2021 is my last year of USAWS

[gjohnson]

So everyone is cool with women being assaulted?

[Dirt]

@gjohnson how does a background check stop women from being assaulted? We should ban suvs. The guy ran over people so why not have background checks to own an suv?

[Dirt]

This is so f…ing stupid

[The_MS]

If someone assaults a woman, kid or anyone, call the cops and put them in the slammer

[Golfguy]

I Like it @Jody_seal a petition to disassociate the AWSA would start the juices in motion. Then include the thought @ALAJr proposes. Simple as that. Worst case it falls on its face, best, it shakes up the organizational foundation. It seems that there is no reason the majority of the competitors that chose to participate on good old USA terra firma should suffer restrictions to aspire to international games.

[Stevie Boy]

So this thread, has received just over 900 comments, various points of view have been made, some people just moaning or bringing up the battering of women or abuse of children, all valid but where are we going with this, the obvious route is, that if you suspect something is not right report it to the Police or Parents concerned, for me this thread keeps going around in circles.

The Truth is that Governing Bodies are not very good at dealing with these situations, nobody wants to stick their head above the Parapet and get involved, instead they come up with other ideas to shift the responsibility else where, they are truly not that interested and in some ways, I understand it, they want to Govern the sport, not get involved with alleged allegations that might be true or false, they are not equipped to deal with it, on the other hand if somebody is prosecuted by the law, they can step in and act accordingly.

It's easy to criticize, but it really is more complicated than what people imagine.

[skidawg]

Wait...did I miss something? Should I be offended!!!!

[The_MS]

@skidawg is not a Snow Flake. Pretty tough to offend him.

[6balls]

Distancing the thread from SS only has been more productive. It's really over-regulation in general that is being protested, is it not? Seems so...folks mad about making it harder and harder to participate. Many feeling it's an over-reach in the sport of water skiing.

 

Your choices are: comply with the regulations, keep complaining and comply or not, start something new, or ski for fun only--no competition--or just friendly stuff among friends with a few beers and ribs to follow.

 

This from a guy who skied three, three round tourneys per year--I only skied that many to satisfy the ranking requirements. Beyond that I could ski more at a lesser cost in great conditions with fun ski partners without travel/hotel/fees etc. Fairly attractive--and just enough tourneys to see some skiing friends. Now my body is done so not so much a horse in the race, but I do understand the mounting number of hurdles. Attributing all to only safe-sport and then abuse touches a nerve--I don't think anyone is ok with abuse.

[skidawg]

@The_MS i easily get offended by bad beer and 90% of what comes outa @Horton ’s mouth!!!! ?

[gjohnson]

@Dirt I need a breathalyzer on my keyboard. I have no idea what I was thinking on my last post. Been hungover all day.

[Dirt]

@gjohnson We all love this sport and are against abuse. I may disagree with people but I do my best to respect their opinions and not get mad.

 

The background check requirement for judges is stupid in my opinion. Coaches at live in ski schools? Maybe.

[LeonL]

OK, just why is it that only judges are required to get a background check, and not other officials?

[liquid d]

Because all the perverts are judges...

[MISkier]

@LeonL, it is apparently because judges hold a position of power (i.e., can affect a skier's score) and can use that authority to groom victims, etc.

 

To your point, a scorer also has influence on the score that gets recorded and could purposely enter a score in favor of the skier to gain their confidence. That may or may not be caught by other officials or through skier protests, especially if the paper documentation does not exist or is also falsified. The same could be said of a driver who helps a skier with a specific pull, or punishes a skier with a specific pull, etc. But, we should probably not bring up these examples, or everyone will be required to do the background check and we will lose even more officials.

 

My personal estimate is that we will lose 20-25% of judges. I think of the judges (at least 5-10) that I recruited over the last couple of years that were level 8 and were able to use fast track to get their rating. Most only became judges because it was convenient with that option. I can't see all of them retaining their rating with this new requirement.

 

 

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@LeonL just wait. It will only be a matter of time before stuff all flows downhill. Consider that dockstarters, especially for kids divisions, arguably have more direct contact with kids than any of the judges.

[LeonL]

@MISkier @Bruce_Butterfield it appears that both of you are in reference to SS. If I'm wrong, I apologize. The subject of my post was background check. This may sound stupid, but I don't have a problem with a convicted felon (paid his/her debt to society) sitting in a tower. What will usaws do with these reports? Is there a threshold of offense that will precipitate a revocation of one's rating? Just what is the end game in this? Is it the integrity of the buoy count? LOL No, I don't have a criminal record.

