2021 is my last year of USAWS

[klindy]

@dave2ball we can agree that much of the communication from USAWSWS has been lacking. However, the very first post almost a year ago was triggered from a straightforward, clear communication from USAWSWS that SafeSport would be required for all members. The driver was then and is now, federal and state laws which require ALL organizations that include youth participation to take proactive steps to protect the youth. Our affiliation with USOPC makes compliance ‘easier’ since they do have SafeSport which can be used as a training/investigation/training tool.

 

The decision to use SafeSport as an active part of the requirements for USAWSWS still stands. All active members who participate in events where youth attend are required to take the training. All current members have to have the training complete before they participate. New members have 30 days to get it complete. What’s different from the initial announcement is that members that do not compete (approx 50%) of AWSA members and those who are members to meet local club obligations, etc where no youth participate do not need to take the training. The membership system and tournament registration process has been updated to check the SafeSport status before showing the member “ready to ski”.

 

There’s 56 pages of comments here where there are many that have explained the above multiple ways. There have been questions and even changes but it has been pretty transparent.

 

As for background checks, it’s true that communication has been less transparent. However that’s not because of some desire to “screw the members”. Background screening is another requirement that exists in the general requirements to take steps to protect the youth and other adults members. USAWSWS (and the sport divisions) have been doing background screenings for years (I’ve personally had my third one just over a year ago). A USOPC audit finding compelled USAWSWS to add some additional groups of members to the screening process - namely “officials”. Between debate in what was actually meant as “officials”, the update of the membership software, and clarity that whatever we did would also be agreeable too insurance carriers (which have changed) clear, direct answers have been somewhat of a bouncing ball. I’ve personally been quite critical of the lack of communication as have others. However,

I’ve since come to realize some of the legitimate reasons. Again if you go back thru this thread you’ll see lots of questions and answers about this throughout.

 

So I’d again agree that the communication could have been better. Leadership at AWSA also wasn’t as involved in the process as I would have liked. But as we learned and asked questions, our voice was heard, changes were made and information more clear. In fact, I’ll bet the additional members required to have a background check are fewer than a couple dozen (maybe even less) which is a long way from the initial thoughts.

 

If you have more questions about any of this feel free to ask. I’ll do my best to answer and if I don’t know the answer I’ll find it.

[ToddL]

This year after a lot of resistance, USAWS landed on a 90 minute video and BGCs for a small group of judges at Nationals. Yeah, still don't like it, but...

 

Next year it will be, what? And the year after that? I could easily see this slowly advance until Dock Starters must be rated officials, and all officials are required to have BGCs.

[ToddL]

The very concept of a conflict of interest is: "...and you are funded by the organization you’re investigating, they’re likely not going to do the right thing."

[klindy]

@ToddL first I recommend you don’t “buy trouble”. Sure, keep an eye on the future but if you want to make ‘decisions’ on your level of support based on what *might* happen in future years that’s a shame. Tell me all the totally prevents another Nassar type event and I can better predict the future. No one saw him do what he did for 20+ years. We ultimately react to changes as the come forward (which is precisely what the last 56 pages of posts reflect).

 

Second, you’re right to get skeptical, even cynical. It does keep things in line. Don’t, for a second, think you’re the only one. Again, if you want to make a difference, step up … you can have my job.

[ToddL]

@klindy - I prefer jobs where my scope of responsibility is similar to my scope of control and impact. AWSA roles appear lacking in control and impact with regards to USAWS.

[klindy]

@ToddL I’d disagree and I suspect many other would too. Not saying there aren’t issues to deal with and situations that are frustrating but AWSA is still the largest sport division and, as such, has the most votes at USAWSWS. Therefore, by default committees at USAWSWS have more AWSA members than all the others. Influence and control require those who care to step up and into roles which can make a difference.

[ToddL]

Maybe so, @klindy. Hopefully, AWSA leadership will easily prove you right this year.

[klindy]

AWSAs leadership has always been solid. In recent years with @JeffSurdej as President, he introduced several initiatives which were successful to slow/stop the loss of members over the years. Certainly not everything was successful but net positive for sure.

 

The AWSA format was replicated for USAWSWS (not that it’s perfect but it has been tested for decades). Several AWSA directors and committee members are active here and several are also part of the USAWSWS governance. Not sure what shift you expect but, good or bad, it’s not likely to be a huge shift.

[ski6jones]

@klindy to @ToddL comment, one thing that bugs me each time I read the USAWS explanation of why they've done what they've done is the comment about Show Skiing. They are 40% of the membership and have lots of minor participation. Fine, good even.

 

That is not AWSA, yet we are subject to constraints required by show skiing. Why? Because we are all towed behind a boat?

