ski6jones

My experience. Be able to ski 8 passes without being winded before going to ski school. You might still be sore. Don't feel like you need to ski 2-3 sets or more per day just because you can. 1 or 2 short sets is probably best. I alternate 1 & 2 set days over the course of a week to be sure I don't ski beyond my physical limits. GOOD coaching is the best money you can spend in this sport Have fun!

Hard NO to all of that stuff you said.

It's been obvious for a while they were compelled by law to do something. Fair enough. There is still plenty of room to find fault with what was done and the lack of communication that occurred while doing it. From the meeting; SS for all adult members - Not required by law. Decision made by USAWS. BGC - Not required by law, USOPC is driving this. As noted sounds like this may be dropped for most. Insurance was sited as a huge driver for some of the program USAWS put in place. Pretty sure complying with the letter of the law would have gotten exactly the same result. Had there been more communication along the way we might currently be in a better place. I thank them for having the call. They should hold another after more is finalized at the BOD meeting end of Jan.

I wouldn't buy anything from TRBenj (referenced above). I bought a Nautique muffler from him and it was in worse shape than the one I had. Of course most of the cost was shipping, so the damage was done. Just a word of warning, I don't trust that guy.

It sounds like they're doing lots of work on back end of the website to comply with all the new "stuff". Could be related to that.

... and grow the sport.I think we will look back on this and think "What the H3!! were we thinking".I hope I'm wrong.

Reading what seemed like the relevant parts of the Ted Stevens Act just raises the same old question, what constitutes "regular contact" with a minor? It clearly states in section 220530 that any amateur sports organization must meet certain obligations for minor athlete safety. So whether under USAWS or outside there are compliance issues under the law. For me that has never been the question, but rather what constitutes compliance?I'm pretty sure I could demonstrate that I do not have "regular contact" (whatever that means) with any minor at any tournament I attend. I probably attend a dozen tournaments a year where I ski, judge, score and drive.Despite all that I would happily take the SS training, chalk it up as part of my official ratings, and move forward if they weren't insisting that EVERY participant be trained.The barriers to entry in competitive 3-event skiing are already high and now we add a 2 hour training course for new skiers? That's a big ask to try something to see if you like it. Our sport already has declining numbers and that certainly won't help.There are solutions that meet the intent of the law without requiring EVERY participant to be trained. Those solutions may not exist for various reasons within the NGB, but that doesn't mean they don't exist elsewhere.

I'm not here to argue, I want to understand. "Like it or lump it" doesn't get me where I need to be, and some very simple questions have gone unanswered. I'll take a look at the info you referenced.

Here are a few things I found digging around on the SS site. USAWS Corrective Actions Update - What exactly does "regular contact and/or authority over minor athletes" mean and does it really apply to every adult at a 3-event tournament? Safesport FAQ - A bunch of stuff here, but noteworthy is;"Who is covered by the Safesport Code - The Code applies to all individuals who participate in sport within the Olympic and Paralympic Movements. ... " It goes on to say members of "National Governing Body (NGB) or its Local Affiliated Organizations (LAO) ..." So where do I get the idea a new org, not affiliated with NGB or "Olympic" anything, wouldn't be subject to SS? Their own website for starters.So can your sources reconcile this for me? Your sources contradict what I'm reading from Safesport itself WRT a new org.It would be good if these specific questions could be addressed in some substantive way in the winter meetings.Pretty sure is on the right track.

I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't have a daughter that skis competitively.

thanks for the update on Managements current thinking.For me,3a - I couldn't care less.3b - Implement SS doesn't necessarily mean what USAWS has implemented. Removing affiliation with orgs having "Olympic" in the name allows the new org to implement reasonable solutions to SS that are appropriate for 3-event skiing.Despite the apparent finality of your points they are only strictly valid in the context of USAWS, USOPC, IWWF, etc.

take that thought to the limit. Employees of Exxon have no expectation the corporation exists for any reason other than making a profit.What do members of USAWS expect? The word "members" implies ownership where "employee" does not. What business is USAWS in if not to promote waterskiing? And who are they doing that for if not the members? If the members don't feel well served then why would they continue supporting the organization? Would USAWS even be viable without their members? The answer is a resounding no.While what you say may be true, they are not obligated to get membership approval, it may ultimately be in their best interest to consider the membership they serve.They don't have oil like Exxon does. They have ONLY members.

This threads title tells you what it's about. If you don't agree or think it's misguided then why are you still reading AND posting? Why do you even care this discussion continues? I care because I think the solution we've been handed is a lazy one-size-fits-all solution that will further degrade our ability to attract new skiers. That's why I'm still here. To make noise and see if there is any way to right this wrong.

Every aspect of the organization is subject to change, except NO REFUND on memberships. USAWS need to retain membership somehow. On the bright side you get to keep all the other valuable membership benefits, except the ability to compete of course.

@Markzimmy how management didn't identify this as a HUGE issue from the very beginning is just mind boggling.

If we're making suggestions about what changes to make, how about these? SS only, the BGC appears to be another animal. 1. Acknowledgment - Think waiver, but for SS. Includes links to all the relevant material and training. Tick the box and agree to follow the rules. Anytime you see a waiver you also see the SS acknowledgment. 2. SS training for any named official in a sanction; Chiefs, Asst Chiefs, Appointed, LOC representative, tournament director, etc. 3. Regular and above officials as part of the rating. 4. Coaches and anyone active in youth sport (JD, etc). The system can track all of this just like it does current rating. Don't meet the requirements then you can't work, ski, whatever. This seems reasonable and appropriate for the 3-event discipline and meets the stated objectives of the Safesport act.

Understand. For me I would need to choose between 4 options in your poll that apply in varying degrees. Which of those 4 I chose would be somewhat arbitrary because they are all somewhat true.

Finished the year with a set. 3 in the last week. I'll take it! Happy New Year!!

@ToddL good idea. I think fewer options would be better. Maybe something like this? 1) Won't do SS. 2) Will do SS but not BGC. 3) Will participate under current rules. Another useful poll would be how many sites won't host tournaments this year that did previously, say at least once in the last 2-3 years.

All you'd need to do to keep Larry Nassar off the tower is check the sex offender registry.

@lpskier wouldn't it make more sense for the organization to make their case for why BGC for judges make sense in 3-event skiing? From what i could find the stated goal is to "promote a safe and nurturing environment". A worthwhile goal but not very specific. Specially how will BGC for judges help achieve this goal? I've sat in towers with people I didn't know and somehow survived. Maybe I was lucky.

@ToddL you say that Nate and your (my) EVP asked for suggestions but you haven't responded as you don't think THEY see any of this as negotiable. THAT is a huge problem. At this point we are just pissing in the wind, probably have been for the last 40 pages. I guess we'll see how this shakes out in the spring. Apparently the lines have been drawn.

@ToddL in your post you made a very good case for why SS training is not required by law for all in our discipline. The BGC is not called for at all, other than USOPC says we must. Can you show me in the Safesport act where BGC are required? The solution you suggest would need to be tracked by "the system" so why can't "the system" rather track and implement rules that suit our discipline? I'd also hate to see us implement a plan that potentially excludes young skiers. We are already making it harder for new tournament skiers to participate.

@The_MS yeah, she's just a little pupper. She chased the ball into the water for a while then got out and sat shivering on the dock. Water mid 60s, air 80ish, so pretty nice for Dec.

Nice outing in Conroe TX. Hope to get 2 more sets before the weather turns this weekend.