2021 is my last year of USAWS

[Jody_Seal]

USOPC

Let's see !! United States Olympic and para-olympic committee!!

@klindy tell me again when waterskiing got into Olympics??

If by now Keith you have not realized it takes at least a 6 figure income to participate in this sport. Many individuals in this sport are millionaires.

Its sad that you believe that the scholarships in this sport go to the right people. Usually its children of an influential or even millionaire. Dont forget we applied for those scholarships when our kids went to school. Seemed they found their way into the accounts of affluent students. Again would those scholarship programs be better applied to a low income athlete, wrestler, soccer player tennis??

Those sports are Olympic sports!

Shame to you Keith and shame to those that have brought government into a sport that has this much affluence and wealth in its membership.

Usaws leadership has made no bones about admitting the entity could not now survive without the usopc grants.

In the end the executive director gets his $130k a year as he guaranteed his paycheck.

And yes maybe it is time to redesignate from a

501c maybe then a real professional business direction can be attained. But they don't want that then they can't ask for anymore government hand out!

 

 

[klindy]

@Jody_Seal first of all I have had ZERO to do with any kind of “invite” or expectation that waterskiing will become an Olympic sport. For absolute clarity, I do NOT believe that an engine has anything to do with denial to become an Olympic sport. I DO believe the primary reason is that it’s just doesn’t have the appeal to a mass audience in the current format. I DO believe it’s possible but I have ABSOLUTELY ZERO expectations of getting there nor are ANY of my personal decisions about the direction of 3-event skiing have anything to do with our affiliation with USOPC. None. Zero. And @Jody_Seal ill ask you to stop making broad generalizations about everyone on a board or committee suggesting collectively we are focused on some kind of Olympic push.

 

Second, the organization can survive without any direct funding from the USOPC. It makes up approximately 10% of total USAWSWS income which, if you do the math, can be totally replaced with a modest increase in dues (~$15). Don’t misunderstand me, the grants and other funds from USOPC are helpful and DO pay for things we would otherwise either have to fund elsewhere or eliminate. The relationship with USOPC, in its current form, provides significant creditability to the sport in general. It does provide prize money and underpins sponsorship for major events like the Masters and Open Worlds. There are literally hundreds of messages on BOS alone which encourage, support and cheer on the amazing coverage from TWBC and others, the overall quality and access which has greatly improved in recent years! ALL that exposure and chatter is directly related to the elite skiers around the world. I can think of dozens of ski schools and boat dealerships which are likely in existence today because of elite skiers - either training and/or coaching opportunities (both US and lots of foreign skiers). The elite program is critical to the survival of the sport and the industry.

 

Third, shame on me and others for “bringing government into the sport” while having so much affluence and wealth?! Dude, get a grip! It’s not about affluence or wealth! It’s about some really bad, ugly people on society that taint our quiet life for all of us! We don’t have Nassar or any of the issues that other sports. The Boy Scouts or the Catholic Church has, but we DO live in that world. And those horrible, sickening actions cause our elected politicians to react (overreact? Maybe, but as soon as you can control their actions, please let me know!). Here’s a link to the latest amendment to the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act further tightening the regulations we’ve spent nearly 40 pages debating - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-13986/pdf/COMPS-13986.pdf Make careful note that while it does discuss the USOPC as the primary organization, it also includes language which ropes in ALL “amateur sports organizations”. Breaking off USOPC won’t help, you still need to develop your own program or pay SafeSport MUCH more than a member NGB does. Breaking off USAWSWS doesn’t exempt any organization with 1)amateur athletes and 2) minors. So complain all you want about how our board, committees, ED, or i bungled the implementation, it’s here to stay in some form or fashion. I can assure you and anyone else reading that there have been LOTS of communication circulated among many people with questions, answers, more questions and ideas on how to comply with a minimum of burden to our membership.

 

Change is hard, especially when you didn’t cause the need to change. The sport is expensive and you’re right, many are affluent. That affluence has built an industry and many businesses associated with that industry - including very reputable boat dealers and repair shops like yours. Many of your ideas are good. Some will likely come into play. Others (like some of mine too) won’t see the light of day. Regardless of who or what your disappointment da jour is, we are all working to do the best things possible for the sport and the organization. Please consider that as we move forward.