 

There are clearly compliance issues for both sports divisions. The issues are just different.

 

Even with AWSAs numbers and y'alls petitioning it makes little difference. Majority of the decisions are made literally outside of USAWS.

 

I truly appreciate what you and the other AWSA reps have done on behalf of 3-event skiing, but at the end of the day our destiny is not our own.

[klindy]

@ski6jones show and 3-event are definitely look at thru different lenses. It’s true that both the SafeSport and background check decisions were made assuming the lowest common denominator. The push back from AWSA quickly changed the direction to a “division specific” solution. As I’ve said before, the biggest complaint I had was that we (AWSA leadership) were not included in the discussion early enough. Some of the one-size-fits-all solutions just didn’t make sense for AWSA at this point. As I detailed above, significant changes have been made to make things far more palatable.

 

To the defense of USAWSWS and Nate as Executive Director. Each sport division has its own way of doing things, it’s own terminology and it’s own challenges. We’ll never align everything but there is real sense in coordinating where we can - membership, sanctioning, officials to some extent, etc. Admittedly it’s sometimes difficult to determine where those synergies lie and we’re differences are legitimate. I will say that the USAWSWS Chairman, President, VP and secretary are all affiliated with 3-event so AWSA interests should continue to be well represented at the USAWSWS level too.

[Dirt]

Awsa would be much better on its own

[Not_The_Pug]

I did the training over the weekend. I don't know the actual time, as I did it off an on over the weekend, but it was over 90 min. My issue with the training was the majority was geared toward coaches and team travel. If USAWSWS is going to mandate this for all general members, they should push back to USOC and Safe Sport to create a 20-30 min program for general members. They could cover what to watch for, mandatory reporting and bullying. It would be add options to all sports organizations that are required to have a program.

[RichardDoane]

seems like the SS training could be a bunch of short modules, dealing with specific instances. General members only need the basic group, with coaches and team-related affiliates adding on additional groups or bundles. Show skiing could also have it's own category of selections.

[RichardDoane]

I'd like to thank @klindy for his input and thoughtful responses, it makes me feel like we're headed in the right direction.

 

But also @The_MS for being a member who spoke up about the load of BS that arrived on our doorstep, and for not being afraid to "be that guy"

 

Hopefully @The_MS will continue to be part of competitive skiing, as he's the type of person that every organization needs.

[klindy]

Thanks @RichardDoane. I also hope to see @The_MS and everyone else around this summer.

 

@Not_The_Pug the initial SafeSport training is pretty general and almost too vague. That said, SafeSport is “generic” to all sport just not USAWSWS. The annual follow up sessions are much shorter (30 min or so), more focused on very specific aspects and likely more relevant ultimately.

[ToddL]

@Not_The_Pug - EXACTLY!!! This is what I kept pushing for with regards to SS training!

 

This content and training module DOES NOT match the decided audience. Every time that I brought this up, I was shot down with explanations of:

This is what SS provides to USAWS

We can't/won't/don't do our own videos

We can't/won't seek alternatives to SS provided curriculum

Alternatives cost too much, too difficult to track, would be separate from SS tracking

etc.

 

Basically, the USAWS leadership took the easy button option of adopting whatever SS provides regardless of the appropriateness or applicability to the audience USAWS chose to be required to complete the curriculum.

 

They as far as I understand did not make any attempt to investigate alternative solutions/curriculum. Rather, they made a decision long ago to fully adopt whatever SS provided along with their alignment with that solution. There appears to be no desire to consider any alternatives.

[RichardDoane]

I should have also mentioned @ToddL in my "thank you" post above, it's good for any organization to be critiqued upon their decision making process and policies

[Not_The_Pug]

@klindy I appreciate your answers trying to show what is going on with the board.

 

But why isn't the board pushing for the general membership to just use the annual as the only one we need? Then add the other modules for coaches and team personnel.

 

We should always be questioning requirements if they don't fit the need/outcome, not just following the lemming line off the cliff.

 

 

[bigtex2011]

@ToddL you have seen the budget posted somewhere in the 56 pages. What would make you think they can make a ski specific safesport video.

[unksskis]

There aren't other options, this is required, creating our own would be too cost and resource prohibitive. For my job in order to access healthcare facilities I must take annual training including HIPAA, BBP, OR protocol, etc all are 3rd party supported trainings that meet set standards and guidelines. Same thing here, SS sets the guidelines, and provides the training that meets the set requirements. Going on our own would not do any of that.

 

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@RichardDoane I was agreeing with you until you referred to MS “ as he's the type of person that every organization needs.”

Have you ever met him? I really doubt you could make that comment if you had. ?

