- Mar 30, 2012
- 810
- 1,116
Personally, I am interested in the industry that I have dedicated a significant amount of my family's time and money to. I have been interested in this show in that it represents a lot about the industry, both good and bad.
In this instance, what has been most interesting to me is how non athlete oriented the whole situation was. Program/coach pride seemed to trump ethical/appropriate behavior. I get that Cheer is a team sport, and that the needs of the team will sometimes be at odds with individual athlete. However, I don't believe that such extreme disrespect is ever warranted. Without the heart, effort and dedication of the athletes and their families, the industry would not be possible.
I firmly believe that it is the athlete and consumers right, and responsibility to participate in a program that works for them. Judging by various Cali Social Media accounts, there are a lot of team members who love the program and have been loyal to them for many years. That is a testament to what a good fit they are for so many people. They are a well respected and successful program. They aren't in danger of losing their status or success when someone leaves. Therefore, it is completely unnecessary to undermine the people who do.
So what has inspired such a widespread response to this situation? I can't speak for everyone, but I think that , in part, it has been the perception that SMOED was not at all gracious in its portrayal of an individual, based on the fact that he made the choice that their program was not a good fit for him. They have publicly been very free making the same assessment from their perspective, saying frequently that not everyone will work for their team. So it didn't sit well that they would behave punitively towards a kid who didn't like what was going on there.
This is something that is widely reflected in the industry as a whole. There seems to be a lot of politicizing that happens, that makes this sport less about competition, and athlete participation, and more about status, and perception and , dare I say, entitlement. That is why this situation stood out to me, and why I have opinions about it. Some of which, I choose to share on a public forum dedicated to discussing this sport.
On a side note:
I was impressed by Tannaz's apology. I was glad they pulled the airing of an inflammatory episode. I saw some flaws in the replacement episode. Yet, was less bothered by a 15 year old, who was subsequently taken out of the air as a flyer being emotional about a teammate leaving, then I was about an entire episode belittling an athlete's choice to leave. I also liked seeing Orby back to supporting who was there. Cali has so many reasons to count their blessings, and I think it's refreshing to see some of that.
In this instance, what has been most interesting to me is how non athlete oriented the whole situation was. Program/coach pride seemed to trump ethical/appropriate behavior. I get that Cheer is a team sport, and that the needs of the team will sometimes be at odds with individual athlete. However, I don't believe that such extreme disrespect is ever warranted. Without the heart, effort and dedication of the athletes and their families, the industry would not be possible.
I firmly believe that it is the athlete and consumers right, and responsibility to participate in a program that works for them. Judging by various Cali Social Media accounts, there are a lot of team members who love the program and have been loyal to them for many years. That is a testament to what a good fit they are for so many people. They are a well respected and successful program. They aren't in danger of losing their status or success when someone leaves. Therefore, it is completely unnecessary to undermine the people who do.
So what has inspired such a widespread response to this situation? I can't speak for everyone, but I think that , in part, it has been the perception that SMOED was not at all gracious in its portrayal of an individual, based on the fact that he made the choice that their program was not a good fit for him. They have publicly been very free making the same assessment from their perspective, saying frequently that not everyone will work for their team. So it didn't sit well that they would behave punitively towards a kid who didn't like what was going on there.
This is something that is widely reflected in the industry as a whole. There seems to be a lot of politicizing that happens, that makes this sport less about competition, and athlete participation, and more about status, and perception and , dare I say, entitlement. That is why this situation stood out to me, and why I have opinions about it. Some of which, I choose to share on a public forum dedicated to discussing this sport.
On a side note:
I was impressed by Tannaz's apology. I was glad they pulled the airing of an inflammatory episode. I saw some flaws in the replacement episode. Yet, was less bothered by a 15 year old, who was subsequently taken out of the air as a flyer being emotional about a teammate leaving, then I was about an entire episode belittling an athlete's choice to leave. I also liked seeing Orby back to supporting who was there. Cali has so many reasons to count their blessings, and I think it's refreshing to see some of that.