[ALPJr]

On the other side of the coin I haven’t seen the cost of anything really go down over the past ~45 years or so that I’ve been skiing. Started out behind 20 to 40hp outboard boats with cutoff shorts, gradually moved up from 60 to 140hp outboards, owned a ~15 yr old inbound for ten years, have bummed rides from buddy’s for the past 6 years. In all that time about 30% of skiing was spent on public waters and I’m sure happy that a boat operator’s training and license was required. Trust me our household income and assets are nowhere near a millionaires budget. Again I don’t see the cost of anything going down over time and an extra few bucks a year, or spending a little time to watch a video intended to promote health and safety sure won’t keep me from skiing, going to a tourney or two, watching TWBC, browsing BOS, and supporting the organizations as best as I’m able too.

[Jody_Seal]

Real ugly bad people ? I guess all those show skiers that got banned for life could not run 41 off eh?

What are ya going to do Keith?? Use your safe sport as weapon against me like has already been done to other members of this organization?

 

[klindy]

@Jody_Seal you got it backwards. I’m not using anything against you. Your solution is to start something new and fracture the sport even more. Tell us what you expect and how it would work better. Tell us how you think you’d be exempt from a law every other amateur sports organization needs to find a way to comply with? Tell us how it will be funded?

 

Jody, again your ideas are good. Your passion and knowledge second to none. But somehow you come off as if everyone (or maybe just me?) is out to purposely make your life miserable. That’s simply not the case.

[ScottScott]

We've reached a milestone. I'm proud to say that it's been 500 comments on this thread since I looked in. The little yellow number will reset now, but the number of unread comments will continue.

 

Carry on....see you in another 500.

[The_MS]

What really sucks is that society’s views have not changed. The media has pushed this false narrative hard for over a decade and a really well funded, loud minority (like mosquitos constantly buzzing you) has been lobbying hard (with success) to make these changes. If you polled every American, the results would show the majority wants nothing to do with stuff like this. So we end up with Safe Sport and back ground checks. Like I said before, the Time Out generation has failed us but shame on the Boomers for not paying attention and allowing it to happen.

[Jody_Seal]

@klindy

So now act like you represent the other 50% (or more) of your region that are not going to go along with this and have said no!

You represent them too!

 

[Jody_Seal]

Dang Mark! being a boomer you put all that weight on my generation... your statements are right on though.

 

[klindy]

@Jody_Seal i have no idea what you’re talking about. I make others in the Southern Region miserable? I’m on the position I’m in by acclimation? Nope. Wrong. As COB I don’t even have a vote unless it’s to break a tie (which I’ve not had to do). If you have a problem with the Southern Region directors, I’m happy to help if I can.

[bigtex2011]

@Jody_Seal you seem so angry. Are you ok?

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@Jody_Seal please chill a little. We are all PO'd at the current state of affairs. The questions we are struggling with is how to go forward in a realistic manor, either with the current organization or a new one. There are pros and substantial cons on either path.

 

Let's cease with the personal insults and lay out the options and understand the consequences of each one so we can make some intelligent recommendations.

 

Oh if you want to still insult @The_MS please feel free.

[The_MS]

@Jody_Seal Unfortunately I am also a boomer. Guys like me at the end of the boomer trail had too much fun in the 70s/80s and the first of the boomers spent to much time at Haight-Ashbury

[ToddL]

I want to defend @klindy.

1) He is engaging in the discussion. Regardless of our approval of the response content, at least he is responding. I wish more of the USAWS/AWSA leadership participated and responded to these topics.

2) These issues have been growing for a long time. No one person is to blame, and he is fairly new to his role and the national leadership.

 

I also want to support @Jody_Seal. His passion for our sport (and thus his engagement on this topic) is clear. If only every one of us were to express our concerns so directly, the leadership would fully understand the depth of the concerns. His frustration with the responses from Keith are honest, despite becoming aggressive. There is a feeling of defeat before the question is asked when reading Keith's responses. Too much, "We can't do that." and not enough "what it would take is...", IMHO.

[rfa]

@ral, if "socialist" and "steals from the poor to give to the rich" seem contradictory to you, it is because you're interpreting "socialist" in the political philosophy sense. In the US, "socialist" is usually used as just another scary "go to" word. However, in this case, I think Mr. Seal is saying USAWS is "socialism for the rich" and it is wrong. We could fill 38 more pages on whether government money should go to "millionaires", but that's a whole different discussion, not in BOS' mission.