[UCFskier]

I am not surprised to read such push back on the forum. it was not long ago there was a huge stain on waterskiing and SS became involved. many here rationalized and justified the behaviors of the offending coach/official/skier. The governing body did little however, this seems to be a step in the right direction. it is not perfect, it does not make complete sense however, if more of these offending behaviors continue we are at risk of completely losing the sport all together. So as this progresses I believe the governing body will amend trainings and policy.

 

Reading threads like "how do we legitimize the sport of skiing" "how do we get it on television" This is how. legitimate sports have safe guards in place to protect kids. Hockey, Volleyball, snowboarding, hell bobsleding likely has better policies in place.....

 

I have no idea on the efficacy of SS but again, it is one step in the right direction towards keeping this sport alive.

[ForrestGump]

This brings skiing no closer to getting on television. That ship sailed 20 years ago and it sunk in the marianas trench.

[UCFskier]

@ForrestGump Im not saying I disagree with you (I remember the good ol' days of ESPN and 1000 + spectators on the shore.) However, anything unwilling to change, grow, amend, etc is sure to fail. I am not saying SS will get skiing on television, the sport is a long way from there... but what ever we can do to legitimize the sport will eventually help.

 

[ski6jones]

I predict the only thing these measures will accomplish is to accelerate the decline of the sport.

[UCFskier]

If ppl cant see their way through this.... it was not much of a sport to begin with (more of a hobby or pass time) which Im cool with.... its just weird to read ppl complaining about it not being a legitimate sport but not be willing to do the boring or crappy stuff that comes with making a sport just that.

 

Should we self police? Cuz that does not seem to work too well

 

 

 

[igkya]

@UCFskier

SS did little to nothing for the US gymnasts, how is it going to legitimize skiing? And since when wasn't skiing a legitimate sport?

[lpskier]

@ski6jones Well, then all organized sport will decline because all organized sport involving minors requires or will require SS. I’m told it’s even required for college intramural sports.

[UCFskier]

There has been a decline over a lot of years @igkya and if you are going to have children competing side by side with adults or coached by adults or judged by adults there needs to be safe guards in place. I have no illusion that SS is the fix to all of society's woes but with the most recent "scandal" I believe many are in scramble mode to try and protect the sport you love.

 

[UCFskier]

@lpskier thats the point I was making... we evolve or be content to be a hobby

[klindy]

@igkya SafeSport did NOTHING for gymnastics! If it wasn’t for the problems that gymnastics did essentially to themselves by not having proper policies and safeguards in place, I’d suggest SS wouldn’t exist. That it does exist, in the generic form that it is, is due to a LOT of NGBs not having clear policies in place.

 

Again, if you want to get a really good idea I’d what happened and how, watch “Athlete A” on Netflix. It’s a documentary produced in 2021 (I think) that shows just how simple things go off the rails due to a 1)real sick doctor (who was loved in the sport and was wildly popular), 2) a real desire to win in international competitions and 3) when you put the care and safety of the athletes somewhere down the priority list. It became easier to “deal with it internally” and keep it quiet. Once 1 athlete came forward it became clear that hundreds had been molested for decades. Literally right under the nose of coaches, managers, officials, even parents. To the point where he literally justified his actions during a taped deposition (shown in the documentary).

 

I’m not suggesting this problem exists anywhere else especially within waterskiing but how this was able to take place deserves attention. We can argue about the requirements all day but @UCFskier has the right idea.

[ToddL]

@UCFskier - if this is a step in the right direction, then we were given the wrong shoes for the journey. And why must we choose to define our sport as either hobby vs. competition? In fact, I propose that when we lost focus on the hobby side of the sport is when its competition decline began.

[igkya]

@UCFskier @klindy That's one way to look at it, others have different views and ways to make things better.

[Dirt]

@UCFskier The whole idea that doing something is better than doing nothing is ridiculous.

As I have said before a very short video and a waiver or just the waiver would’ve sufficed.

Making every person who wants to ski a tournament go online and waste two hours of their life is probably not going to make the sport better overall.

[rfa]

I believe it's accepted that progress has been made (BGC, etc.) Thank you @Klindy! Thank you for the effort and for your "patience".

 

It seems that after 10 months and 57 pages, we still have not understood (or pretend not to) several key basic facts

• SS came about as a result of terrible acts by a few, BUT IGNORED by many. SS requirements focus on the "ignored by many" part. SS is NOT intended to turn a "Dr. Nassar" into a "good person".

• In addition to the terrible consequences for the victims, the financial "price" has been significant. Recent settlements are closing in on $2Billion on the biggest cases (MSU, U. Michigan, USOC/US Gymnastics (all related), UCLA). High "settlement" price = high cost of liability protection.

