IPF Looks to Reinstate "Ed Coan Rule"

Horray! Just what is needed.

The IPF needs to pull their head out of their ass. First they show they are willing to move out of the dark ages by lifting the "Ed Coan" rule now they want to put it back. I say we ban the IPF from US soil and boygott them until they wise up.

well here's my take on it. i travel top a meet and at the last min someone who is banned shows up and now i have to back out. is the ipf gonna help me out with travel cost b/c i couldnt compete. probly not. f..k the ipf.

hahaha I don't lift in the IPF so it doesn't really make any difference to me but I find this stuff quite entertaining.

Seems the IPF can't make their mind up for anything LOL.

Bunch of Indian Givers if you ask me besides how is anyone suppossed to know that in a comp of 400 or so people just who has been banned ? dunno their names or who they are at the best of times

it's not just lifters but officials and spotters, loaders, coaches, etc. anything besides just watching will get a whole meet of people suspended. why buy in to this controlling nonsense. and the lifter above with the point about "what if i get there and somebody's at the meet who is suspended"? meet directors don't all post the nominations or information, who is reffing etc. even somebody working a table could get you suspended if the rule is enforced. so you have a lifter or official who can't do anything while they are suspended, even on a technicality suspension, and this sport runs on volunteer help? the enforcement is at the whim of ipf too. i don't think they pay attention to the people who run to every fed and don't lift all that much, like that kid amanda harris etc. if they did, they would never let them enter ipf meets since they can't possibly have not come into a meet with a suspended ipf lifter somewhere outside of the ipf fence. do meet directors have the time to research all lifters in their meets to be sure all lifters, refs etc are SAFE competing there? will meet directors start getting sued for rifting some ipf lifter's eligibility by allowing someone in the meet they shouldn't?

That's a really good point. Unless you know the official roster beforehand, how ARE you supposed to know? Also, are you supposed to check the status of everyone lifting in a meet, assuming that you can get an accurate roster? I still don't see why the IPF feels the need to suspend someone based on this rule.

It would be very interesting to see how many of those on this site who bitch about the IPF really even compete there.

I bet the number could be counted on one hand.

The IPF always talks about motions for this rule or that rule. It happens all the time and not very many end up seeing the light of day. Remember the string rule on the bar when benching to prevent belly benching? Did that go anywhere?

The answer is no, because most people saw how stupid it was.

So before the gossip girls here go wild.. settle the f**k down and its not like this is in concrete.

One more thing, this rule has not been applied only to Ed Coan even if he is the most famous one who has be subjected to it.

If this is true, this just makes Rich Peters look more and more like a friggin' genious.

The IPF never "deinstituted" the rule being referred to here as the "Ed Coan" rule. It is a rule that is widely supported by the delegates in other countries and it makes a good deal of sense when government support comes to those who compete in the IPF affiliated federation.

The rule continues to be alive in the antidoping rules for 2008. Its being moved to the constitution, bylaws, etc. does not reflect "dropping the controversial Ed Coan rule" or "reinstituting it". This is journalistic embellishment.

Whether this forum, its posters, the U.S. lifting population agree with this rule is moot. The national delegates of the IPF will vote it up or down based on conditions in their own countries and what makes the most sense to them. LJM

Larry,

I personally reached out to multiple IPF sources before publishing the original article. None could help me. There certainly was no intentional journalistic embellishment. At the time, based on the knowledge I had, the rule was being dropped.

Going forward, what is clear is that if the Anti-Doping rules are adopted, which is almost assured, then the rule will be dropped from the Anti-Doping Rules.

What is also clear is that it has to be "reinstituted" by 2/3 vote at Congress to continue in effect in 2009, only in the By-Laws.

In effect, won't a vote to re-implement the rule be taking place at Congress?

Jon,

Just by your reference alone calling it the 'Ed Coan' rule is journalistic embellishment. Any of the said rules when related to whom can compete with whom where, when and their status has been applied to other lifters as well. Not just when it involves Ed Coan.

But given the well published suspensions of lifters because they have competed with Coan and the outcry and emotions tied to it (good, bad, right or wrong)your making the 'Ed Coan' reference in this article does nothing but feed off that resistment to what happened to Coan.

No 'intentional journalistic embellishment'? I find that comment downright laughable.

Perhaps we are having a semantic problem here. Each year or so, the technical rules are voted on by the congress. That doesn't mean that they are discontinued or dropped, although there are changes sometimes in them. They bylaws are voted on as well. But in point of fact, the rule about competition against banned lifters will likely never be dropped whether it is a 2/3 vote, simple majority or something else. But it will be moved.

Just as a point in fact, most of the enforcement of this rule has been against non-U.S. lifters when Ed wasn't lifting or involved. Most of those were brought by their own respective countries. So the rule seems to have some utility for other nations and that is what I suspect will be most important to the vote.

