonder what they are afraid of.
    I have already answered this by referring to the Murray Costello. It would open up a Pandora's box where IIHF members could challenge every odd decision and rule change back in time.

    Apart from being interested in the history of international hockey, I am a specialist in international law as well. So let me explain what opening the Pandora's box could imply:

    If the IIHW were to award Canada the olympic bronze medal in 1964 instead of Czechoslovakia - ignoring the fact that the IIHF cannot do this without consulting the OIC – then it would need a legal basis. The best legal basis would be an OIC/IIHF document explicitly describing the tie-breaking rules for the Olympic tournament. I am pretty sure such a document does not exist. Why it does not exist is an intriguing question since the format of the Olympic tournament changed between 1960 and 1964. The OIC/IIHF would then have to base their decision on customary law. Two different customary laws would qualify: either the IHWC tie-breaking rules or the customary laws from previous Olympics. Since the Olympics are legally different from the IHWC's - the Olympics are under the final jurisdiction of OIC whereas the IHWC's are under the final jurisdiction of the IIHF – it is fair to guess that the International Court of Arbitration for Sport (in Lausanne, Switzerland) would base its verdict on the jurisprudence of Olympic tournaments if any IIHF member were to challenge the IIHF/OIC's decision to award Canada the olympic bronze medal. The jurisprudence would here be based on the customary law derived from the 1948 Olympics - a tournament completely similar to the 1964 Olympics. And this means, that the Czech Federation would have all the odds of winning the case if it were to challenge the IIHF/OIC's re-decision. And I'm pretty sure that the Czech federation would file the case for the Court of Arbitration. The Czech Federation could easily argue that if Canada were to be awarded the 1964 bronze medal, then Czechoslovakia should be awarded the gold medal of 1948. The legal argument for this, however, would not be particularly strong. It would be much safer for the Czech federation to argue that in the absence of any explicit rule change, the tie-breaking rules for the 1964 Olympics was based on the customary law of previous Olympics (specifically the 1948 Olympics) and hence it would be illegal for the OIC/IIHF to award the 1964 bronze medal to Canada instead of Czech Republic.

    So, you see, it would make no sense for IIHF/OIC to change the 1964 decision since this would lead to a legal challenge that they would most likely loose.

    It would be nice if the Canadian hockey journalist (or other Canadian hockey journalists) would inform his readers about what I have just explained here. The decision not to award Canada the IHWC bronze medal was wrong, but it was not wrong not to award Canada the Olympic bronze medal. Thanks!
    Last edited by Karsten; 26-06-2005 at 00:48.

  25. #25
    IHF Prospect
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3
    Thanks for all the info, it just shows how complicated the situation can really be.

    I wasn't trying to contradict your writing but merely trying to give you background on the origins of the recent request for the medals.

    All the other 'odd' decisions that have been made over the years merely suggests inconsistencies and biases and doesn't reflect well on the IIHF leaders and members who made decisions. But that's another story for another book (if someone is daring enough to write it).

    But the point here is that the Canadian players from that 1964 team are not interested in other 'odd decisions' made prior to 1964 or after. They are an emotional bunch who have harboured resentment for many years. Simply put, they felt cheated in this case. I've spoken to a number of the players and they are still passionate and angry about what happened. The reporter is reflecting those emotions. He could be better informed but that is for you to write to him with your views. The players say they were told what the rules were at the start of the tournament. They were there. They experienced it.
    They should be taken seriously.

    You certainly have a good grasp of the issues but you must remember that the emotions of the players from that team are playing a part in their decisions now. And, this age old anti-IIHF sentiment is not something that is trivial, especially if you watched International hockey in the Ahearne dominated years. This anti-IIHF feeling is real in mine and many other Canadians opinions very, very warranted. Many Europeans could never understand that, unfortunately.

  26. #26
    IHF Member Karsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Northern Zealand (in Denmark)
    Posts
    11,637
    Yes, you are right. Many Europeans, and to a certain extent myself, do not truly understand the anti-IIHF sentiment among Canadians. I do not intend to make a rant here, but I have the feeling that it might help for Canadians to moderate their views if they got a wider picture on the history of the IIHF. You are saying that "the Canadian players from that 1964 team are not interested in other 'odd decisions' made prior to 1964 or after". To me, that is not a very helpful attitude because they need to become interested in related incidents in order to understand what happened in 1964.

