ski6jones

Everyone swears up and down that breaking from USOPC won't change anything. However they are apparently the organization that is insisting on the BGC for judges. So as a minimum an organization NOT affiliated with USOPC would be free to implement what the new organization thought was appropriate in order to comply with the Safesport act. (That's a law now so for the moment assume something needs to be done to comply.) When reading the benefits of being associated with USOPC I didn't find anything that mattered one iota to me. My guess is a maximum of 5-10% of tournament skiers derive any benefit at all from that relationship. Let those that care stay. I'd like to do something else. And then there's the one size fits all solution for the disciplines. We're getting a solution that is appropriate for Show Skiing because their solution would MORE THAN meet 3-event needs. They say the details of compliance will be implemented in the signup/sanctioning system so WHY can't each discipline have a solution that is most appropriate for them? Lots of people saying we can't do this, and that won't help. I'm not buying it.

I'd still like to hear an answer to this question. @klindy Appealed to and rejected by whom?

So @lpskier, is the implication that those opposed to the current mandates, SS and BGC for judges, have a bad attitude? Hope not. I'd say they are just trying to prevent the sport from going down a road that will further reduce the sports numbers with no appreciable benefit.

That is the same information linked by Keith earlier and it still doesn't say we should be subject to what has been implemented.

You're in good company there brother.

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

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

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

I'd argue it's a bit of both. Clearly you can't "pull" the handle to a lower position if it's already away from your core. When loaded out of the turn and into centerline it's mostly controlled by where it was when you took the load and your body position at that time. After centerline as you're coming up and transitioning the handle doesn't stay low and close without effort, at least for me.

Conventional wisdom suggests handle near hips. "Ski your hips to the handle" is something you hear frequently. I also remember hearing Jamie B quoted in an interview saying something about having a rope break and racking himself as a result. This implies he was applying force to get the handle lower. If my rope broke i might hit myself in the stomach if I'm lucky. So is the handle low because of your skiing position, or do you apply a force to get the handle low, or both?

I would say if you start seeing broken strands and are beyond 1 yr then time to change. And by strands I mean the individual poly filaments on your rope or handle. The rope brittles with age aside from use. I ski about 175 practice sets each year, about 8 passes per set, or about 1400 passes per year. I change my rope twice per year and don't use an optimized rope.

Actually skiing? Probably the first 35 off I ran at ski school. I just kept working on technique at 28 & 32 all spring. Coach suggested I try 35 and it was sweet, super easy. Moment of the season? For sure was Dane running 41 off in the tie-break at world's. Phenomenal!! His one ball! Holy Crap!

That oughta buff right out.

I had just bought a boat and put PP in the year before ZO came out. This was also the same year I started skiing tournaments. So my "new" rig was basically obsolete immediately BECAUSE I skied tournaments. I won't have those concerns this time around. No tournaments = no need to chase technology.

@LeonL I expire in Mar 2023. Deactivation appears to be related to SS. Stupid me re-uped for 2 years. Requested a refund of one year due to change in terms causing me to be ineligible to participate. They have a no refund "POLICY". Apparently that's the only policy that is impossible to change.

Nice that management is getting a jump start on the new year by deactivating people before their own Jan 1 deadline. Not that it really matters, just more poor communication and optics. Par for the course apparently.

This is almost an interesting pole. So many things impact performance over the years. I think ski selection and tuning are way down in the noise as compared with regular access to a course, injuries, proper fitness and coaching. I've been pretty serious about skiing for the last about 20 years and have improved over time, although PBs come slower as you get better. At some point your ability to continue improving runs into the physical limitations of age. I'm pretty sure I'm close to that point now at 60.

@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.

@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.

@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.

Don't forget USAWS represents other sports disciplines. What they've implemented is one size fits all.

@skidawg nailed it. The implementation was lazy. Not the best solution but the easiest to implement for USAWS.

@JackQ I wonder if you could limit to no unaccompanied minors? So minors only if they are continuously accompanied/supervised by a parent or legal guardian.

Literally cited by "management" to make me feel better In lieu of a refund for that lost year of membership $$.

I did the 2 year membership last March. At least I'll have all those other USAWS benefits for an extra year since I won't be able to ski.