All-Star S/o Release Discussion Re: Worlds Athletes

[WorkToWin]

I have been doing research on a paper for school on human trafficking and have found some similarities between that and the releasing of an athlete. I know it sounds crazy but see below.

Trafficking in Persons is the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.

uh... what?

 

[Mamarazzi]

OK, here is my proposal to add the appeals process:

If a gym will not release an athlete then the athletes family can file an appeal with the USASF. Being that the USASF is traveling and constantly working (and mostly understaffed) it is reasonable that they must reply to the appeal within 30 days of the notice. To file an appeal each athlete must have 3 written letters of recommendation from families at the gym with one child each who is registered with the USASF (to prove they actually have children at the gym). The USASF once responded will setup an appeals hearing held by 3 members and will take 1 hour. They will get written statements from each side and will only accept evidence if it is notarized and proven true. The 3 reasons for an athlete to be released from the gym no matter what is: A. proof of abuse (proof of abuse must be in the form of video OR a court must have found the coach guilty) B. family is moving from one residence to another. each residence MUST be at least 150 miles from each other and the second residence MUST be farther away from the gym not willing to be released. two months of bills from each residence and either a newly signed mortgage or lease on a apartment must be presented to show there indeed was a move and not just using someone else's property C. gym is just too expensive. athletes families must present statements of income and full gym bills from gym A and gym B to show how much cheaper the move would be.
After presenting the evidence (of which anything that isn't notarized is thrown out) the committee will make a decision. If the decision is not satisfactory to the athletes parents they may appeal again, at which the USASF has 30 days to respond again.

What do you think?

Not sure all of that is necessary.

1. Athlete first files a motion to appeal. USASF has 2 weeks to determine, based on a preliminary argument (via paragraph written on paper or email,) whether or not said appeal will be accepted.
2. 3 volunteers (a gym owner-ish person, an EP-ish person, and a PAC member) are the "Appeals Board."
3. The appeal-er has 14 days from acceptance of the appeal to submit "evidence," and I don't think the reason matters. All evidence submitted by both sides, be it bookkeeping documents, notarized statements, bills, police reports, etc., will be distributed to both sides for disclosure reasons.
4. After the "evidentiary period," the Appeals Board can make calls, request more info, if needed, and has 30 days to make a determination.
5. During this time, the athlete cannot compete with Gym B. Sure, go tumble, but you can't compete.
6. Evidence is reviewed, burden of proof lies with the appeal-er, decision is made and distributed in writing, decision is final.

Throw in a fee for the appeal, and done.

 

[BlueCat]

If the USASF were a private company (like the "regular" event producers), that could possibly happen as easily as you seem to have suggested. Someone could just say "hey, we should start up an appeals committee" and it could get done in about an hour.

In a bureaucracy like the USASF, nothing ever happens that easily. You are talking about a proposal being drawn up, it going before review boards of multiple committees (NACCC, Rules, etc). It getting discussed (at length, likely) by each of those committees, then voted upon. If both of those groups approve, then it gets sent to the Board of Directors for approval, who also has the option of discussion, review, etc. They likely will want changes or modifications, so it gets sent back down to each of those committees for review and revision. Then it gets BACK up to the B.O.D., where it could get final approval.

You are lucky if that happens in a single year. It would more likely happen in 2. Then you have to find people willing to sit on that appeals board and decide on the paperwork/procedures/etc. Finding a PAC would probably be no problem. Finding a gym owner willing to sit through potentially hours of paperwork and phone calls AND potentially pissing off another gym owner is not going to be easy. (either way the decision goes, one gym is probably going to be angry about it.) Finding an event producer willing to get involved in a gym vs gym vs athlete dispute is going to be even harder.

THEN, when people think that the hard-and-fast rule about team-hopping to a different Worlds-bound team just became grey instead of black-and-white, more people will try it. I would guess anywhere from 15-30 appeals in the first year. If it works at all like the other appeals systems USASF has had in place before, getting a successful appeal would be INCREDIBLY rare, benefitting at most perhaps 1 or possibly 2 athletes a year. (Meanwhile angering many more.)

