2021 is my last year of USAWS

[rfa]

@The_MS, you say "This thread would end today if the BOD would listen". Respectfully, maybe, if as @Jody_Seal says, "those that support a government overreach program in this sport" do not need to read this thread.

However, it seems to me that some do, hence, there are opinions (24 pages...) on both sides. Why do you think the BOD would only "listen" to one side?

I am curious about your point #2. above, on what you would propose. Do you know if the insurance companies agree with "only require coaches and leadership to complete training"? I have no basis to know either way, just asking if you know. Because if they don't, I am not sure how "our own training that will satisfy the insurance companies" would/could be materially different from SS...especially if the program was driven by liability coverage (i.e. insurance companies) to start with.

[The_MS]

From the web site

“From a liability standpoint, our general liability insurance carrier supported the SS training decision. Although the requirement does not affect our insurance premium directly, it puts the organization in a better position with carriers moving forward”

[6balls]

@rfa good point--as a small organization it would likely need to outsource it's training rather than developing something on it's own as a loosely bound group of skiers who have no background in the area.

[klindy]

@6balls hold your cards, we have a winner.

[lpskier]

@BS74 The premise of your argument is that a court would not act without first affording the defendant a hearing-“due process.” This is incorrect and hence is the fallacy of your argument. Courts impose temporary “punishment” all the time without affording the defendant a hearing.

 

For example: You are arrested and charged with theft and destruction of personal property for breaking your (psycho) now-ex-girlfriend’s phone during an argument. In reality, she threw it at you, but her story is you took it and broke it. The cops arrive, you’re arrested and brought before a judge for arraignment. You plead not guilty and are released, but not before the judge issues a “stay away” order of protection, meaning to have to stay completely away from the girlfriend until the case is fully resolved, six months or a year down the road. Since you lived with the girlfriend, you now have to find a new place to live because the order prevents you from going home. Also, since there is now an order of protection against you, it’s a federal crime for you to possess firearms, so if you have any, they have to be surrendered to the police. Say goodbye to hunting season.

 

The police then issue a press release detailing your arrest and the order of protection. Now everybody knows about it.

 

After the case is resolved in your favor, good luck getting your guns back. And no press release.

 

Also, courts issue temporary restraining orders without ever hearing from a defendant, and preliminary injunctions with minimal information and often no hearing all the time. You get your trial at the end of the case, long after the injunction went into effect. Sometimes for all practical purposes you win your case by getting the preliminary injunction.

[BS74]

@lpskier : We disagree and if you read the article there are lawyers suing Safe Sport who believe due process is not taking place, so I'm not the only one. Here is a case study since there is no time limit. Another coach was accused of sexual misconduct 50 years ago, and he was suspended. It's simply on word against another. https://athletesforequity.org/safesport-case-study-scenario/

[Mrs_MS]

I actually can’t believe no one has started a poll regarding SS. I would assume most are on board with it. (Most people fall in line) My instincts are pretty good. I can think of about 6 options for the poll. ??‍♀️

 

 

 

[lpskier]

@BS74 Read the “Dear Colleague” letter issued by the Department of Education to all colleges during the Obama years, essentially saying the females that claim to have been sexually abused on campus are to be believed unless the male proves himself innocent. Obviously an impossible standard. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/dear_colleague_sexual_violence.pdf

 

I’m not advocating in favor of Safe Sport’s policy; I’m just saying it isn’t unique to Safe Sport.

[BK]

Hey fellas, been gone from AWSA for four year but just rejoined! Super excited to ski some tournaments, maybe watch a video or two What’d I miss!?

 

[thager]

Nothing......

[Horton]

@Mrs_MS ok create the poll

[The_MS]

Make sure to do the USAWS membership survey and mention that Safe Sport sucks.

[scoke]

HUH. just received a USAWATERSKI membership survey.

 

Scrolling through the questions, it seems like the core of the survey is regarding safeport and priorities of the organization.

 

Funny timing?

 

In the words of a man who had something stolen from him in 2020, "Everything woke goes to $hit over time."

 

I'll stand on my prediction of day 1 Q1-2022 being interesting for the membership.

[MDB1056]

The organization will continue. This all will fade to black.

[dthate]

Reminds me of that old Johnny Paycheck song back in the day, " take this mandate and shove it, ain't skiing here no more"

[Horton]

Yesterday I drove my second grade daughter and 2 of her classmates to a field trip. The school only asked for my drivers license and car insurance. I did think much of it until I realized I was driving around with someone else’s kids. I would not be happy if some random parent who I do not know was driving my daughter around.

 

From this perspective I see some value in what safe sport requires of us. Background checks and defined boundaries ( the training ) just cant be a bad thing. No I do not love the mandates and no it will not prevent evil people from doing evil things but it is a layer of protection.

