Eleiko Powerlifting Plates, Bars and Collars - Official USA Distributor

IPF Congress Meeting Proposal Outcomes

Submitted by Staff on November 2, 2008 - 9:11pm.

The 2008 IPF Congress has wrapped up in St. Johns, Newfoundland, Canada. The agenda (pdf) contained a number of proposed changes to the Constitution, By-Laws, and Technical Rules, as well as the proposed ratification of the 2009 Anti-Doping Rules.

Some of the major decisions were as follows:

• Proposal to ratify the 2009 Anti-Doping Rules to bring them in-line with the 2009 WADA code. (Passed)

• Proposal 6 to the Constitution to put the power to negotiate and sign contracts with equipment manufacturers in the hands of the executive. (Passed)

• Proposal 9 to the Constitution to add former Anti-Doping Rule 10.11 (sometimes referred to as the Ed Coan Rule) to the Constitution as Rule 14.10.6. (Passed)

• Proposal to Technical Rules to reduce the time limit to change one's opener on the bench press and deadlift to three minutes. (Failed)

• Proposal to Technical Rules to not allow a team to replace a lifter's score who tests positive, with the next highest individual score. (Passed) Note: It was also voted that if a team has more than two failures the entire team score is dropped.

• Proposal to Technical Rules to eliminate TUE's for lifters who are not able to lock their arms out on the bench press. (Failed)

» quote

Comment viewing options

Submitted by Andrew Cohn on November 3, 2008 - 9:53am. » quote

The other stuff doesn't really concern me but I think eliminating the TUE's is a good idea. IF you can't lock your arms and are allowed to compete under those conditions, you are at a major advantage over lifters who must lock their arms.

Sponsored by APT Pro Gear and Monster Energy

Submitted by Chris A. (not verified) on November 3, 2008 - 11:02am. » quote

Yeah, Andrew, I'm kinda on the fence about that one too. On one hand, you can't fault someone with a legitimate physical disability, but it does lead to a very slippery slope. Where would you draw the line?

Submitted by Regina Hackney on November 3, 2008 - 12:49pm. » quote

The rule is that you have to be within 15% of lockout to get an Impairment statement. The rule will stand for a while longer. If the rule was eliminated, then we would lose many of the master lifters. To get an impairment statement, a doctor has to document there is a disability of no more that 15%.

Regina

Submitted by Andrew Cohn on November 3, 2008 - 12:57pm. » quote

These percentage rules baffle me too........how close is 15% from lockout and how much is 50% of your ass on the bench? I have seen many lifters who can not lock out their elbows on the ascent, take the bar at pefect arms length so there is one issue I have. This is not the case for all but honestly, I feel that if you can not perform a lift, you should not be doing it, no exceptions.

If you feel that compelled to compete, do something unsanctioned in your basement and have that be enough, but to allow such exceptions as TUE's for elbows and what not only demeans the sport.