My point is not that an appeals process wouldn't be OK in theory. In practice, however, it will take an enormous amount of man-hours to make happen. That much time and effort could be spent on things that benefit more than an athlete or two a year IMO. (safety issues, scoring issues, improving the certification process, etc.)

 

[debbie]

If the USASF were a private company (like the "regular" event producers), that could possibly happen as easily as you seem to have suggested. Someone could just say "hey, we should start up an appeals committee" and it could get done in about an hour.

In a bureaucracy like the USASF, nothing ever happens that easily. You are talking about a proposal being drawn up, it going before review boards of multiple committees (NACCC, Rules, etc). It getting discussed (at length, likely) by each of those committees, then voted upon. If both of those groups approve, then it gets sent to the Board of Directors for approval, who also has the option of discussion, review, etc. They likely will want changes or modifications, so it gets sent back down to each of those committees for review and revision. Then it gets BACK up to the B.O.D., where it could get final approval.

You are lucky if that happens in a single year. It would more likely happen in 2. Then you have to find people willing to sit on that appeals board and decide on the paperwork/procedures/etc. Finding a PAC would probably be no problem. Finding a gym owner willing to sit through potentially hours of paperwork and phone calls AND potentially pissing off another gym owner is not going to be easy. (either way the decision goes, one gym is probably going to be angry about it.) Finding an event producer willing to get involved in a gym vs gym vs athlete dispute is going to be even harder.

THEN, when people think that the hard-and-fast rule about team-hopping to a different Worlds-bound team just became grey instead of black-and-white, more people will try it. I would guess anywhere from 15-30 appeals in the first year. If it works at all like the other appeals systems USASF has had in place before, getting a successful appeal would be INCREDIBLY rare, benefitting at most perhaps 1 or possibly 2 athletes a year. (Meanwhile angering many more.)

My point is not that an appeals process wouldn't be OK in theory. In practice, however, it will take an enormous amount of man-hours to make happen. That much time and effort could be spent on things that benefit more than an athlete or two a year IMO. (safety issues, scoring issues, improving the certification process, etc.)

Again if an appeals process is not possible in theory or in reality then the usasf had no business making the rule.

 

[Mamarazzi]

If the USASF were a private company (like the "regular" event producers), that could possibly happen as easily as you seem to have suggested. Someone could just say "hey, we should start up an appeals committee" and it could get done in about an hour.

In a bureaucracy like the USASF, nothing ever happens that easily. You are talking about a proposal being drawn up, it going before review boards of multiple committees (NACCC, Rules, etc). It getting discussed (at length, likely) by each of those committees, then voted upon. If both of those groups approve, then it gets sent to the Board of Directors for approval, who also has the option of discussion, review, etc. They likely will want changes or modifications, so it gets sent back down to each of those committees for review and revision. Then it gets BACK up to the B.O.D., where it could get final approval.

You are lucky if that happens in a single year. It would more likely happen in 2. Then you have to find people willing to sit on that appeals board and decide on the paperwork/procedures/etc. Finding a PAC would probably be no problem. Finding a gym owner willing to sit through potentially hours of paperwork and phone calls AND potentially pissing off another gym owner is not going to be easy. (either way the decision goes, one gym is probably going to be angry about it.) Finding an event producer willing to get involved in a gym vs gym vs athlete dispute is going to be even harder.

THEN, when people think that the hard-and-fast rule about team-hopping to a different Worlds-bound team just became grey instead of black-and-white, more people will try it. I would guess anywhere from 15-30 appeals in the first year. If it works at all like the other appeals systems USASF has had in place before, getting a successful appeal would be INCREDIBLY rare, benefitting at most perhaps 1 or possibly 2 athletes a year. (Meanwhile angering many more.)

My point is not that an appeals process wouldn't be OK in theory. In practice, however, it will take an enormous amount of man-hours to make happen. That much time and effort could be spent on things that benefit more than an athlete or two a year IMO. (safety issues, scoring issues, improving the certification process, etc.)

Question 1: Since the process takes such a long time to approve, how long was the "idea" of a waiver system around before it was approved and implemented mid-season? 2 years? So, that process began in December 2008 and not one member athlete could vote on it, or was made aware it was coming during that time?