    Unfortunately, it would require a rather long article to explain the chequered history of IIHF's odd decisions in detail. I don't have time to do this. But very briefly: If you turn the pages of the history of international hockey, you will find that the the LIGH/IIHF have changed the formats of the world championships and the Olympics frequently. From time to time, this has caused confusion about the more special and less-frequently used rules such as the tie-breaking rules. At times, the confusion has been all the more bigger since the IIHF officials have not been very good at communicating the precise rules. Perhaps, I am only speculating here but as will become clear below my speculation is well-founded, because the IIHF hadn't thought about making rules for every contigent situation.

    I was barely around in 1964 and it would take another eight years for me to get old enough to become interested in hockey, but having made some further research on the incident of 1964, there are things that I do not understand.

    My biggest question is why the Canadian players believed that in the event that two or more teams tied on points, it would only be the games from the medal round that would count - in particular considering that the 1964 Olympics didn't have a medal round? You are telling me that the players were informed about this from the start of the tournament, but they were informed by Canadian officials, right? Officials who basically knew as little as themselves about the specific rules.

    The CBC journalist is basing his argument on the fact that the 1964 Olympics were also the 1964 IHWC, and thus the rules for the Olympics should be governed by the IHWC rules. I am saying that the Olympics and the IHWC are two different tournaments, otherwise it wouldn't make sense to make any distinction between the Olympic and the IHWC standings in Olympic years. And because they are two different tournaments, they may also have different rules.

    Since my last post I have done some further research and things are certainly getting more confusing:

    So far, I have tended to believe that some of the teams (not only Canada) entered the 1964 Olympic tournament in the belief that the IHWC rules would apply. The format of the 1964 Olympics was after all similar to the IHWC with 8 teams playing a one round all-vs-all, and it didn't look like the 1956 and 1960 Olympics which both had a medal round. I have also tended to believe, and still do, that most teams didn't think much about the prospect of a tie-breaking standing until the end of the tournament.

    Now, if we follow the argument by the CBC journalist that the rules for the 1964 Olympics must have been guided by the IHWC rules, it makes sense to go back to the 1963 IHWC to look at the rules for this championship.

    The interesting thing about the 1963 IHWC, which took place in Stockholm, is that Sweden and Soviet Union both tied the first place - and hence the gold medal - with 12 points each. The tie-breaking rule thus became crucial. There were several possibilities: the obvious tie-breaking rule would be to look for the result of the game between Sweden and USSR. Here, Sweden won the game 2-1 and should then have been awarded the gold. Another solution was to look at the games between the four top teams. In this case, Sweden and USSR both ended up with 6 points and exactly the same goal score, 8-5 (Sweden lost to Czechoslovakia both beat Canada 4-1 and USSR 2-1; USSR lost to Sweden 1-2, but beat Canada 4-2 and Czechoslovakia 3-1). To solve this stalemate, it would have required the IIHF either to announce a rematch between Sweden and USSR or let the game between Sweden and USSR be decisive, in which case Sweden won the gold. But Sweden didn't win the gold medal in 1963. The reason is that the tie-breaking rule was based on the overall goal difference and here USSR came on top with +41 vs Sweden's +34.

    It should be pretty easy to see the implications of this: If the IHWC rules applied to the 1964 Olympics then Canada should not even have been awarded the IHWC bronze medal!.

    So why did the IIHF announce ex-post that Canada had won the IHWC bronze medal?

    There are two answers to this question:

    1) In the run-up to the 1964 Olympics, the IIHF may have announced that the IHWC tie-breaking rule had been changed again so that a tie would be decided by mutual games between the four top teams.
    If the IIHF had made such an announcement, then why not announcing the tie-breaking rule for the Olympics as well? The Olympics was after all the primary tournament.
    If the IIHF had not made the announcement, then it must be clear that the tie-breaking rule from the 1963 IHWC would apply - at least for the IHWC part of the 1964 tournament.

    I dare you to come up with evidence that the IIHF made such an annoucement. I am quite sure that you won't find for the simple reason that it was never made! But since this is the crucial issue, it is necessary to look for any evidence.

    My take on this is that the IIHF's decision on the tie-breaking rule was made ad hoc. More precisely before the last round of the 1964 Olympics when it became clear that the final standings could very easily end with some teams tieing each other. And my new take on this is that Bunny Ahearne's decision was entirely consistent with not only the 1963 IHWC tie-breaking rule but also with the tie-breaking rules for previous Olympics that had a similar format (1948 and 1952).