• Liability protection measures do not always make sense across the board, nor are they 100% effective (if they were, it would be quite cheap). It's the "insurance business", not an overly complicated concept.

• SS is a national-wide requirement overseeing all amateur sports. Of which, we are but a TINY fraction! Imagine if every sport wanted to develop its own "SS". No National policy of any kind can accommodate every desire. Even if it makes sense for a particular sport of demographic. It is just NOT possible. Pretending otherwise is, well..."silly"

 

These simple basic facts dictate that every organization under the SS umbrella, while being able to participate and have some accommodations made, cannot simply implement its own ideas and wishes. @Klindy has explained and DELIVERED some of these accommodations for us. Continuing to ask for the impossible, ignoring these realities, is not productive or even serious (in my opinion).

 

Let us not forget what the "burden" is. A 90 minute video! Yes, I have done it and it was not anywhere near the most difficult thing in my life. Really!

 

But if we're not convinced and still want to "make the case" to SS/USAWS/AWSA/USOPC/US Senate/Insurance industry/whomever, let's prepare a strong case.

 

My draft PowerPoint presentation ("Why we are unhappy with SS")

 

• SOCIALISM! SOCIALISM! (yes, we all read Karl Marx...)

• This is TOO WOKE for us (we're mostly old)

• We got the answers right even before the video. (see, we don't need it.)

• The real problem is the USOPC,

• or the USAWS,

• or the AWSA (all of the above?)

• We're transferring liability to the LOC's. (compliance with SS protects LOCs, but try it...)

• We just want to ski like we used to...

• We'll go find another sanctioning platform. (just pretend we don't know SS still applies)

• The progress we made for now is good. But what about the future? What else might

come down the pike?

• Even Aly Raisman doesn't like SS under USOPC. So, we don't either! (What Aly is saying is

that this is not GOOD ENOUGH. We however, think it's overreach and want to do less.

(Might be a good argument...)

 

No, not satire, it's of what we have been reading here over the last 10 months.

 

I have no idea whether there will be more or less tournaments. More or less skiers. Better or lower buoy counts. But we are into 2022, the regs are what they are and people will do as they wish and have the right to decide. It shouldn't be too hard.

 

I wish the best to all, regardless of what we each decide.

And a big THANK YOU again to @klindy.

 

[igkya]

Didn't a wise old man once say 'Doing the wrong thing, just to say you did something, doesn't make it right'?

[UCFskier]

@rfa that is what I am saying.... it is WAY too WOKE it is bull crap... but we did this... I dont agree with the SS model as I said above (wont cure all of sociatle woes) however, if we did not accept, rationalize, justify, etc.... the behaviours of thoes who are agressive or sexual towards kids and women we would not be in this crap storm to begin with....

 

Ask yourself how the hell we got here?? its not by accident?? it a reaction to "incidents" . If you dont like it, place it firmly at the foot of thoes who got us here (not SS)

[lpskier]

@igkya The expression I often hear is this: “The best decision is a good decision. The second best decision is a bad decision. The worst decision is no decision at all.”

[The_MS]

USA Curling does not make competitors do SS training.

[klindy]

If your involved with minors they do.

 

“ Applicable Adults: Adults to whom items regarding minor athlete abuse prevention in Section 2 of the USA Curling SafeSport Handbook apply are referred to as Applicable Adults. Applicable Adults always include:

• Any adult authorized by the USCA to have regular contact with or authority over an amateur athlete who is a minor (e.g., coaches); and

• Adult staff of USA Curling and USCA board members.

Some aspects of the policy also directly apply to all adult members of organizations that are members of the USCA. Specific requirements that are applicable to USCA member organizations are detailed in Section 2. Applicable Adults are also Covered Individuals, but all Covered Individuals are not necessarily Applicable Adults.”

 

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f34a2ea0d87a44cac1ebfb0/t/61ccbccfd6b79b24c4d296bc/1640807633802/USA%2BCurling%2BSafeSport%2BHandbook%2B%2801-01-22%29.pdf

 

Looks like they also have approx 50 people on the disciplinary action list ….

 

Pick a better example @The_MS

[ski6jones]

To @MS point, it would appear regular participants who DO NOT have regular contact with minors are only encouraged to take the training. For those that clearly DO have regular contact training is required.

 

I don't remember reading any serious comments in this thread that suggested those who have regular contact with minors should avoid taking the SS training. In that case some type of training is required under the law, SS or an equivalent, without regard to the type of organization or affiliation. Tracking training for that subset of membership is very easily implemented in our member database.

