2021 is my last year of USAWS

[Mastercrafter]

Horton’s here with the premium fuel comments… lol

[Horton]

Have I mentioned that I only use premium fuel?

[Golfguy]

I am still struggling with whether to sanction events in 2022 with SS liability. I would like to hear what other LOC's are thinking. As I mentioned earlier it appears that the LOC and Club will take on the responsibility and liability for enforcing SS during the event. The BOD for my lake community is very uncomfortable with this. Should we limit it to +18 years? Skip it this year in hopes that something will change? Thank you in advance for any thoughts.

[Horton]

Monza is the greatest ski ever

[JackQ]

Many sites(mine more than other,possibly) struggle to get officials. And some/many of our local officials only ski/judge at our site and will more than likely not go through these new hoops. We do not get many juniors skiers, one or two at most, so we will be forced to limit our skiers to 18 or over. Yes, this will help hasten the demise of our future, but the alternative is the demise will be 2022.

 

I wonder what the consequences would be if AWSA just doesn’t comply with the new mandates, No I am not doing it is always a option.

[The_MS]

@Horton It is now the N1

[Horton]

@The_MS this time you might be right.

[teammalibu]

@The_MS a little birdie told me you are getting a Monza for Christmas!

[The_MS]

@teammalibu I think I still have one somewhere.

@Horton Im always right

[Mrs_MS]

@The_MS

Not always right….remember you were electrocuted when you were 6! ?⚡️?

[ForrestGump]

Really, Kim??? Now things are starting to make so much more sense.

[teammalibu]

@ForrestGump the @The_MS electrocution story rivals the Shane greatest story ever told story! And yes it does explain a lot about MS!

[The_MS]

The greatest story ever told is by far the greatest story ever told

Probably not Safe Sport approved

[teammalibu]

@The_MS yes it is but after several really good IPAs the MS electrocution story is totally unforgettable!

[6balls]

@Jody_Seal fair enough, carry on and Merry Christmas to you as well. I’m done with this one.

[lpskier]

I just checked with Sportsinsurance.com. Their club/event policies do not exclude SAM liability. For you clubs and HOA’s worried about SAM liability at tournaments, here is your solution.

Call Wayne at (518) 891-2020

[JackQ]

John, Was there any indication of cost? I am sure that the number of participates and other parameters would affect the cost.

[lpskier]

@JackQ Jack, give Wayne a call. Their prices are very competitive.

[ALPJr]

My sense in the East region is that participation across the board, especially at the club/grassroots levels is as strong as it’s been in the past ~20 years. It doesn’t seem that a significant number of people will be discouraged by any of this. We may even see an increased interest in helping as an official in one way or another among the younger, newer skiers. Perhaps leadership at the Regional and National levels could be persuaded to create incentives for officials to help drive participation such as tournament entry fee discounts, travel reimbursement or other rewards or recognition?

[Dirt]

@ALPJr thats hilarious. I get it. Is this what we are doing now?

 

I was talking to a skier friend today. He Was so excited about all the new regulations requirements and cost that he can’t wait to ski next year. He said it was so attractive he would be able to sign up 20 or 30 new members next year. They were thrilled about providing their Social Security number and paying $30 so they could sit in the tower all day.

[thager]

Sarcasm Sheldon, SARCASM!!! I better grab my dumbrella, It's really stupid out here today!

[lpskier]

@thager Nice In Laws reference!

[h2oSkiJunkie]

There are far too many comments in this thread to read them all but I want to throw my $.02 in the mix just for the fun of it.

 

I think the Safe Sport mandate for all members is ludicrous. Talk about a way to drive our numbers DOWN... Running a ski school, I engage a lot of recreational skiers each year. Many end up becoming members of USAWSWS in order to participate in my Fun tournament. Some are on the fence but when I egg them on and they only have to go online and pay a $35 membership to sign up, they are willing to do it. A number of these folks have become full fledged members, and they come back year after year. All it will take is an hour-long online training to halt this matriculation. Moreover, some on-the-fence members will find this an easy reason to bail out of the organization. Heck, we even have long-term members threatening to leave, because it offends their sensibilities. I don't know about all that. If you are decade+ competitive member or official, you have probably already given your time to something more useless than this (though I agree another waste of time is just that).

 

I have done the SafeSport class and the refresher course. As a coach, it is good to have in my back pocket, though I must say the content is all pretty much common sense. I can't say I really gained anything from taking the course. I can see why we would mandate this training for any coaches traveling with international teams, especially junior teams. I can't say that I see a reason to subject our officials to this mandatory training. Again, officials can be hard to come by and this is a disincentive to maintain or get an officials rating. If we are making recommendations, why do we think this is important for a slalom judge or a scorer to have? Maybe a "Safety Coordinator" official should have to do this, as they may have to lay hands on a person or this sort of thing would fall within their purview, though I still think the course could be voluntary, due to its lack of practicality.