    My argument that the Bunny Ahearne and the IIHF council took the decision ad hoc is absolutely not without precedence. In the 1952 Olympics, Sweden and Czechoslovakia both tied the bronze medal place with exactly the same points and goal difference (+29). The Czechs believed that the had won the bronze because they had beaten Sweden 4-0 in their head-to-head game (although Sweden had a better record against Canada and USA, the two top teams). But like in the 1964 Olympics, the head-to-head game didn't count (otherwise there would have been no controversy determining the winner of the bronze medal in 1964, the Czechs beat Canada), and it was therefore decided to play a rematch between Sweden and Czechoslovakia, a game which Sweden won 5-3. The Czech press raged after the loss denouncing the IIHF's decision as a 'capitalist complot'! See a parallel to the Canadian reaction in 1964?

    So maybe Bunny Ahearne didn't do anything wrong after all, except from being extremely sloppy communicating the rules?
    In the IIHF council minutes that the CBC journalist managed to dig up, it was stated that Czechoslovakia was awarded both the olympic and IHWC bronze medal. This now makes sense since the tie-breaking rule for the Olympic tournament (overall goal difference would count in the event of a tie-break) was no different from the tie-breaking rule of the 1963 IHWC!

    2) And this lead me to the second answer. Please recall that what started the CBC journalist's investigation was that he had noted that Canada was listed as the bronze medal winner on IIHF's website. This website was obviously made many years after the dust from the 1964 Olympics had settled.
    What could have happened is this: The new IIHF staff was not aware of the tie-breaking rule (overall goal difference) that was introduced in 1963. Hence they believed that the tie-breaking rule for the IHWC part of the 1964 Olympics was the more traditional one, namely either head-to-head games between tie-breaking teams or points and goaldifference from the medal round (or among the top teams).
    According to this line of thinking the fault was made at a much later point, namely when the IIHF started to list Canada as the bronze medal winner (which contradicted the line of argument in the first answer as well as the minutes from the IHWC council).

    All this still begs the question why the Canadian players felt so ill-treated. I do not doubt that they truly believed that the tie-breaking rule was different from overall goal difference. But why did they come to this belief? I have just taken a re-look at 'Tre Kronor genom tiderna' which is the official book on the history of Team Sweden. According to the journalist who wrote the book, Team Sweden was also confused about the 1964 rules and some of the players and staff members also had the same belief as the Canadian players.

    The question is why? The tie-breaking rules of the 1964 Olympics could only have been different from the 1963 IHWC (and the 1948 and 1952 Olympics) if the IIHF had made an announcement of this. And if the IIHF had made this announcement, there should have been no controversy since it could be clearly proven that Bunny Ahearne changed the rules during the tournament.

    So this is the task for the CBC journalist: If he can forward evidence that the IIHF changed the tie-breaking rule in the run up to the 1964 Olympics (and then changed it during the Olympics), then a 'crime', or whatever you may call it, has been committed. If he can not forward any evidence, then I think the case should be put to rest since IIHF's decision during the Olympics just confirmed the tie-breaking rule from the 1963 IHWC (as well as the 1948 and 1952 Olympics).