[MISkier]

@LeonL, I was responding in regard to the background check. Everyone has to take SS to participate in a tournament, not just judges. I think the background check for judges is to ensure those in a position of authority or influence do not have a past record of misconduct of a certain nature.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@LeonL I was refering specically to the criminal background requirement chart for judges.

https://teamusa.org/usa-water-ski/safesportcert_backgroundscreening_instructions

click on the first link on that page for the pdf chart.

 

IMO we are way down the slippery slope of loosing control of our organization and picking up speed.

[slow]

Back ground checks standard for ski racing officials for years

[ski6jones]

@slow that doesn't mean it's appropriate or necessary. I quote my mother here, "Just because your friends did it doesn't make it right "

[slow]

You want his sport and become antiquated and not grow in today’s age, spend all your time complaining about safe sport and background checks.

[ski6jones]

So our big problem with growth is a perception by potential members that our events are unsafe? Hardly. If anything these measures will reduce our numbers in two ways. First, it will reduce the number of new members (too much trouble and too costly), second it will reduce existing numbers as has been stated by more than one member on this site. So no, pushing back on SS and background checks is not likely to reduce growth.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@slow yes most of us want to grow the sport but these new mandates are driving away BOTH existing and new members.

 

Safesport and background checks are only serving liability and insurance. It does nothing to protect members or grow the sport.

[Mastercrafter]

Last year was my first year skiing tournaments. I’m probably hooked enough to come back for 2022, but had you told me last May I had to take a Safesport class to participate, I highly doubt I would have joined AWSA, taken the course, and skied tournaments.

 

Getting existing members back is one issue, but attracting new members is going to be a whole ‘nother challenge, in my opinion.

[slow]

I’m a believer in background checks. Most people that will fail them will choose not to be checked and there for not allow to participated. This is a great thing in my opinion.

 

I completed safe sport and believe it only helps. I am always amazed at what a some people view as right and wrong that is clearly wrong. I am glad these people informed somewhat through safe sport.

 

Both are a necessary evil in my option.

 

Having been raised on the Catholic Church and participated in Boy Scouts, both organizations would have benefited from safe sport type training and back ground checks.

 

People are nieve to think abuse is worse now then in the past. Abusers now are being identified and called out for it which only helps.

 

The system isn’t perfect but I would take it over nothing at all.

 

 

[jlittle]

Prior to everything blowing up, would Larry Nassar have passed a background check or a SS class? Most likely. So wtf does it do? If USOC would give up info on USOC people who knew what he was doing maybe I'd be more of a fan. Definitely people at USA Gymnastics should go to jail. Probs USOC people too...

 

That was a direct quote from a waterski partner of mine. He's contemplating renewing his and his family's memberships.

[slow]

I had a parent that wanted to officiate in one of our youth sports that refused get a back ground check. I couldn’t let him participate I had an officer freind of mine run a search on him. He had repeated sex convictions with minors.

 

An example like Nassar doesn’t mean the system isn’t weeding out a lot of other folks.

[Dirt]

@slow I couldn’t disagree more. This is not a public school or a Catholic church. This is waterskiing. You may end up the top ranked skier in usaws. You may be the last man standing.

[slow]

You may be right. Could be that tournament waterskiing ends up being the last man standing

[ETskier]

My problem with Safe Sport is simple. SS (sounds eerily familiar) is a quasi-government agency which acts as police, judge, and jury, independent of our Constitutional system of justice. Background checks, USAWS has enough of my personal information to check on me already. I certainly am not going give them any more info or pay for it. That said, some basic understanding of the signs of sexual abuse is good to know, particularly in minor children. The tutorial should be short, maybe 30 minutes, and voluntary.

[LeonL]

@ETskier is right. USAWS has all the info needed to find out all that they need to know about me already. I'm sure that they really could care less whether I give my permission for them to check me out. Really, I'm just saddened by where we've come to in this sport that I've loved, served and competed in for over 35 years. I didn't have many years left to be involved, but I wanted it to be a real choice of mine when that time came, without outside interference in that decision. Now, I just don't know. It's getting to the point of "waiting for the next shoe to drop", and knowing that it's going to.

[NameUnavailable]

Do you really even need to be a member?

 

If you do not go to regionals, national, or have a passion for being an official do you need to ski in a sanctioned event?

 

At our site we have to use our own boats, have many good drivers, and people who can count to 6. We have the same safety person that is at our sanctioned events. If we put on an unsanctioned event we can do any format we want, have more skiers, charge less, have zero paperwork. (we have our own insurance)

 

It seemed that for all but about 1000 or so skiers in the US, USAWS has zero value even without all the mandates. Until they give more people a reason to join all this stuff is a speed bump on the road to the end....