 

[Wish]

@horton . Would that rule apply to someone that met all said requirement items and passed but was the worst driver? Shouldn’t you have the school mandate some kind of drivers testing?. Is the route to the destination free from and cleared of hazards ahead of time along with other crap drivers not on that route? The likelihood of your daughter getting in a car crash from a parent u don’t know far, and I mean far, exceeds that of sexual misconduct. It’s either a poor comparison or you’ll be getting with her school board and getting those driving lessons mandated. And what if it wasn’t a strange dad driving her but rather just another mom? Would you feel the same?. Maybe only moms should drive her??. Sexual misconduct by a female must be minute in comparison to males. Asking for a friend.

[The_MS]

I would not let @Horton drive @Mrs_MS around

[Horton]

Ok nevermind... after reading @wish's post I remembered why I have ignored this thread.

[Wish]

damn...was kinda shootn for a Panda

[The_MS]

Why can’t we just report things to the police?

[Horton]

[dave2ball]

@Horton no there tomottos not tomatoes

[RAWSki]

@Horton is there an official BOS Panda Scoreboard?

 

 

[ForrestGump]

There should be! Who would be at the top?

 

[The_MS]

I have requested answers here and through eMails on why international skiers are not required and have no response

[Horton]

@The_MS You're saying that international skiers do not have to take safe sport?

[The_MS]

That is the info I have

[Horton]

@The_MS well then all you have to do is show your Canadian passport and you're good. problem solved.

[Ali]

@The_MS I will give you a very simple one, not every one speaks english. Though maybe Catherine Tate could help

[The_MS]

I guess skiers that dont speak English are more trustworthy around kids.

[LeonL]

I think someone posted that (SafeSport not required for international skiers) on this thread. On BOS somewhere.

[The_MS]

I see they wasted a whole page in the latest Waterskier talking up SS. Looks like they made up 4-5 quotes from members on how great the program is. I guess they ignored my comments from the survey

[markn]

Agree with @The_MS. Took the time to explain my concerns about SS mandate on the survey....response? Crickets.

[mcskier41]

I am not against the SS course. Only against them mandating it. What ever happened to personal responsibility and people actually spending time with their kids. Waterskiing brings families together and creates a stronger family bond than any other sport I know.

[MrJones]

I responded to the survey. Received a response telling me how wrong I was.

Thanks for that

[scuppers]

These constant mandates are a bad omen for our way of life in the USA

[LeonL]

Let's pursue this thing about international skiers being exempt from the SafeSport requirement. What's the rationale for that? Who made that call? @klindy or @JeffSurdej or somebody?

[lpskier]

@Horton I definitely would not be comfortable with you driving my daughter around. Of course she’s 30, married and a month shy of her due date….

[JeffSurdej]

@LeonL I did not know that to be true so I am verifying b/c that does not seem fair.

[lpskier]

@LeonL @klindy is Chair of AWSA and @JeffSurdej was President of AWSA. SS is a USAWSWS requirement. Better get the correct whipping horse.

[JeffSurdej]

@LeonL All active members will have to do the training – foreign or not.

If they are a “guest member” – e.g. like we did with some foreign skiers for Worlds who are only skiing that one event b/c we need them to be members for the insurance that is sanctioned by USA-WSWS like World’s were then no. Guest members no since they are only participating for a day or two – all active members yes.

[markn]

@JeffSurdej ...kind of like the vaccine being selectively mandated only for companies with over 100 employees. Glad the virus can count and no potential for SS infractions if only "a guest" skiing one or two days. This whole SS mandate gets worse and worse as more information is made available. More convinced than ever...I'm out.

[The_MS]

I guess we can trust them for just a day. If I remain a member I would plan on only skiing 2 events. That’s the same as those guys. Maybe we mandate by days spent at events. They are actually on site at the worlds for 5 to 6 days depending on practice. It’s only 90 minutes of training, why can’t they find the time to complete?

[skierjp]

They come and ski for the day at worlds but practice here for a month prior to the tournament!

[The_MS]

The 3 event skiers are on site all week

[JeffSurdej]

I see both sides, I personally am not a fan of mandating this across the board, but I also understand the reasoning as one incident could shut down the organization for good. I would hate to have to make 30 guest members who come out for a ski for fun to learn about the sport go through SS. So maybe the real problem is that skiers can ski at worlds as guest members, but that's an IWWF thing, they mandate that a federation can not force skiers coming to ski worlds buy the membership. I'd be curious how many here at worlds have never competed in a US tourney and thus actually used the guest membership but I get the point, anyone can violate safesport even for 1 day.

[The_MS]

I wonder where the “if it prevents just one” crowd is now?

[jayski]

@JeffSurdej you say "I also understand the reasoning as one incident could shut down the organization for good"

 

Now not saying this in a grumpy, accusing, or negative way, it is an inquisitive question...

 

So how does everyone taking safe sport STOP, not inhibit, or decrease the possibility of, STOP, the organization from getting shut down for good?

 

If we all take it does that mean we (USAwaterski) is now exempt or protected from any actions that would cause complete shut down if an incident occured?

 

 

[The_MS]

@LLUSA ??