And you thought Safe Sport requirement would be the end....

[Horton]

@ski6jones & @sunperch if this were a platform for general conversation about the government and culture of the United States, I would agree that there's lots to talk about.

Since this forum is specifically focused on water skiing and especially tournament water skiing I don't really think there's much to talk about because the issue at hand is way upstream of our organization. The simple fact is Safe Sport is now ubiquitous across most sporting associations. As water skiers, we don't really have much to say.

The only thing we could do if you really think we can is to pay very close attention to our representatives at AWSA & choose them depending on who they're going to elect to the USA water board. The only group that could theoretically have an impact on this subject is the USA WaterSki board. At this point I don't know if even they could turn the ship around - I'm kind of doubtful. One of the universal failing in this sport, it is for the members of the association to carefully participate in the election of a representation. 

[ski6jones]

@Horton don't generaiise my comment like that.  I was commenting specifically on why some members are really bothered by thie intrusion by government into a virtually invisible sport.  No mention of politics. Agree more participation in governance is the way forward for those still participating. There are always alternatives.

[Horton]

@ski6jones not accusing you of anything. Just tired of everyone beating a dead horse.

[DvarianDan Johnson]

Have to say I'm shocked to find folks continuing to complain endlessly about this.   Neither AWSA nor USA Water Ski has anything to say about this nor can they do anything about these requirements. These are requirements from industries outside of the sport, that provide a services to this sport and others. The sport of water skiing can ACCEPT or REJECT. That's the only play.  The insurance/risk management world doesn't care if you like them or not,. They are now a core, foundational component to the landscape. A cost of doing business. Period. You can REJECT and take your toys and go home and shut down as not being able to host any events. Or you can accept and like them or not move ahead. The skiing world could entirely go away tomorrow and insurance world wouldn't even notice.

 

I'm sure many here won't like these comments. Oh well....

Invest your energies in something you have a chance to move the needle on. This isn't one of them.      

[The_MS]

[Horton]

I'm pretty close to the point where I might just ban any post on the subject that feels like it's just beating the dead horse further

[ski6jones]

@Horton my first response to you in this thread was about not beating  a dead horse. Pot meet kettle.  You facilitated much of the thread after that.  A good thing.

As pertains to tournament skiing this is apparently still an important topic.  I agree most of it is water under the bridge.  I disagree the decisions made were the only options available.  

Banning discussion of such an important topic seems counter productive, but you are the Supreme Galactic ruler, so ...

[RAWSki]

4 hours ago, Horton said:

I'm pretty close to the point where I might just ban any post on the subject that feels like it's just beating the dead horse further

Didnt I say Slippery Slope a week or two ago?

[Horton]

@ski6jones I would be stoked if people were putting forward actual solutions. A couple of days ago I suggested that if you want changes in policy you've got to do it through changes in representation ( AWSA USAWS elected representatives). I don't think that's actually likely to happen, but at least that would be an attempt to change things from within. What wears me out and frankly just leaves a dark cloud over this forum is people who just want to complain and complain and complain and complain or who suggests implausible overly simplistic solutions. At this point I'm probably a bit oversensitive to anybody who just wants to bitch about safe sport.

[buechsr]

On 3/11/2024 at 11:19 PM, Horton said:

@ski6jones I would be stoked if people were putting forward actual solutions. A couple of days ago I suggested that if you want changes in policy you've got to do it through changes in representation ( AWSA USAWS elected representatives). I don't think that's actually likely to happen, but at least that would be an attempt to change things from within. What wears me out and frankly just leaves a dark cloud over this forum is people who just want to complain and complain and complain and complain or who suggests implausible overly simplistic solutions. At this point I'm probably a bit oversensitive to anybody who just wants to bitch about safe sport.

You're not alone.  

My recollection, which fails more often than I'd like to admit but nonetheless I will rely upon, is that one option that gained "some" momentum on BOS was a sort of secession-mutiny with a new organization, new rules, and most importantly, no safe sport requirement.  None of which solved the problem that was addressed AD NAUSEUM by USAWS and AWSA leadership AND our insurance brokers that coverage would be impossible without a program "like" safe sport.  AIG, or Lloyds or WHOEVER is not going to tell USAWS this is a requirement or we cannot source coverage for you, then magically be able to source coverage for the "we protest safe sport water ski association". 

All this belly-aching about it solves nothing.  Ideas and alternatives are a starting point, but once again, there's still, to my knowledge, none offered that are VIABLE. 

As @DvarianDan Johnson correctly put it, as an organized body we require certain things.  One of those very important things, a little thing called insurance coverage, imposed requirements on "us" and millions of others.  We had an option to exist and function with SS requirements, or not.  It is mind-bending to me that people have quit supporting an organization over something that was out of their control.  All over a 1 hour video...?

[The_MS]

Moving past the talking points we can find some facts. 
This is not brought to us by the insurance  companies. It was imposed on us by our 15 % approval rated congress. They fund the program with a massive budget paid for by printing money yearly.  Its one of many government pork projects that resulted from a catastrophe (never let one go to waste) in the sports world.  They are here to save you. Shut off the funding and it all magically goes away. 
 

 

[Horton]

@The_MS so it is not really about water skiing?

[The_MS]

@Horton it is all about skiing and politics.  You dont allow politics on BOS and I dont allow politics in waterskiing. When they crossed the streams of govt with skiing, I opted out.  Its not about the 3 hours, I have volunteered more time and money to the org then most. 

[Horton]

I think most USAWS members would agree with the following

• Protecting women and children should always be a priority.
• What happened in Olympic Gymnastics with Larry Nassar is tragic and evil. Bad things happen in all sports and this is something none of us should accept.
• Abuse of women and children is a real problem.
• The environment of water skiing is generally less conducive to abuse than most other sports but even water skiing has some tragic skeletons in its closet.
• The mission of SafeSport is a good mission.
• The execution of the SafeSport mission is laughable.
• The one-size-fits-all all implementation of SafeSport training is ridiculous and does not fit with the culture of water skiing.
• USAWS did not seek out SafeSport. It was forced on us.
• No one in water skiing has a practical alternative to SafeSport and currently it is just the world we live in. Complaining about it is almost a textbook example of beating a dead horse.

[DvarianDan Johnson]

Are we there yet? How many times must we say "beating a dead horse" before we're sure it's dead............ 

[The_MS]

@DvarianDan Johnson its as simple as not opening the thread. 

[Horton]

@The_MS Pot/Kettle

[The_MS]

I like the thread. It seams to go away for a few days but someone always opens it back up. 

[DvarianDan Johnson]

@The_MS you’re right. Not worth opening . 

[DW]

https://apnews.com/article/olympics-safesport-abuse-ted-stevens-act-cb4398af5c3f50e94ce35fb3d21509bd

[ski6jones]

Bureaucracies grow themselves. 

[Jody_Seal]

One of the key findings of this study has been a lack of transparency, accountability, and due process by USOPC, governing bodies, and SafeSport,” the report read. “This is detrimental both to the movement and to the millions of Americans who participate in it.”

 

Yep!! more government over site!! Feed me! feed me! deeper corrupt pockets! that's what we need!!

[The_MS]

This is an opening to contact your Rep in congress. Like I said, the funding dries up and this all goes away. Its good to see the AP actually report a few facts for a change. 
If you truly would like a safe sport type of operation within the organization, it would have to be a privately run business what you would be able to actually hold responsible. 
It sounds like organizations like USAWS will eventually be required to pay up to cover the costs and that is how it should be.