 

This course is not really about protecting the youth. It's nothing more than a CYA for the organization. Taking this course is not going to stop the rare bad actor from doing something out of line, and may even teach them how to cover their tracks or find the shadows where they can act.

 

I can plainly see why USAWSWS affiliated coaches and coaches leading teams on trips should complete the training. An adult leading a group of minors overseas should be given every tool to keep them safe and know SafeSport's universal boundaries of conduct. Is there any reason that a jump driver needs this? I am all for fair play and a healthy competitive environment, I just don't believe that having members or officials complete this course will actually have any influence on preventing an "incident". Overall, we have a very healthy, community-driven culture in this sport. Our primary objective should be growing our membership base, while trying to make our sport safe and wholesome. We can do exactly this without subjecting our members to an impractical course to shelter USAWSWS from any potential liability claims.

[ForrestGump]

WORD ^^^^^^^

[lpskier]

@h2oSkiJunkie Corey: Please attend the virtual Eastern Region winter meeting and share your thoughts in a setting where your voice could make a difference. You are influential voice and you could lead on this topic.

[OTF]

What next? I can’t carry a handgun or sip whiskey in the boat anymore?

 

How’s this for a time saver, mess with a minor and we go back to eye for an eye. Now that everyone is trained can we get back to enjoying the sport we’re all passionate about?

 

I’m with MS, only I bailed yrs ago, I never have or never will care about “a competition score”. If your honest with yourself you probably don’t either. You can either run it or you can’t and unless it’s your income stream who cares if it’s recorded?

[Wish]

Just some breaking news since they have been brought up in this thread.

 

“USA Gymnastics, U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee and their insurers have agreed to fund a $380 million settlement with victims of longtime national team physician Larry Nassar, drawing to a close a five-year legal battle that has upended American Olympic sports governance,” The Journal reported.  

[Bruce_Butterfield]

But if they had just run background checks on all the gymnastics judges, none of that would have happened.

[The_MS]

If they would all of had better training, none of it would have happened

[klindy]

If they has better training, background checks and a more proactive program to guard against that type of thing I do think the insurance companies are more likely to defend and address claims. Besides, of that settlement, I don’t know if insurance paid it all.

 

Here’s another article. Find is much, much larger than the $380million noted above. Looks like much of it did come from insurance coverage

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/coalition-abused-scouts-justice-increases-213500033.html

 

The point is this is the world we’re in. Reducing the potential as much as possible and ensuring there is adequate safeguards in place to better manage any issues that arise is an important part of operating the organization. There are no perfect answers. No easy answers. Just multiple layers of actions that minimize the opportunities and risks.

[Wish]

@klindy I agree but in following this thread, is USAWS really pushing more liabilities on the LOCs when it comes to these kinds of things?? That’s where I start scratching my head in the purpose of USAWS. Or is that a false claim?

[Stevie Boy]

@Bruce_Butterfield , surely in the case of the Gymnastics, other people knew or had suspicions, that something was not right, but nobody was prepared to look deeper into it it.

People looked the other way, for what ever reason, perhaps other Minors were targeted by other officials, but have not been called out.

Generally if you have contact with somebody over time, intuition tells you they are not right, there are times when that intuition is instant.

[ski6jones]

@klindy we should be reducing the risk to "as low as reasonably possible", not "as much as possible". There is a solution to all of this that does due diligence short of what has been implemented. Reducing the risk "as much as possible" means don't have events. No events, no risk. As it turns out that's exactly what the board has implemented. Numerous people on this board have agreed that training in certain positions is reasonable. What is being implemented is not at all reasonable.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@Stevie Boy I agree. Lots of opportunity for people to speak up and/or investigate that didn't happen for one reason or another. My point was that there are reasonable things that could/should be implemented and other things that will have little to no affect on kid's safety. Many of the things USAWS are implementing are in the latter category.

[klindy]

@ski6jones i agree with your language. Precisely what I intended.

 

@Wish a common misperception is that liability is being pushed on the LOC. the USAWSWS general liability insurance and even rider that covers the LOC, organizers, etc of an event included sexual misconduct now just as it has in the past. There is no additional liability being transferred to the LOC. There are some reporting/paperwork requirements which, as I understand it, can be handled by a simple email to all participants and a similar post onsite for late entries.

 

There should be some changes made to the details posted online and an email going out to all the clubs shortly.

[ski6jones]

@klindy so do you think the measures being implemented are reasonable in the context of 3-event tournament skiing? As I told Nate B. the measures being implemented are akin to driving a finish nail with a sledgehammer. Complete overkill, and inappropriate for the task at hand.