Question 2: I'm really confused about these numbers being given. First, it was estimated that only a very, very few people would be affected by the rule. Then, it was noted that the waiver only affected 3-5 athletes last season. Now, you estimate 15-30 appeals per year? How did you determine this number?

Question 3: How did the other appeals systems the USASF has had in place before work? Why is this appeals process required to work the same way? Doesn't an imperfect appeals process bode better for us parents than a non-existent one?

 

[King]

Not sure all of that is necessary.

1. Athlete first files a motion to appeal. USASF has 2 weeks to determine, based on a preliminary argument (via paragraph written on paper or email,) whether or not said appeal will be accepted.
2. 3 volunteers (a gym owner-ish person, an EP-ish person, and a PAC member) are the "Appeals Board."
3. The appeal-er has 14 days from acceptance of the appeal to submit "evidence," and I don't think the reason matters. All evidence submitted by both sides, be it bookkeeping documents, notarized statements, bills, police reports, etc., will be distributed to both sides for disclosure reasons.
4. After the "evidentiary period," the Appeals Board can make calls, request more info, if needed, and has 30 days to make a determination.
5. During this time, the athlete cannot compete with Gym B. Sure, go tumble, but you can't compete.
6. Evidence is reviewed, burden of proof lies with the appeal-er, decision is made and distributed in writing, decision is final.

Throw in a fee for the appeal, and done.

I still think the idea of that actually happening is ridiculous as my suggestion. It sound easy on paper until you actually go forth and try and do it. And all it will do is take a black and white rule and make it grey. And in the end maybe 1 kid would be released and the amount of people who would try and game the system would go up. The only way it is really possible is if you put a cost in for two pieces... maybe.

Say it costs $250 bucks to file an appeal and IF it is accepted $750 bucks to go through the entire process.

I can't even believe I am saying that... it is such a pandoras box of legal stickiness...

 

[King]

If the USASF were a private company (like the "regular" event producers), that could possibly happen as easily as you seem to have suggested. Someone could just say "hey, we should start up an appeals committee" and it could get done in about an hour.

In a bureaucracy like the USASF, nothing ever happens that easily. You are talking about a proposal being drawn up, it going before review boards of multiple committees (NACCC, Rules, etc). It getting discussed (at length, likely) by each of those committees, then voted upon. If both of those groups approve, then it gets sent to the Board of Directors for approval, who also has the option of discussion, review, etc. They likely will want changes or modifications, so it gets sent back down to each of those committees for review and revision. Then it gets BACK up to the B.O.D., where it could get final approval.

You are lucky if that happens in a single year. It would more likely happen in 2. Then you have to find people willing to sit on that appeals board and decide on the paperwork/procedures/etc. Finding a PAC would probably be no problem. Finding a gym owner willing to sit through potentially hours of paperwork and phone calls AND potentially pissing off another gym owner is not going to be easy. (either way the decision goes, one gym is probably going to be angry about it.) Finding an event producer willing to get involved in a gym vs gym vs athlete dispute is going to be even harder.

THEN, when people think that the hard-and-fast rule about team-hopping to a different Worlds-bound team just became grey instead of black-and-white, more people will try it. I would guess anywhere from 15-30 appeals in the first year. If it works at all like the other appeals systems USASF has had in place before, getting a successful appeal would be INCREDIBLY rare, benefitting at most perhaps 1 or possibly 2 athletes a year. (Meanwhile angering many more.)

My point is not that an appeals process wouldn't be OK in theory. In practice, however, it will take an enormous amount of man-hours to make happen. That much time and effort could be spent on things that benefit more than an athlete or two a year IMO. (safety issues, scoring issues, improving the certification process, etc.)

Then I read yours... hah. I should read the entire thread.

 

[Just-a-Mom]

Question 1: Since the process takes such a long time to approve, how long was the "idea" of a waiver system around before it was approved and implemented mid-season? 2 years? So, that process began in December 2008 and not one member athlete could vote on it, or was made aware it was coming during that time?