  27. #27
    IHF Prospect
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3
    I'm not going to get into the details of your response but you are peaching to the wrong person. I am not talking about prior decisions that the IIHF had made. The players are only concerned about what happened to them in 1964 and why they arrived at the medal ceremony thinking they had won bronze for the WC but were turned away. I am trying to simplify this and taking it from their point of view which is more important to me than any other 'odd' decisions. I lived through the 1960's in Canada watching and studying International hockey and its relationship to Canada. My views then were that the Bunny Ahearne adminstration was corrupt when dealing with Canada and
    nothing since has changed that view. Many Canadians believed it was a personal thing with Ahearne against Canada. What happened in 1964 was an example.
    Why should the Canadian team from 1964 try to understand and be concerned about what unusual decisions that the IIHF made in other years? They are concerned about the bronze medals in the WC in 1964 and how they were denied those medals. You have a lot of knowledge about all those IIHF decisions over the years and are trying to bring in that information to maybe 'justify' what happened in 1964. I'm saying that this issue, in the players minds, is trying to right a wrong to them in 1964. And the IIHF is trying to use other years 'odd' decisions to justify denying the WC bronze medals to the Canadian team. To me, that is a very, very poor excuse and they should not hide behind any 'can of worms'. They already had stated that that they would award the bronze medals to the 1964 team because it was an 'oversight'. Now, when there is a possibility of investigations, they renege on the deal. This is 2005 and not the 1960's, they should be more progressive than that.
    So, please try to understand this from the simplest of forms. The Canadian team is only interested in what happened in 1964 and that is it. They feel they were cheated and have a right to try to have that remedied.
    All these other facts you bring in only further the views that the IIHF was a
    dysfunctional group with tremendous biases and politics.
    I assume you are from Europe and have your views based on your environment. The same goes for me. I am Canadian and I view things based on my history and what I believe.
    To many people here, its a simple thing. Bunny Ahearne was viewed as the 'enemy'. He purposely tried to handicap the Canadian teams. 1964 was the worst example. The players were there and feel cheated. They are trying to right the wrong in 1964 and to them, it was an isolated event. It is not their concern about opening any 'can of worms' and why should they be concerned? They are very jaded by their bad experiences. Put yourself in their shoes. Wouldn't you be?
    Your analysis and investigation is interesting and well thought out. If you want to air these views to the right people, I can put you in touch with the players and the newspeople. You need to meet and talk to them and feel their emotions as I have.
    Canadians always remember the time that Bunny Ahearne was speechless for a change.
    At a function after a tournament, Terry O'Malley of the Canadian team happened to have the misfortune of sitting beside the hated Bunny Ahearne. During their discussion Bunny Ahearne said to O'Malley, "you Canadians, you have no history', to which O'Malley responded, "yes we do, and we have gravestones all over Europe to prove it.". Ahearne then high-tailed it out of there to another table. Anything to me that tries to justify any of Ahearne's dealings in the 1960's is very distasteful to me and especially to the members of the 1964 Canadian team.

    I think this has run its course and I respect your thoughts but if you want to the opportunity to discuss your findings with the players, send me a private email and I'll give you the info for you to contact them.

    I'll move on now.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dancan
    Yes, you are right. Many Europeans, and to a certain extent myself, do not truly understand the anti-IIHF sentiment among Canadians. I do not intend to make a rant here, but I have the feeling that it might help for Canadians to moderate their views if they got a wider picture on the history of the IIHF. You are saying that "the Canadian players from that 1964 team are not interested in other 'odd decisions' made prior to 1964 or after". To me, that is not a very helpful attitude because they need to become interested in related incidents in order to understand what happened in 1964.

    Unfortunately, it would require a rather long article to explain the chequered history of IIHF's odd decisions in detail. I don't have time to do this. But very briefly: If you turn the pages of the history of international hockey, you will find that the the LIGH/IIHF have changed the formats of the world championships and the Olympics frequently. From time to time, this has caused confusion about the more special and less-frequently used rules such as the tie-breaking rules. At times, the confusion has been all the more bigger since the IIHF officials have not been very good at communicating the precise rules. Perhaps, I am only speculating here but as will become clear below my speculation is well-founded, because the IIHF hadn't thought about making rules for every contigent situation.

    I was barely around in 1964 and it would take another eight years for me to get old enough to become interested in hockey, but having made some further research on the incident of 1964, there are things that I do not understand.

    My biggest question is why the Canadian players believed that in the event that two or more teams tied on points, it would only be the games from the medal round that would count - in particular considering that the 1964 Olympics didn't have a medal round? You are telling me that the players were informed about this from the start of the tournament, but they were informed by Canadian officials, right? Officials who basically knew as little as themselves about the specific rules.

    The CBC journalist is basing his argument on the fact that the 1964 Olympics were also the 1964 IHWC, and thus the rules for the Olympics should be governed by the IHWC rules. I am saying that the Olympics and the IHWC are two different tournaments, otherwise it wouldn't make sense to make any distinction between the Olympic and the IHWC standings in Olympic years. And because they are two different tournaments, they may also have different rules.

    Since my last post I have done some further research and things are certainly getting more confusing:

    So far, I have tended to believe that some of the teams (not only Canada) entered the 1964 Olympic tournament in the belief that the IHWC rules would apply. The format of the 1964 Olympics was after all similar to the IHWC with 8 teams playing a one round all-vs-all, and it didn't look like the 1956 and 1960 Olympics which both had a medal round. I have also tended to believe, and still do, that most teams didn't think much about the prospect of a tie-breaking standing until the end of the tournament.

    Now, if we follow the argument by the CBC journalist that the rules for the 1964 Olympics must have been guided by the IHWC rules, it makes sense to go back to the 1963 IHWC to look at the rules for this championship.