 

@Jody_Seal, after reading @jayski post (and all the "likes/awesomes" it got) seems to me that you may have it wrong with respect to the demographics of our sport. $50 fee and 3% surcharges, +,+, etc. = "FK this". Seems to me they're saying that more, not less, financial help is needed to keep the sport going. Can't have it both ways.

 

 

[ForrestGump]

I didn't take what jayski posted and the responses to be that we need more financial help.

[Jody_Seal]

All good. Just have to point BS when it is presented!

Merry Christmas ?

Looking forward to an alternative!

Just trying to give a last gasp

[The_MS]

The point is that the $50 and 3% is all BS that doesn’t need to be applied. I would gladly pay more for annual dues if we could rid ourselves of the government involvement in our sport. Again, the government F@&Ks up anything and everything that they get involved in.

[rfa]

@ForrestGump, fair comment about my poorly written post. Correct, they did not say we need more financial help. The connection I was making was about the irony of Jodi Seals "we're a sport of millionaires, no need for Government money", posted immediately following Jayski's post (and all the agreement), that the $50 fee, 3% , etc. = FK this (e.g. I'm out).

I ended with "can't have both ways". Right? We're either "millionaires with $100K boats" or these fees are way too expensive to continue. Hence, indirectly, we would need more financial help to reduce those fees.

I was not seriously addressing need for Government money vs. financial status of water-skiers. Silly in my opinion. Just pointing out the irony of these two adjacent postings.

 

[skibackwards]

"WE" have to get rid of the idea of a Social Security # being needed for this "PROCESS".

[cruznski]

So I jumping in here at page 40 of this thread, my membership became inactive as I had not taken the training. So I took it, it's closer to two hours of your life you will not get back. And it was (somewhat) useful and I do want to participate in tournaments in 2022. So I am not commenting on all the above pages. I do know several people in my and adjacent clubs who are opting out, lifelong AWSA contributors.

 

[skiep]

It's only a a small course and a little money. I good with it. I want to keep skiing tournaments.

[LeonL]

@cruznski as I posted a couple of months ago, despite continued mention of 90 minutes, ain't no way you're getting through SS in less than 2 hours. I went as fast as I could and it took me over 2.5. Just sayin'.

And I'm still against BG check.

[lpskier]

@LeonL whatever it took me (1.5 hours), it was faster than my test for Pan Am.

[Horton]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CXt2TxCtLuu/?utm_medium=copy_link

[The_MS]

If I still had my SR judge, I would go help out.

[Jody_Seal]

@The_MS thats because you refuse to wear two life jackets!!

[The_MS]

@Jody_Seal By the time worlds are here they will require 4 life jackets

[wski1831]

Requiring Safe Sport training is not a good idea, it will not help the sport. It appears there was no research done to see how other NGB's are handling this, clearly there has been minimal to no input from membership.Some suggestions I would make are: Offer a discount on membership or increase the rate for those of us who do not want to take the course. At a worst case it should be implemented in phases. Maybe set up a target percent increase each year. If that doesn't work first force the judges and safety to take it and maybe single out other groups. The world is changing quickly, phasing in this mandate would also allow us time to see how this shakes out and follow suit of what others are doing.

[klindy]

@wski1831 John, to address a couple of your points. There actually has been fairly significant research done to see how other NGBs have implemented SS. Some NGBs are larger and otters smaller. Interestingly all who provided feedback have implemented SS for all members. All expressed that there were vocal opponents and legitimate concerns about effectiveness.

 

SS has been implemented in phases over some time. Coaches, board/committee members and others have been required to take it for several years. I’ve had to take the refresher twice. USOPC conducts a 4-year audit which was a primary reason to add additional categories of members. The difficulty in determining exactly how to distinguish which members have access to minors makes it difficult to say this person has to take it and that person doesn’t. Therefore the USAWSWS board decided to make it mandatory for all members. That is being revisited on some levels by sport division.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@klindy with regard to the background checks for judges, the justification from USAWS has been that judges "have authority over" and are in "regular contact" with minors, so they must have background checks.