Question 2: I'm really confused about these numbers being given. First, it was estimated that only a very, very few people would be affected by the rule. Then, it was noted that the waiver only affected 3-5 athletes last season. Now, you estimate 15-30 appeals per year? How did you determine this number?

Question 3: How did the other appeals systems the USASF has had in place before work? Why is this appeals process required to work the same way? Doesn't an imperfect appeals process bode better for us parents than a non-existent one?

Amen. Sorry - my unemployed behind slept in this morning but you took the words right out of my mouth!!! I already mentioned number 2 (you worded it better though) but number one was the FIRST thing that popped into my head. How did this rule get passed if there is such great lengthy discussions going on about these things?

NOT ONE person thought "Hm...this seems like we might also need to discuss the need to NOT give the owner of Gym A all the power..."

NOT ONE person thought "Hm...I know we are making this rule to prevent all the wild, rampant gym hopping and recruiting going on, but it seems like we might be leaving too much room for abuse by the owner of Gym A"???


My last thought is this: If I was a gym owner that this was affecting negatively, (eg. the proverbial Gym B)...The Majors and Jam might be looking a WHOLE LOT more organized and better to me. Granted, yes, that will take a few years. But I think we've all agreed that Jam is at least giving the impression that they are trying to make their own "Worlds like" event and that eventually people will have to choose "Team Jam" or "Team Varsity/USASF" If I was the USASF I would be devoting a whole lot more time to making LESS VAGUE, MORE ENFORCEABLE, APPEALABLE policies and rules, as this seems to be a pretty consistent theme with them. And it gives the appearance of an unorganized monopoly. When someone comes along and says "Hey look! We can do the exact same thing, only WAY better!" people will listen.

 

[King]

If the rule never changed and just stayed how it is how would all the parents go about protesting it?

 

[ufomom]

I know that there are gym hoppers, but I find the idea of the kid or two that gets trapped by a legitimate appealable situation as "expendable" galling. An acceptable loss, so to speak. Acceptable to the uber busy USASF, but not so to the parent who has spent years dragging said kid around and paying thousands of dollars. You'd hurl if I posted the the descriptions of the pedophile events that I have brushed up against while in cheer. That's events PLURAL. Sure, most of the situations, the kid shoulda quit or made a better choice earlier in the season, but to have no appeal process when we live in the United States of America, and we are used to have a JUDICIAL system. I'd get up and march around with a flag about now.

I know you are asking for suggestions to the USASF. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the too busy, blah, blah, blah. Cheer is big business profiting on children. Make it right.

 

[Mamarazzi]

If the rule never changed and just stayed how it is how would all the parents go about protesting it?

Whether intentional or not, that type of statement sounds like a very snarky "Yeah, so what are YOU gonna do about it?" What we're trying to do, IMO, is raise the argument that this isn't a safety rule that will better the sport, and discuss, with people that have access to the USASF (because we most certainly DO NOT,) possible adjustments to make a good rule a great one.

And, to answer your question, I don't know, but I'd love it someone can figure it out and stick it to the man. Even though "we" (the not-YET-Level-5-parents) are the 99%.

 

[tumbleyoda]

kingston - I am just asking to clarify my own thoughts: are you saying that there is/was no need in the rule in the first place because ultimately it affected - no matter how - only a small percentage of athletes and gyms and therefore doesn't need to be a rule?

Or because it only currently affects one competition (Worlds) both athletes and gyms should just get over it?

I am asking because I can remember situations posted on several of the past boards that basically devolved into well unless Gym A calls USASF and reports Gym B there is nothing that can be done because there was no rule. Now there is a rule - although I agree with the majority that it needs some tweaking - and we are still trying to find ways around it.

 

[Just-a-Mom]

If the rule never changed and just stayed how it is how would all the parents go about protesting it?

Well I know that at least one person on this very thread is on the PAC (I think more than one but I, like the USASF, and way to busy to be bothered with details so I won't check). I would hope they might bring it up/ Isn't that their function - to act as a liaison between the USASF-Gym Owners-Parents? So......PAC members: Liaise! <---- (That's my invented verb form of liaison...)