[Dirt]

I fear that this heavy handed broad sweeping approach to limit liability will do exactly that. There wont be much liability because there wont be many members left. It also opens the door for a 3 event only organization to fill the void. That will probably be what is needed anyway.

3 event and show ski supporting everyone else is not sustainable. It feels like the organization (USAWS) has not listened to us (AWSA) for years.

[klindy]

@ski6jones I believe the measures being implemented seem like we’re driving a finish nail with a sledgehammer. And, unfortunately, we’re trying to drive the nail thru a piece of glass. By that I mean society has changed. There is an expectation that the environment where we compete is safe and healthy (this is a good thing). While we all share varying levels of responsibility to make sure that happens (from parents teaching there kids appropriately to site owners keeping sites reasonably maintained to officials keeping intoxicated people from driving boats to any number of other concerns, it’s also the responsibility of the sanctioning body to put programs and other safeguards in place to mitigate the risks both real and financial. Due to today’s reality, laws and regulations are in place which make these things not only a good idea but a legal requirement. So unfortunately it’s irresponsible not to do something (at a minimum, what’s required).

 

At least two federal laws compel ANY amateur athletic organization which includes minors to provide a safe environment where those minors can participate. They include several requirements for awareness, preventative training, investigation and protection from sexual abuse, molestation and bullying. Note, this is NOT a USOPC or NGB requirement. It’s for ALL amateur sports organizations (e.g. - the “world we live in”). Read more here - https://www.usef.org/forms-pubs/ZeXEaZoEt-k/fact-sheet-protecting-young-victims

 

Criminal background checks are another tool required and use by the laws to identify potential bad actors and controlling their participation. Again, these too are part of federal law which mandates the are conducted for adult participants who have “regular contact” with minors. FYI, minors make up approximately 25% of our total membership. Likewise, for example, show skiers make up approximately 40% of our membership and it’s pretty clear that all those members have regular contact with minors. So while it seems draconian, based on the defensible definition of regular contact, the majority of the members need to be screened and take safe sport anyway. We are discussing reviewing that discipline by discipline and some adjustments may be made but the requirements aren’t going way - with or without USOPC or as a stand-alone AWSA or as a new organization. Ultimately the mandate isn’t from internal decisions but from our elected officials.

 

To add another layer, it would be fiscally irresponsible for USAWSWS to operate without insurance. The insurance carriers are increasingly resistant to provide incident coverage for these risks. Many WILL offer coverage (and the premiums vary) based on the ACTIONS taken by the insured (USAWSWS) to, as much as reasonably possible, mitigate risk. Currently we DO have coverage based on our current practices and our willingness to face these risks with recognized programs and procedures. None of these laws/regulations/procedures will prevent all issues. Likewise, whether a parent/guardian chooses ignore a incident or take matters into their own hands, the organization has a responsibility to reduce opportunity and l risk per the laws in place.

 

As leaders inside USAWSWS and AWSA, it our job to take the laws serious and try to maximize compliance, project reasonably into the future and minimize the negative impact on the organization and membership. Some things are practical steps which are changing and others are financial decisions. We can eliminate our relationship with USOPC. It would mean our access to programs like SafeSport go away or become more costly. Not being recognized by USOPC would likely change the relationship with IWWF and would prevent is from fielding teams for World Championship events (Open, U14, U17, U21, 35+, 45+, 55+, etc). That would likely have implications for sponsored athletes, ski and boat R&D, even ski schools and other programs that directly relate to elite athletes that we all benefit from. Even the title sponsor at this years Open Worlds was made possible by our affiliation with USOPC. This is on top of any financial benefit AND has ZERO to do with any dream or effort to become an Olympic sport (of which no active effort exists in the US that I’m aware of).

 

So, yes I think this likely similar to hitting a finish nail with a sledgehammer. However other sports organizations have been doing this for years already and were catching up. There still may be some tweaks which will help lessen the stress to get it in place but the reality is we alone aren’t going to change the world. There are a LOT of other details which are important but I didn’t include here. I’m sure there will be questions. A more detailed paper and FAQs will be coming out shortly (I’ve seen one draft).

 

 

[luckyone]

M S, Are you seriously going down this road . You will be the looser at the endI coach & drive for a sport’s camp for the last decade.I have dealt with all levels & kids just having fun through my experience & we all get something out of it besides cash ?, very little in the big picture. I learn from them & they learn from me , all very happy . I get so much more from them & makes me fell really good. We will all louse with someone else driving & maybe , probably they know less than you. Pull a Nike , just do it?

[ToddL]

@klindy - so in the other thread, it was asked if any skiing leadership will investigate how cycling and BMX can exist without the "everyone must" requirements.