    The interesting thing about the 1963 IHWC, which took place in Stockholm, is that Sweden and Soviet Union both tied the first place - and hence the gold medal - with 12 points each. The tie-breaking rule thus became crucial. There were several possibilities: the obvious tie-breaking rule would be to look for the result of the game between Sweden and USSR. Here, Sweden won the game 2-1 and should then have been awarded the gold. Another solution was to look at the games between the four top teams. In this case, Sweden and USSR both ended up with 6 points and exactly the same goal score, 8-5 (Sweden lost to Czechoslovakia both beat Canada 4-1 and USSR 2-1; USSR lost to Sweden 1-2, but beat Canada 4-2 and Czechoslovakia 3-1). To solve this stalemate, it would have required the IIHF either to announce a rematch between Sweden and USSR or let the game between Sweden and USSR be decisive, in which case Sweden won the gold. But Sweden didn't win the gold medal in 1963. The reason is that the tie-breaking rule was based on the overall goal difference and here USSR came on top with +41 vs Sweden's +34.

    It should be pretty easy to see the implications of this: If the IHWC rules applied to the 1964 Olympics then Canada should not even have been awarded the IHWC bronze medal!.

    So why did the IIHF announce ex-post that Canada had won the IHWC bronze medal?

    There are two answers to this question:

    1) In the run-up to the 1964 Olympics, the IIHF may have announced that the IHWC tie-breaking rule had been changed again so that a tie would be decided by mutual games between the four top teams.
    If the IIHF had made such an announcement, then why not announcing the tie-breaking rule for the Olympics as well? The Olympics was after all the primary tournament.
    If the IIHF had not made the announcement, then it must be clear that the tie-breaking rule from the 1963 IHWC would apply - at least for the IHWC part of the 1964 tournament.

    I dare you to come up with evidence that the IIHF made such an annoucement. I am quite sure that you won't find for the simple reason that it was never made! But since this is the crucial issue, it is necessary to look for any evidence.

    My take on this is that the IIHF's decision on the tie-breaking rule was made ad hoc. More precisely before the last round of the 1964 Olympics when it became clear that the final standings could very easily end with some teams tieing each other. And my new take on this is that Bunny Ahearne's decision was entirely consistent with not only the 1963 IHWC tie-breaking rule but also with the tie-breaking rules for previous Olympics that had a similar format (1948 and 1952).

    My argument that the Bunny Ahearne and the IIHF council took the decision ad hoc is absolutely not without precedence. In the 1952 Olympics, Sweden and Czechoslovakia both tied the bronze medal place with exactly the same points and goal difference (+29). The Czechs believed that the had won the bronze because they had beaten Sweden 4-0 in their head-to-head game (although Sweden had a better record against Canada and USA, the two top teams). But like in the 1964 Olympics, the head-to-head game didn't count (otherwise there would have been no controversy determining the winner of the bronze medal in 1964, the Czechs beat Canada), and it was therefore decided to play a rematch between Sweden and Czechoslovakia, a game which Sweden won 5-3. The Czech press raged after the loss denouncing the IIHF's decision as a 'capitalist complot'! See a parallel to the Canadian reaction in 1964?

    So maybe Bunny Ahearne didn't do anything wrong after all, except from being extremely sloppy communicating the rules?
    In the IIHF council minutes that the CBC journalist managed to dig up, it was stated that Czechoslovakia was awarded both the olympic and IHWC bronze medal. This now makes sense since the tie-breaking rule for the Olympic tournament (overall goal difference would count in the event of a tie-break) was no different from the tie-breaking rule of the 1963 IHWC!

    2) And this lead me to the second answer. Please recall that what started the CBC journalist's investigation was that he had noted that Canada was listed as the bronze medal winner on IIHF's website. This website was obviously made many years after the dust from the 1964 Olympics had settled.
    What could have happened is this: The new IIHF staff was not aware of the tie-breaking rule (overall goal difference) that was introduced in 1963. Hence they believed that the tie-breaking rule for the IHWC part of the 1964 Olympics was the more traditional one, namely either head-to-head games between tie-breaking teams or points and goaldifference from the medal round (or among the top teams).
    According to this line of thinking the fault was made at a much later point, namely when the IIHF started to list Canada as the bronze medal winner (which contradicted the line of argument in the first answer as well as the minutes from the IHWC council).

    All this still begs the question why the Canadian players felt so ill-treated. I do not doubt that they truly believed that the tie-breaking rule was different from overall goal difference. But why did they come to this belief? I have just taken a re-look at 'Tre Kronor genom tiderna' which is the official book on the history of Team Sweden. According to the journalist who wrote the book, Team Sweden was also confused about the 1964 rules and some of the players and staff members also had the same belief as the Canadian players.