[LeonL]

@NameUnavailable you are obviously correct. However in the scenario that depict, what's the need to "count to 6"?

[The_MS]

@Mastercrafter now that you are a competitive member, would you fill out the paperwork and get the background check in order to help judge?

@slow so you had your police buddy just run a check on someone? That is just wrong

[Mastercrafter]

@The_MS nothing to hide but not real interested in paperwork and background checks (and mandates and hassle) in general. Tournaments are also a bit of a love/hate as I always ski like absolute garbage and say I'm never coming back to one. All of this additional stuff makes them less and less desirable.

 

I can ski @ my ski club for $0 additional, get two full sets in, in 4 hours less time. The tournament comradery and friendships are really the only upside of them for me.

 

[The_MS]

@Mastercrafter I would be the same mindset. Why would you want to submit time and background check money to judge? Your situation should be a wake up call to the BOD.

The current numbers of judges will shrink and getting new judges into position will surely be a very tough task.

So now we have SS training for all, back ground checks for judges and MVRs for drivers. This is on top of all the obstacles already in place. We need to start a betting pool for what is next.

Diversity training?

Acceptance and inclusion training?

Handle guard mandate?

Helmet mandate?

Drug testing for all?

 

[slow]

Police check is all public records. Nothing wrong with that just easier.

[ski6jones]

Except what right do you have to run a background check on someone without their consent @slow ? You and your police buddy clearly crossing the line there.

[slow]

Did I say background check? The police can provide info about people that is public record. Use the police as a resource.

[6balls]

Sounds like death of amateur comp water skiing.

[The_MS]

We should just use @slow buddy as a public resource and not have to pay the 30 for the back ground check. Sounds like the same thing

[ForrestGump]

I think you're wrong in that regard. There are PLENTY of people who will choose not to get background checked who have no record. I dropped my driver's rating for that reason. I got a driver record check the first time. Then it was time to renew, I said "Screw it" and just didn't the next time. Hell I've not gotten a ticket on the road in 26 years. I have held an NHRA Pro Stock license. But I thought it was over-reach for USAWS to do a drivers record check in order for me to drive a ski boat. This is the same thing. USAWS will lose good people over this and the judges numbers will dwindle.

[Killer]

Should we keep Waterskiing in backyard ponds or do we want to be considered as a legitimate sport?

 

Really that's the issue here, save for a few minor changes I'd tend to agree are overreaching (eg. SS for athletes), all sports have some level of oversight.

 

So the question is about how much oversight, yet so many are saying ditch it all, go rogue - then you definitely have NO amateur sport, only friendly competition.

 

This argument seems more political and about societal changes than actual waterskiing. The only thing you can bet on in life is constant change, and many struggle with that in their day to day, especially now with the pandemic and the restrictions it's bringing. I get it.

 

Doing a driver's abstract seems entirely consistent with how we should be playing in this sport. I think you're missing something Shane - so you and most boat drivers have a clean record or a few speeding tickets, what about the DUI or careless charges that are definitely out there? Don't tell me you're okay with that person driving you or worse a child?

 

This forum is becoming a massive bitch fest and it's incredibly tiring and unfortunate because positive change has occured thanks to comments here over the years.

 

 

 

 

[The_MS]

@killer just because you don’t have a DUI on record doesn’t mean you don’t drive drunk. I think local organizers know who is hitting the bottle and who is hitting the weed before driving in an event.

MVRs have been in place for some time and we crossed that road a few years back. Back ground checks for judges and SS for all is not needed.

[scoke]

 

Interesting perspective Killer.

Aren't you a canadian? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to be concerned if Justin was Fidel's son versus American waterskiing issues?

[Killer]

Suggesting that it doesn't matter if we check for backgrounds because some people get away with committing crimes is a ridiculous, strawman argument.

 

Do changes need to occur? Are some overbearing? Yes and yes. Not the point I was trying to make.

 

I'm Canadian but often ski in the US, and the US is the heart of the sport, without an active and lively American association, I think it's fair to say there is no competitive waterskiing. Many are calling for a rogue organization, which would undoubtedly affect IWSF and all other federations, badly.

 

Also, I got involved locally because Id like to help facilitate positive change.

 

As with everyone else, I'm sharing my opinion and I believe this line of disgruntled whining is misguided, at best.

 

Bring it

[The_MS]

I’m not going to mess with a guy named Killer

[mfjaegersr]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Exghp85W8AAQ9Ms.jpg

Fidel’s RealReal son:

 

[ForrestGump]

@slow I think someone who's carried the badge like Dirt knows what is above board and what is across the line when it goes to your cop friend checking up on someone for you.

 

And probably better understands what makes a difference and what is just posturing by an org when it comes to things like this.