 

Will you research this? The basic premise is: if they can let people compete without all these requirements, then so can we. Prove this incorrect. Then, you can say that every other sport is having to comply...

[ForrestGump]

And yet USA Cycling doesn't require any of this for their members or officials. Only coaches. What am I missing here? I do know USA Cycling only has a paltry 110,000 participants. Wait, how many does USA Waterski have again?

[ski6jones]

@klindy thanks for the very thorough response.

 

The document you linked is obviously a abbreviated version of the entirety of the regulations. Thanks for sparing us from that.

 

As I understand that document there is room for a less overbearing solution. Even if there isn't it seems NGBs are important in application of the law. Moving outside the umbrella if USAWS would seem to provide some relief.. Finally the wording of adults in authority over and regularly interacting with minors clearly does not apply to ALL members, and I would argue doesn't even apply to officials except coaches and perhaps Safety in almost every instance.

 

Good point though that this legislation has occurred, and to the extent we don't like it we should complain to our Gov representatives as we have been to our sport governing body.

 

[lpskier]

@ForrestGump I’m calling bullshit on this one. Here is the USA Cycling SafeSport policy. It doesn’t look much different than the USAWSWS SafeSport policy. Cycling requires all adults that have interaction with or control over minors to be SafeSport trained. There is nothing limited to just coaches. Maybe there are “adult only” opportunities in cycling, but there really aren’t any in water skiing other than senior worlds and Big Dawg-type events, and I imagine you might have to participate in a few “local” tournaments with minor’s participating to qualify for them. I think this “cycling doesn’t have to do it” argument is a false flag.

https://usacycling.org/safesport/usac-policies

[klindy]

@lpskier correction USA Cycling requires SafeSport training of all members does NOT include the word “minor”.

 

“USA Cycling requires members who have been authorized, appointed or approved to have regular contact with or authority over athletes to take SafeSport Trained. In addition, pursuant to The Center’s Education and Training Policy, USA Cycling requires adults at our Local Associations and with our Clubs who have regular contact with or authority over minor athletes to take SafeSport Trained.”

 

The difference is likely a clear separation of athletes and officials etc. Perhaps someone who’s knows how their sanctioned events work can better explain if athletes are ever used for “officials” or not. Pretty clear it’s not limited to only coaches or trainers.

[JackQ]

@klindy “minors make up approximately 25% of our total membership” That does not seem to be the proportion of participates in tournaments, if we are instituting controls for tournament organizers and those competing, does the composition of the entire membership or the composition of tournament skiers apply. I doubt there are many tournaments where anywhere near 25% are minors, it would be a health sign for the future of the sport, but I do not think that is the case.

[Stevie Boy]

Forgive me, but I have to throw this one in there, surely most abuse is likely to take place, at private or non affiliated lakes, I can understand the need for control of official water skiing coaches, but there are many people out there coaching, that are non regulated, I would have though the opportunity for grooming would start at grass roots, how would this strategy prevent this happening.

[ForrestGump]

I'm a USA Cycling member, official, and a USA BMX track operator and coach. You can be both. so there is no delineation there. They do require anyone coaching, managing, or training athletes or a junior team to be SS trained. You want to be a coach or trainer? Or do cycling camps? Or run a team? Yep.

 

But they do not require members or officials that work/manage races to be SS trained or background checked. So yes, the cycling doesn't have to do it argument does carry water. And yes, most races will have junior classes.

[lpskier]

@klindy @ForrestGump Keith, it’s the next sentence that pulls in the membership:

 

“In addition, pursuant to The Center’s Education and Training Policy, USA Cycling requires adults at our Local Associations and with our Clubs who have regular contact with or authority over minor athletes to take SafeSport Trained. “

 

The “regular contact” language seems to encompass more than just coaches. If they meant “coaches,” they could have said “coaches.”

 

On the other hand, if @ForrestGump is correct and Cycling only requires coaches to be trained, maybe our ED needs to talk to Cycling and other NGBs to see how they are handling SS and see if maybe we are overreacting and can back-off somewhat.

[The_MS]

“Criminal background checks are another tool required and use by the laws to identify potential bad actors and controlling their participation”

Then why don’t we do a back ground check on every member?

How do they expect us to put our Social Sec number and a visa # into a web site?

 

[Jody_Seal]

@klindy

How does one get on the USAWS board? How are you and Mr. Archambeau as well as Mr. Robbins did get selected to that board level?

 

You three might ask yourselfs is cutting off your nose to spite your face good business practices?

 

There are already instances of safesport being weponized by individuals and associates against others. Allegations, complaints that are frivolous and unsubstantiated.. these members now are having to deal with these issues!

Hope you don't have to deal with the "SS"!