All-Star Only Seniors Can Expose Midriff???

[coachrah]

USAG used to publish a blacklist of professionals not allowed to work in their industry. After one blacklisted individual had his court case overturned and was found not Guilty, he then went after USAG for damages and lost wages.
So rather than publish a damaging blacklist, we are taking the positive route and publishing a list of everyone who PASSED the background check. This method should have the same desired effect. You'll be able to infer what this means for a coach not included on this professional membership list.

OK thanks...good to know. But that is an example of sport that published a list in addition to mandatory background checks and faced litigation. My question wasn't about publishing a list, but rather what legal constraints are keeping mandatory background checks from being issued?

 

[TheUltimateFan]

Number two. Now, that's the rub. On the WHOLE- which means the ENTIRE IMAGE POLICY AND NEW RULES...HEEECK NO! You don't get to just shove all these new rules in without consulting the rest of your members, that's totalitarian and its NOT kosher. Especially since they were a surprise and clearly done in back rooms on the sly. Some of those rules probably could have been voted in by members, and clearly 'someone' has no clue how we work anymore because they're too focused on their collegiate concept.

That being said, I'm about to make a real political leap here and compare this to the new Affordable Care plan. Healthcare, much like uniforms, was an area we talked about on here for AGES-......

Precisely. The example being used is crop tops but that's really not the issue - at least not in my mind. If the proper voting process would have been followed and the outcome was that crop tops were to be banned in this matter, then it becomes a moot point. There would have probably been a lot of dialogue before the vote, and almost none after. The majority would have spoken. If you disagree, don't cheer or cheer somewhere the rule isn't imposed. End of discussion.

Funny you should bring up Healthcare. I didn't want to digress this far to make the point, but since you mentioned this....for 2013 we have to submit to a company-mandated health assessment which includes answering a plethora of questions about our personal lives, having our body measurements taken and recorded etc., before we can participate in the 'affordable' company health plan (which will actually almost double in cost). We are being forced to put this information on record and it could potentially become available to any number of agencies. After all, you have to sign a Release of Information form to get medical care and insurance. This was done under the flavor of the day title "Affordable Health Care". And this is another example of where our right to have our voices heard has slowly been eroded over time. If a company as large as ours had implemented this policy even just 5 or 6 years ago, the media would have been all over this as an invasion of privacy. But since the 'prayer in schools' event (which was the catalyst), our legistators have figured out that they can push further and further against the wishes of the majority and still keep their lucrative jobs. And that is the whole point we are trying to make.

Nobody says USASF can't be asked to change their decision-making policies to align with the demands of the majority they are supposed to represent. But the majority has to demand it.

 

[TheUltimateFan]

And I don't suppose you'd be able to release the names of those coaches who made up that Image Subcommittee?

So, the NAB created the Image Subcommittee. Was that a volunteer process or were they asked? Did everyone who was asked agree to take part, or did others decline? Were some members of some of the other committees (NAB, NACCC, etc) also members of this Image Subcommittee? I'm trying to get a better feel for how all this went down, and since you're the only person who volunteered such info, you get to be the person to ask

And, ASCheerMan, thank you for having the courage to jump into this discussion. Following through on KtG's post above....if you believe that the existing process actually does consider the interests and preferences of the majority, tell us why and how. Crop tops is just one example that keeps bringin us back to this point. It would be nice to see the challenges to the decision-making process resolved, or at least to have someone explain why or how USASF feels they apply due process in considering of the interests of the majority of the customers. I'm sure we all realize it isn't all about the customer, but that should be a very large factor. And we just don't see it from the outside looking in.

 

[kristenthegreat]

I resent being lumped into the 'disagreeing' viewpoint as the 'Full-Top Gang.' I'm already a member of the Teal Army and the Bra Brigade. There's a two-army limit in The Grand Dominion of KristentheGreat and I've already met my quota, please and thank you.

 

[JumpingJackFlash]

cheercurl has it right (if, after all the bickering I'm still understanding what was said). The USASF should've just said, if your uni looks like someone should be singing "boomchickawowowow", its not appropriate and we will deduct or disqualify.

I don't care where you're from, most of us know what is acceptable and not inappropriate. Why do we pretend that that you should be able to do whatever want, wherever you want. Standards and morals people, some of us still have them.

Crops tops aren't bad, what a few teams have done to uniforms, are.

 

[CharlotteASMom]

Personally I feel that a more representative body should exist (to include parents, and older cheerleaders as well) but I get that unless I have taken action to make that change occur then why should I be whining about the choices I have allowed them to make. I also feel there is a problem that is increasing with this subset of gyms and the USASF dealt with it, while I feel there may have been a way to work appropriate crop tops into that solution I also get why they did it the way they did.

On a side note...The USASF with Bill Presson created a Pareent Action Committee (PAC) over 5 years ago to give parents a voice and now just this year the USASF even offered the PAC a positon on the NAB. As PAC Chairman I am often contacted by the USASF and asked what the parents are saying out there. Even with all these gains and so many parents on this forum demanding input to the USASF, the PAC had less than 10 new people apply to be on the committee this year.

I'm not trying to pick on you specifically but just trying to note that there are places for people's voices to be heard in the USASF (including parents) but they aren't always taken.

 

[mstealtoyou]

cheercurl has it right (if, after all the bickering I'm still understanding what was said). The USASF should've just said, if your uni looks like someone should be singing "boomchickawowowow", its not appropriate and we will deduct or disqualify.

I don't care where you're from, most of us know what is acceptable and not inappropriate. Why do we pretend that that you should be able to do whatever want, wherever you want. Standards and morals people, some of us still have them.

Crops tops aren't bad, what a few teams have done to uniforms, are.