 

From the MAAPP:

"“Authority” exists when one person’s position over another person is such that, based on the totality of the circumstances, they have the power or right to direct, control, give orders to, or make decisions for that person. "

 

"“Regular contact” means ongoing interactions during a 12-month period wherein an Adult Participant is in a role of direct and active engagement with any Minor Athlete. Coaches, team managers, staff, physicians, and athletic trainers are all deemed to have regular contact with Minor Athletes."

 

I don't see how any judge at an AWSA event comes close to either of those definitions. Any progress getting that changed?

[klindy]

@Bruce_Butterfield I would agree. The decision was appealed and rejected. All those arguments weee made it seems.

[lpskier]

@klindy Appealed to and rejected by whom?

[ski6jones]

The decisions being made, laid out for all to see.

[RAWSki]

Keeping up on this thread is exhausting.....Yet I am trying to figure out how to turn all the "energy" of the posts into something more productive. I can't even get a clean-up "work party" organized at our lake but Right here....... Heck we could form an entire new Ski Organization, and probably build a new lake to boot!

 

Saying all that I do find the safe sport program fairly useless and it takes longer than all the corporate training programs I have to take combined. (harassment, money laundering, and e-mail security).

I just had to wonder if any safe-sport staff or training contractors attended a single water-ski tournament before instituting this gigantic CYA blanket program?

 

I did take it because I plan to be involved in tournaments next year.

 

[TravisNW]

I see a lot of posts throwing officials under the bus here and saying let’s just require them to get the training. Honestly our sport is so small everyone who participates in tournaments should should be an official of some sort. The last thing we need is another reason to not become an official, that whole process is confusing and time consuming already as it is.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@klindy that was my point. The previous “appeal” was obviously weak and needs to be pressed harder. I’m afraid we will loose a substantial number of officials if the background check requirement stays in place. The USAWS BOD obviously doesn’t care.

[MillerTime38]

Is there any actual data to show that requiring all members to have safe sport training reducing the risk of children being assaulted?

Since it’s been successfully implemented in other sports. Or is it just another knee jerk reaction to a couple bad apples

[ral]

@The_MS , bump up your thread, or this one will take the lead!

[The_MS]

@MillerTime38 the only reason that safe sport exists is due to their lobbying of the insurance companies and government officials.

[The_MS]

It’s a government gravy train. 23 million per year budget. 12 board members. 91 employees. Almost 1/2 of that budget pays these clowns.

In 2020 their server was hacked.

[ski6jones]

What @lpskier said, @klindy Appealed to and rejected by whom?

[lpskier]

@ski6jones @klindy My question was posed in a friendly, inquisitive manner.

[ski6jones]

@lpskier understand. I thought it was a good question. I appreciate Keith coming on here trying to help us understand what's happening.

[klindy]

I’ve been on the road all day. I’ll answer in the am.

[dave2ball]

I recently had a conversation with the new president Mr Hardy. I expressed my concerns and especially giving out my SS number. I will not do that. Period. My concerns were passed up the chain and Nate Boudreaux send me an email stating that judges will most likely have to do background checks but a safety will not. I will not go further with anymore ratings and if things change as far as a background checks my status may change. Any organization does not need SS number especially by a 3rd party who we know nothing about. If it a government contract it went out for bid and that means the LOWESR BIDDER GOT THE CONTRACT. if you go through a background check be very careful. They can sell anything for money nowadays.

[klindy]

@dave2ball the background check is a third party but not part of and “government contract”. They may very well do other work for the government but the background checks are not the same as the SafeSport training (which is part of a congressionally funded program). Not suggesting you’re feelings of opinion are wrong but the two issues are separate.

[dave2ball]

@klindy you can look at it any way you want. Giving your SS number out to a 3rd party is not smart. If it is not the same type of background check then what type of background check is it? If different then a criminal then a SS number is not needed. In order to do a background check someone needs to do some sort of contract to ensure it done to safe sport or USA guidelines. Can’t have it both ways

[The_MS]

A year ago I was thinking it was going to be the promo boats in short supply. Now it looks like SR judges for ELR events may be able to bid out their services due to low numbers.

[A_B]

Wait until we can no longer just have two sex divisions or a male identifying as a female at Nationals or Open level…..

 

How about a membership level for coaches and ski schools taking some level of training versus those of us who just want to ski?