LJM

There's talking... and then there's powerlifting.

Me and Ed Coan bowled the other day and we were stone drunk. And all of a sudden some guy in black spandex and pantie hose came reeling down from the ceiling on a wire and stopped about foot from the ground and started going %$^&%$!

BOOOSHIT! NO IPF FOR MR. TAYLOR!

YEAH!

Brad,

It's more commonly understood as the Ed Coan rule. No it's not just related to Ed Coan. Nor is it a rule. It's an article, currently article 10.11. However, referring to it like that is more confusing to people. Heck I've had discussions with you regarding a few of these articles where you were unclear which was which. However, if one says "the Ed Coan Rule", others are more likely to know what you're talking about.

I do understand what you're saying about the emotions it touches upon as it relates to Coan though.

Thank you for the clarification Larry.

I haven't seen that possibility explained anywhere and don't understand the legality of it but I certainly trust your account.

The term 'Ed Coan Rule' was coined years and years ago before this site existed. It was coined by trolls putting the hate on the IPF. Lets just never mind the fact stated 3 times in this thread that the rule has been applied in many occasions some not even in the USA, not related Ed Coan at all.

So you’re recycling a troll term to bring sensationalism to this thread and draw attention to it. The fact that some (including myself on some occasions) have gotten some of the finer details of the 10.(insert number here) rules mixed up has no relevance to the point I was making. Rather then calling it something else, you use a term that is tied to a perception that the IPF was out to persecute Ed Coan.

That’s drama Jon.. no matter how you package it.

Why didnt this apply to Siders when he competed in the USPF with Mr. Coan in the same contest?
Its a serious question.

Brad, gotta go with Jon here. It may be intellectually lazy, but the term is simply verbal shorthand. You have to admit, it's a sore spot with long-time USAPLers.

uhhhh

lol!!!!!

Did you read answer of Mr.Coan himself right on this forum,on that exact issue?

So,what are you talkin about?

Some ,so called people,didn't persue a Mr.Coan?!

Who got the samples to the lab,on the first ocassion?

Hm?

Directly involved lifter who is been ,at that time,in a IPF main board!

After it he won the meet....

All best to Ed Coan the best athlete out there and the gentleman to!

IPF sucks and I am no American to say that.

To Dr Maile,
What is really the purpose of this rule anyway. Is it guilt by association? My next question: what is WADA's and the IOC's stance on this rule. Is this the standard in all sports or is this specific to only powerlifting?

Dr. M:

The rule makes the same sense, and exists to serve the same purpose, here in the US as it does in other countries: to exert control and leverage over the lives of the lifters. In other countries where lifters are subsidized, this acts as a *multiplier* on the control: do as we say or we will take your livelihood away. Likewise for the rules against competing in other Fed's international/national level competitions. Just because the US has slightly less of its share of control freaks than the rest of the world doesn't make the issue moot. You can rationalize it all you want, it nothing but an actualization of the IPF's organizational bias towards the lifter as employee/peon/serf. You can make the gold plating as thick as you'd like on this turd, but it is Still. A. Turd. Personally I am suprised that the IPF has not been subject to legal action for anti-trust/anti-competitive behavior...this is probably due to the fact that so many other options exist here making that a moot point.

Brad,

Your semantic quibbling over the usage of the term "Ed Coan rule" is ridiculous and myopic. Most people who don't go to sleep at night with the IPF rulebook under their pillow (hoping to learn via absorption) don't know the number but know it as "the Ed Coan rule". You sound like the guy at the drive-up window who yells at customers for asking for an "Extra Value Meal" because "that's McDonald's NOT US". It's nice that you are all swole about your Fed, but you seem to knee-jerk every time someone farts in the general direction of the IPF. I'd love to be able to compete at the level to be in an IPF meet someday, but that doesn't mean that I need to drink the Kool-Aid about everything either. The "Ed Coan rule" is certainly, IMHO, simply loathsome.

Here we go again, though I'm glad no one did ask you. Histroy will clearly tell you the saying should be "white man" givers. Just since you brought it up.

Brian Mc

So Brian, are you happy the Washington Redskins are off to a good start? LOL!!!

Well, you can't exactly go back in time and change a punishment because a rule has changed a year or so later.

When you report on something and use nothing but a phrase to incite drama and get everyone worked up. Well that is sad reporting. If your going report like your informed then report like you. If your just giving your point of view that is great.

Not sure how much more simple I could put it. Point is it has nothing to do with 'knowing the IPF rule book'. Sorry if calling someone out on that point bothers you. Would I have drawn your menstrual cramp induced response if I was posted about some other fed? Would it be ok with you then?

You might have noticed I posting on few occasions supporting the removal of the rule outright.

This rule also is well supported by a number of USAPL people.

Sorry. I am not following your point exactly.