And that's ALL she was saying. Thank you JumpingJackFlash for getting it!!!

 

[mstealtoyou]

CharlotteASMom

Cheercurl would be amazing on the PAC!!!

 

[CharlotteASMom]

CharlotteASMom

Cheercurl would be amazing on the PAC!!!

I hate that she missed the recruitment period. Hopefully she'll apply next year!

 

[Natalie Kostman]

i understand alot of you. but i heard they are also doing this rule to end some stereo types of cheerleading. like showy outfits and outrageous makeup. ..just a thought..

 

[Mom2Cheergirls]

On a side note...The USASF with Bill Presson created a Pareent Action Committee (PAC) over 5 years ago to give parents a voice and now just this year the USASF even offered the PAC a positon on the NAB. As PAC Chairman I am often contacted by the USASF and asked what the parents are saying out there. Even with all these gains and so many parents on this forum demanding input to the USASF, the PAC had less than 10 new people apply to be on the committee this year.

I'm not trying to pick on you specifically but just trying to note that there are places for people's voices to be heard in the USASF (including parents) but they aren't always taken.

Don't feel picked on in the least, and welcome the information. Thank you for taking that very important role. My concern was that there seemed to be a lot of gym owners that felt unrepresented and while I agree that they should have a stronger body of representation I think on equally footing with that should be a group of dedicated parents and older cheerleaders. I actually appreciate the information you shared.. but curious how did USASF go about informing parents of this opportunity? Did they put a message out to fierce board, have information at competitions, or strictly on their site and Facebook page? (I am genuinely interested in how they get it out there not trying to sound snarky just trying to think of ways they may have reached a larger audience) I think it is great that they have the PAC but wonder what steps they do to get the word out. It would be great if they had their member gyms place flyers or posters up in their parent information areas - perhaps they do and our gym doesn't put them out. Good question for our owner.

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

i understand alot of you. but i heard they are also doing this rule to end some stereo types of cheerleading. like showy outfits and outrageous makeup. ..just a thought..

I get this, and I'm not sure it's outside of the USASF scope of power, but I'm still not sure who we are trying to "please", or why they are trying to please said people. I truly feel that if they are trying to legitimize the sport there were other things that would be a better start. (Independent governing body, universal scoring etc.)

I don't know anything concrete about who actually supports crop tops and who doesn't and who lobbied for this rule, but it doesn't seem incredibly reflective of the people I know. Not that this means much in the scheme of things. I think that one of the concerns is really that a choice was made without any real show of the reasoning behind it, which makes people uncomfortable.

I can see benefits to it, if I look hard enough, but not enough consistency or explanation to convince me that this is a choice that had to be made. My impression is that the business bottom line came into play more than anything else, and that isn't my favorite part of this. I like the idea of attracting more people to cheer I suppose, but without better rules for competitions, better means of gauging true competitive structures (no more of the different strokes for different folks stuff) and rules in place to handle what are truly commercial endorsements, having more people involved doesn't do much in the way of improving my personal Cheer experience. I'd like to have more than ticket sales and event fees to show for it, I guess.

I am not opposed to the USASF making the rules we go by, but I kind of think there is a bit of hypocrisy by the USASF and their councils, and committees here. I think they are trying to preserve the the performance aspect of cheer, in that they are trying to preserve the independent EP format, with the production values, the ticket sales, the individual profits, and keep competitions as events, while trying to make it seem like they are a sport, and I would prefer this wasn't the case. I can see it either way.

I don't mind being a performance sport, so to speak, but if we are performers, than we don't need to impress the general public. If we are not a performance sport, and are aiming to be considered as a "legitmate" support than we have to abandon our current EP structure, and I don't seen anyone in a hurry to do that. I honestly wouldn't mind that either. I'm okay becoming more sportslike (for lack of a better word), but that means that the people who make the uniforms, manage the sports arenas, sell the tickets etc have to become independent of the people who govern the sport.

Maybe I'm missing a huge piece of the long term planning here, and I wouldn't be sad to find out that I had completely misjudged the situation, but for now this is how I see it.

 

[ASCheerMan]

OK thanks...good to know. But that is an example of sport that published a list in addition to mandatory background checks and faced litigation. My question wasn't about publishing a list, but rather what legal constraints are keeping mandatory background checks from being issued?

my bad, I answered a question you didn't ask. My reference to 'legal constraints' was alluding to 'we'd be faced with legal issues/constraints if we started making employment decisions based on background checks.
We are opting to not go the mandatory route. But rather, make the Professional Membership list (by way of passing a background check) voluntary and let the natural culture drive it to become unofficially mandatory and standard practice.

 

[Mom2Cheergirls]

MomMomMamaMom - I'm not sure if we share the same opinion and not sure if it even matters- but you made some really insightful comments especially about the EPs, and vendors role in this.

 

[newcheerdad]

cheercurl has it right (if, after all the bickering I'm still understanding what was said). The USASF should've just said, if your uni looks like someone should be singing "boomchickawowowow", its not appropriate and we will deduct or disqualify.

I don't care where you're from, most of us know what is acceptable and not inappropriate. Why do we pretend that that you should be able to do whatever want, wherever you want. Standards and morals people, some of us still have them.

Crops tops aren't bad, what a few teams have done to uniforms, are.

Two people can look at the same uniform and have entirely different opinions about whether it's appropriate or not. It happens on this board all the time.

So if you don't think it could happen when two different event producers look at the same uniform, then I don't know what else to tell you.

Again, I am not endorsing crop tops or full tops, nor trying to set an age limit on who can wear a crop top. I am saying that if a rule about uniforms is a good idea, and if you're going to have such a rule it needs to be clear and specific, with no grey area.