I know that there are gym hoppers, but I find the idea of the kid or two that gets trapped by a legitimate appealable situation as "expendable" galling. An acceptable loss, so to speak. Acceptable to the uber busy USASF, but not so to the parent who has spent years dragging said kid around and paying thousands of dollars. You'd hurl if I posted the the descriptions of the pedophile events that I have brushed up against while in cheer. That's events PLURAL. Sure, most of the situations, the kid shoulda quit or made a better choice earlier in the season, but to have no appeal process when we live in the United States of America, and we are used to have a JUDICIAL system. I'd get up and march around with a flag about now.

I know you are asking for suggestions to the USASF. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the too busy, blah, blah, blah. Cheer is big business profiting on children. Make it right.

I love this. :kiss:

 

[King]

kingston - I am just asking to clarify my own thoughts: are you saying that there is/was no need in the rule in the first place because ultimately it affected - no matter how - only a small percentage of athletes and gyms and therefore doesn't need to be a rule?

Or because it only currently affects one competition (Worlds) both athletes and gyms should just get over it?

I am asking because I can remember situations posted on several of the past boards that basically devolved into well unless Gym A calls USASF and reports Gym B there is nothing that can be done because there was no rule. Now there is a rule - although I agree with the majority that it needs some tweaking - and we are still trying to find ways around it.

I full believe the rule solves a problem with gym hopping at the level where most of the gym hopping occurred. I always thought it odd that a very big gym could go to a competition, see a team with an amazing athlete, and basically recruit them for their program without issue. If WCSS, Orange, Top Gun, and Wildcats saw someone who would help their program at a comp there was nothing but their own personal moral value stopping them from going for that kid. While an individual can help ANY team it is not as necessary at all the other levels to scrap and fight for one athlete outside of the Worlds levels. Not that all the other levels are not important, but no one is calling Mini Level 1 athletes or posting on their Facebook trying to get them to change gyms all the time. So we have a specific problem with a specific age group and skill level and only one controllable factor, Worlds. If an athlete wants to leave a program on bad terms (whosever fault they may be) the athlete is not just affecting herself, but also the other 19, 23, 29, or 35 other athletes. And cheerleading isn't a straight up position sport. It is not like a backspot leaves and you JUST find another backspot. You have to find a backspot who tumbles the same (cause worse tumbling you have to take out OR better tumbling you have to make changes for as well) jumps the same, dances the same, and is good enough to hold up the flyer. While there is the chance that 1 or 2 athletes might be gipped out of a competing year, the unmeasurable amount of athletes this rule will help is WELL worth those 2. It is no different than worlds minimum age being raised to 12 and hearing about all the kids that were heart broken they couldn't go to Worlds at age 11! There will always be those that suffer. But I also know those athletes, no matter how much they gripe, are only having to sit out one competition. They aren't banned from cheerleading, practicing, competing. If they were at SOT and left a week before NCA Dallas they could walk over to Cheer Athletics and compete against them in the same division. They just wouldn't be allowed to go to Worlds UNLESS SOT decided it was ok.

I think I can see how many gyms, parents, and athletes this rule helps as well as how possible and doable an appeals process is (its not and it will never happen in the next few years). Parents always have the ultimate power as they can take their kid from any program at anytime they wise. We have had it where kids did not show up on competition days. Being 'sick' or going to another program. It happens. So I just don't buy into this parents are helpless to gym owners. Unless someone is forcing me to go to a gym there are always options. You are never forced and always have a choice. Not competing and cheering is always a choice.

 

[King]

Whether intentional or not, that type of statement sounds like a very snarky "Yeah, so what are YOU gonna do about it?" What we're trying to do, IMO, is raise the argument that this isn't a safety rule that will better the sport, and discuss, with people that have access to the USASF (because we most certainly DO NOT,) possible adjustments to make a good rule a great one.

And, to answer your question, I don't know, but I'd love it someone can figure it out and stick it to the man. Even though "we" (the not-YET-Level-5-parents) are the 99%.

I am glad I asked because all your arguments seem to be ruled by the 'stick it to the man' feeling. It isn't about fixing the situation, it's about power. Yet the rule wasn't created to give gyms ultimate power. It was to help everyone with the gym hopping.