    The question is why? The tie-breaking rules of the 1964 Olympics could only have been different from the 1963 IHWC (and the 1948 and 1952 Olympics) if the IIHF had made an announcement of this. And if the IIHF had made this announcement, there should have been no controversy since it could be clearly proven that Bunny Ahearne changed the rules during the tournament.

    So this is the task for the CBC journalist: If he can forward evidence that the IIHF changed the tie-breaking rule in the run up to the 1964 Olympics (and then changed it during the Olympics), then a 'crime', or whatever you may call it, has been committed. If he can not forward any evidence, then I think the case should be put to rest since IIHF's decision during the Olympics just confirmed the tie-breaking rule from the 1963 IHWC (as well as the 1948 and 1952 Olympics).

  28. #28
    IHF Member Karsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Northern Zealand (in Denmark)
    Posts
    11,637
    I am not trying to justify IIHF's policies throughout the years. I am trying to explain them. And I am trying to tell you and other Canadians on this board, that Team Canada is surely not the only team that has felt they have been robbed by the IIHF (Czechoslovakia in 1952 and Finland in 1987 stands out as two prominent examples).

    And most importantly I am questioning the CBC journalist's (and the Canadian players, for that matter) presumption that Canada was being robbed the bronze medal at the 1964 Olympics.

    Contrary to the CBC journalist's writings, I am not basing my research on rumors and stories about Bunny Ahearne's attitudes to Canada. This does not interest me – at least for now. Instead I have tried to approach the issue from facts.

    And the simple facts are that tie-breaking rule applied at the 1964 Olympics was entirely consistent with the tie-breaking rule used in the previous world championship (1963) as well as previous Olympics that had the same tournament format as in Innsbruck (1948 and 1952).

    This implies that something sinister went on in the 1964 Olympics only if the IIHF had announced another rule change consistent with the Canadian view prior to the Olympics. If such an announcement was not made, then it would have looked odd if Czechoslovakia had not been awarded the Olympic and the IIHWC bronze medal.

    If I was a journalist, I would have looked for this annoucement. And if I found it - and only if I found it - then I would have taken action and written an article about the plain theft of Canada's bronze medal.

    The CBC journalist's article is almost entirely based on Canada's anti-IIHF sentiment - it is not based on facts. And this makes me discomforting as I said to begin with.

    Well, until the CBC journalist or someone else comes up with the hard evidence I am asking for, I will rest my case.

    Time to move on...

  29. #29
    IHF Member Raven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    563

    Hockey Canada loses 1964 hockey appeal

    Hockey Canada has lost its appeal of the 1964 Olympic ice hockey results which denied Canada a bronze medal.

    The International Ice Hockey Federation had initially agreed to consider a request to award the Canadian team world championship bronze medals, not Olympic medals.

    In 1964, the Olympic tournament also doubled as the world championship.

    However, the IIHF changed its mind after discovering the minutes of a meeting held in 1964 which they claim shows the required number of council members had indeed voted in favour of changing the rule which ultimately decided how ties were broken in the final standings.

    Hockey Canada officials appealed but according to the Globe and Mail were informed a few days ago that the appeal was denied and the results would remain unchanged.

    "I'm disappointed and disappointed for the players," Hockey Canada president Bob Nicholson tells the Globe. "When I go through the minutes, I certainly feel they deserve the medal."

    The controversy began when IIHF president Bunny Ahearne convened a last minute council meeting and introduced the rule change which stated all results from the tournament - not just those involving teams that were tied - would determine the final standings.

    None of the four teams who were in contention for a medal at the time - the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Canada and Sweden - voted in favour of the change. But Ahearne managed to get enough votes to push the rule change through.

    A loss in the final game of the tournament to the Soviets left Canada tied with Czechoslovakia and Sweden for second place at 5-2. Based on the last minute rule change, Sweden was awarded silver and the Czechs were placed ahead of Canada for the bronze.

    "I think the IIHF lacks a little bit of courage," former team member Paul Conlin tells the Globe. "They were afraid to admit the mistake."

    "I don't think they have the courage to admit that Mr. Ahearne deliberately set out, in my view, to see that Canada didn't get a medal at those Olympics and changed the rules when it became apparent we were likely going to medal."

    Canadian officials say they were not asking for the Czechs to be stripped of their bronze medals but that a second set of medals be awarded.


    Source :TSN

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •