rfa

@Horton I'll sign off on a lighter (but sadly true) note. Had I acted on my earlier impulse to reply to your last post, I was just going to say "good luck with that" on your last paragraph message. Just a few hours later, my doubts would be validated...I assume you're not surprised.

@klindy, I commended your "patience" in the previous post...I wasn't kidding. Who remembers or cares about what was said 10 pages ago?

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.

I think this constituted a "record". January 24 - February 2... @Horton, "oh I'm sorry I brought this back up by trying to share what I thought was good news..." Well, it's the intention that counts... (sorry I plagiarized your cartoon)

@ForrestGump Thank you for the reply. I understood (and agree) with your "business model" explanation! My issue was only with the reasons given for "being uninformed" after it was shown that several types of communications had been provided by the organization. But in full agreement that in this case, renewal revenue loss does not equate to operating cost savings.

@ForrestGump, Respectfully as well, not all "Communication is marketing". Some (if not most) is strictly informational. But let's agree that "Membership renewal #s are dependent on communication in this instance". And let's also agree for now, that the comments on BOS may or may not not be statistically significant for the total membership (I have no idea). As documented above, there were emails, website articles, newsletters, meetings, as well as this thread, (i.e. communications) dating back to April '21. This seems to have triggered a number of recent reasons why we remain uninformed. Don't like the website Email Spam Don't like Perks Work schedules Travel plans etc. See, no longer just "no information". We just don't like how it is given. (To be clear, I fully respect these personal opinions). So, in reality, no one here should be uninformed because of lack of information, but rather because we don't access that information. So, to your "marketing" point, the organization should change the website, send paper mail, stop perks, survey our work and travel schedules, etc. Of course, it must first determine whether these reasons are representative of the majority of membership. Right? Are they? I don't know. What do you think and/or suggest the organization do? While I was being sarcastic in my previous post about how I "handled" my town's communication methods, it it is true that they use e-mail, text msg, website and Facebook for alerts and special events. Complaining I am uniformed because I don't like/use any of them does not really "fly".

My town has an alert system whereby they communicate through e-mail, text msg, website and Facebook for emergency and other important events. I am registered on all four. However, I have told them repeatedly I do not check my emails, msgs or FB, and I don't like their website, because...yeah, spam. BUT I need to be informed! I apologize for the sarcasm. But, really?

, sorry to hear the final decision, although you hinted at this in a couple of PMs we shared recently. I enjoyed those brief "chats". Thank you.In the spring of 2000, I bought a new (leftover) 1999 Ski Nautique. Not quite as pretty as yours. Loved it! Sold it in 2010 with 1100+ hours. My sons "grew up" in that boat.What I don't understand is why mine kept me more than two passes below you...will take it up with Correct Craft. LOL.All the best wishes!

Despite the continuing turmoil in this discussion, major progress has been accomplished. Let's recap.April 2021 (51 pages ago) - "2022 they are requiring Safesport training for all members. I’m done." January 2022 - "From most of the feedback here, if the SSN requirement was dropped we would have no issues". . From no SS training to Ok with Background checks (w/o SSN). Yes, I am being a bit sarcastic, but if we neglect the 50 intervening pages...progress indeed.More seriously, I have a question about a concern expressed by many that I fail to understand. Either they are right, or I am. This is the "blanket transfer of liability to the LOCs" concern, to quote a recent comment. I think and have addressed it and gotten it right (assuming my perspective is the correct one). LOCs are given a list of compliance measures. Compliance with such measures by the LOCs provides liability protection, as opposed to transferring liability to them. Compliance as opposed to negligence. What am I missing? Isn't that how liability protection works? Do we think the combined near $1B settlement from U. Michigan and USOC came about because Nassar did terrible things? Or rather, because those organizations were "negligent" about the terrible things he did? I don't like a (required) 3.5ft fence around my swimming pool. Complaining that it increases my liability would be the wrong thing to complain about. It gives me liability protection! No?Neither a lawyer nor a liability expert. Ready to be educated, if I have it wrong.

, now it all makes sense why Jodi Seal, et. al. have been so upset with all that "socialist" stuff...John Thune, Donald J, and the Republican congress. Had I known, my ski would already be on SIA...how will I unlearn the SS training? lol

@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.

@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.

Looks like the background check applies to a lot of people in USCycling "Application The following groups of individuals, 18 years of age and older, must have background checks completed prior to the commencement of the applicable role, issuance of a license and/or membership, training, event, or competition: USA Cycling Staff* USA Cycling Directors* USA Cycling Volunteers* that USA Cycling formally authorizes, approves or appoints: to serve in a position of authority over athletes, or to have regular contact with athletes. USA Cycling licensed Coaches USA Cycling licensed Officials USA Cycling-issued UCI Support Licensees including: Managers Sports Directors/Associate Sports Directors Soigneurs/Trainers Team Doctors and Paramedics Coaches Any other UCI Support License holder a team authorizes, approves or appoints: to serve in a position of authority over athletes, or to have regular contact with athletes. Collegiate Conference Directors* Local Associations Presidents Any other individual the Local Association formally authorizes, approves or appoints: to serve in a position of authority over athletes, or to have regular contact with athletes. Contractors USA Cycling formally authorizes, approves or appoints: to serve in a position of authority over athletes, or to have regular contact with athletes. All athletes who are selected by USA Cycling to participate on national or international teams, or who are selected by USA Cycling to participate in any national or international event. For purposes of clarity, this does not include adult recreational participants.* All athletes who are selected by USA Cycling to train at any Olympic & Paralympic Training Center, USOPC High Performance Training Center, or USA Cycling Training Site.* Other individuals who have regular contact with athletes as determined by USA Cycling, in its discretion."

@Jody_Seal, thank you. I understand. As I said, I know nothing about WWA and used the name only for an example of my larger point. That the Insurance companies will ultimately determine how/what they will insure...and they are quite aware of SS. As for myself, I am not good enough to care about the level of (or any) sanctioning. I ski a handful of tournaments because they are awesome weekends with many friends. It would be ok with me if they were all F class...

Last night I was curious about @ForrestGump comment and looked up the USA Cycling policy (that "trust but verify" thing...). While the wording @lpskier quoted above seems to apply to all "adults", when you check "Applicability", it seems "everyone and their brother" is required to do the SS, but NOT athletes who just show up to compete. So, I think @ForrestGump is correct. But the broader policy gives us more to think about. For example, the MAAPP (the policy that tells you what is and is NOT allowed) is applicable to all members including athletes. "The MAAPP applies to Applicable Adults and their interactions with minor athletes in conjunction with USA Cycling activities. A. Mandatory Components This policy shall apply to: • Adult members at a Facility or Event; • Adult members who have regular contact with amateur athletes who are minors; • Any adult authorized by USAC to have regular contact with or authority over an amateur athlete who is a minor; and • Adult staff and board members of USAC (Collectively “Applicable Adult” for the purposes of this policy.) So, we end up with "behavior" requirements for everyone. Those " SS Trained" are inherently aware of the policies. Those "untrained" will be asked to read/sign these requirements upon (or prior to) arrival at the event. Certainly, for the athlete-only participant, reading the material and signing the release forms is cheaper and less time consuming (and less informative) than the SS course...and if that gives the necessary liability protection to the LOC and supporting organization...all good. How this translates to the suggestion that we move to "unsanctioned" events, or hook up with WWA for example, I have no idea. But, long term from a liability protection perspective, I doubt it works. It's pretty simple insurance risk/premium analyses, isn't it? A good organization has two goals. 1. As a good "human being" it wants ZERO "criminal activity" on its site; 2. As a smart "human being" it wants liability protection for its site. In the real world liability protection does not ensure ZERO incidents (if it did it would be quite cheap). The liability protection policy dictates the minimum requirements imposed on the organization. And the premium. So, I fail to see how WWA (I know nothing about them, just using the name as an example since it was mentioned previously), provides a "safe harbor" against SS requirements. I am sure they also want ZERO incidents. But I suppose "their" Insurers live in the same world we do and probably also are aware about the $380M settlement yesterday and the $500M previously on MSU...and that's just on the Nassar litigation. I am not a lawyer nor in the insurance business. Please tell me how they are able/willing to provide more "favorable" protection for less compliance/mitigation requirements. "Yes, your Honor, we covered this group in our policy. Yes, they approached us because they did not want to do SS Training"...(as I said, not a lawyer, so maybe it's too farfetched)