 

I understand USAWS is not going to relent on making every participant take the training. That ship has apparently sailed. But the suggestion that training all members was the only way to move forward ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

[UCFskier]

@klindy say it aint so??? LOL

again the governing bodies are trying to feel their way through this and no doubt there will be an evolution

[klindy]

@ski6jones …. I’ll try again and I’ll refer you to probably 2-3 replies per page back at least 10 pages for additional information ….

 

The USAWSWS policy regarding SafeSport training for adult members is identical to that of USA Curling. Any adult member who may have regular contact with a minor participant must take the training. In addition, coaches, team managers, board members, etc. must also take the training.

 

The difference, as I see it, is in administration. I have no additional details on how Curling knows who’s an “Applicable Adult” vs a “covered adult” vs something else. For USAWSWS they have decided to look at each sport division separately. For example, if you declare Show as your first choice - no options, no options all members must take it (full stop). For 3 event, if you COMPETE (which isn’t necessarily a “participant” or a “member”) must take it. So if you are a club skier who has to have a USAWSWS membership to be a club member, you do NOT have to take it. If you’re a supporting member who doesn’t compete, you dont have to take it (unless you’re on the Board, etc). That means that LESS THAN 50% of AWSA members will have to take it.

 

So what does administration have to do with it ?? Well, if you are a member and never register for a tournament the flag Thats set to “inactive” won’t matter at all. As soon as you sign up for a tournament and you register (or the registrar downloads the latest membership roster) it will show you ineligible to ski. It’s no different than not having your dues paid or waiver signed or tournament entry fee paid.

 

 

Maybe Curling has some way to separate adult members into various categories, maybe they’ll have to make some adjustments to their policy, or perhaps that means everyone takes it now, I don’t know. I do know that the changes made to the USAWSWS policy has cut in half the number of MEMBERS who have to take it. And the background check changes reduced the potential of 1,800 “officials” down to, at most, a couple dozen that haven’t had it already.

[rfa]

@klindy, I commended your "patience" in the previous post...I wasn't kidding.

Who remembers or cares about what was said 10 pages ago?

[ski6jones]

@klindy I understand and agree all of that is progress. To clarify, my "ridiculous" comment wasn't directed at you but rather at the notion what was implemented is the only viable solution. There are at least as many viable solutions as there are NGBs, and many more that weren't implemented for one reason or the other.

 

As I said, the change that will happen for this year has already happened. And again, I appreciate that y'all have gone to bat even if I'm still not completely satisfied with the outcome.

 

Edited: I said every member in my previous post, I meant every tournament participant. I still don't think that every tournament participant should be required to have SS training. Only those with regular minor contact (Coaches, JD, etc).

[The_MS]

If I show up to my Curling club and sign up to USA Curling and compete in club events, I don’t need to take any SS training. If I coach or organize I would need to do training but to compete I don’t. So why does USA Curling read the requirements differently then USAWS?

[Horton]

Everyone who is a USAWS member should have gotten an email today. The key text of the email is as follows.

 

Only judges who are 18 and older who are selected to judge a National Championships event or IWWF World Championships or multi-sport events or Pan Am titled event will need to pass a background screen – all other judges at local and regional events do not need to be background screened.

[Horton]

I know that there are some of you that will not be happy unless all of this is reversed but I hope you guys feel like your voices have been heard more than ever before. This thread is literally a protest. You guys got out your touches & pitchforks and then said what you wanted to say.

 

As the owner of this forum, I am still not exactly sure about how to interpret the impact of this thread. Is this a thread driven by the vocal minority or is most of the membership really fired up? Did this thread actually force leadership to take a long second look at the policies originally implemented? I think so but can not know for sure.

 

There were ( and still are ) some members of this forum who begged me to shut this thread down. I am sure there is some negative impact to what has been written here. I am sure that some readers became misinformed by reading some of the posts. Conversely far more members came to understand that there was/is a controversy and voiced their opinion here and to their association representatives.

 

I hope this subject has about burned itself out and I very much hope the some good was achieved.

 

[Drago]

"If they have regular contact ".

In ski racing, that means adults (18+) if they train with kids. If a club has a Masters program that trains separate of the kids, and doesn't share locker rooms, they do not have to take SafeSport.

My guess is curling doesn't have a huge kid's program, or they train and compete separately .

[sunperch]

Only judges who are 18 and older who are selected to judge a National Championships event or IWWF World Championships or multi-sport events or Pan Am titled event will need to pass a background screen – all other judges at local and regional events do not need to be background screened.

 

I do not see specific language explaining which judges, or if all judges at Nationals need BGC. Appointed? Assigned? Volunteer onsite judges?