@6balls, in my opinion, yes you are and have been (a voice of reason). But a new thread? Really? We are now on the 5th thread (to recap, "2021 is my last year of USAWS", "The politics/censorship poll", "Another platform, championship series other then USAWS/AWSA would you participate", "USOC - Stay or Go?", "Safesport comments from an EVP"), ALL started by the very first comment in this thread, 9 months and 35 pages ago. @The_MS posted at the time "2022 they are requiring Safesport training for all members. I’m done." A few posts later, he explained "I just don’t agree with teaching a almost M6 guy to be Woke." "Woke", "liberal left", "sheeple", "Fidel Castro", "redrawn USA maps", "libtards", "mandates", etc, etc. are "emotions" (in my opinion) neither relevant to the subject matter, nor resolved by a new thread. They are the the essence of these threads. A sad but reasonable reflection of our society. It was Safesport training not just for officials, but all skiers, then background checks and MVR for officials, then liability for LOC, ever evolving arguments, no solutions. Ironically, on the "Safesport comments from an EVP" thread, a new post just suggested that after all Safesport might have focused training more on skiers than officials..."JOE SKIER just showing up to ski and can lurk around the site all day...". I commend your "faith" in the community...

Not sure how/why this relates to "CNN authors". It seems pretty straightforward. Unless it is not true. I have no idea. Just commenting on the article as written. The stated Myth is that the USOPC is "Forcing" USAWS to "require"...SS The stated Fact is that USAWS is not forced by the USOPC to require SS, but is imposing those requirements voluntarily. (i.e. USAWS is choosing, not forced, to impose SS) Seems to me like a simple clarification. Now, if this is not true (i.e. IF USAWS is actually being forced to require SS by the USOPC), they (the website authors) would be lying and then we can (if we must) compare them to our favorite media.

@rockdog, yes I hear that a lot. I have been back and forth between .888 and .94. I still prefer the smaller one. My XS glove size may explain a little...

@Horton, almost the exact opposite experience. 67y.o. arthritic wrists. Straight handle for 25+years. Experienced a few outings this summer, where handle torque on the palm up wrist during offside pull made it impossible to ski. Bought bent shaped handle. Skied remainder of summer without the problem. Coincidence? Related? Do not know. Just happy it resolved. (on that note, I have a brand new, straight 12", 0.888 Intow handle for sale on SIA...ha)

I heard about the "docktastrophe" @Keith_Menard. Sorry. As you may know, I sponsored the younger Menard, instead of his Dad...had to go with talent... haha. Hope the weather will cooperate next Saturday . Good luck and Enjoy!

@lpskier, Well John, not really happy about this...Christopher has been at Clarkson for 7 years, and NOW you build it? I can't afford to keep him there any longer...ha

@Keith_Menard , I can dislike but remain pretty calm with your bashing of the metric system, or even a king over a scientist. BUT, soccer?...that's way over the line. We'll discuss in the summer...haha

@PatM, my buddy also had a 124...and crashed it...and I was in it. But we outlived the 124. @Keith_Menard, as you know I grew up in Lisbon. My Dad had at least 2 Fiats (maybe 3). I believe they were the 600 and the 1100...mid 50's to mid 60's. Somehow, they fit as much (or as many) as my SUV now...haha

@lpskier, hey John, have been curious as to how you like and are skiing at 32mph...that is awesome my friend. Now that you are M7, I will have to find tournaments you don't participate...

@The_MS, you say "This thread would end today if the BOD would listen". Respectfully, maybe, if as @Jody_Seal says, "those that support a government overreach program in this sport" do not need to read this thread. However, it seems to me that some do, hence, there are opinions (24 pages...) on both sides. Why do you think the BOD would only "listen" to one side? I am curious about your point #2. above, on what you would propose. Do you know if the insurance companies agree with "only require coaches and leadership to complete training"? I have no basis to know either way, just asking if you know. Because if they don't, I am not sure how "our own training that will satisfy the insurance companies" would/could be materially different from SS...especially if the program was driven by liability coverage (i.e. insurance companies) to start with.