All-Star Only Seniors Can Expose Midriff???

[ASCheerMan]

I would give kudos if the "governing body" had mandatory background checks...that would be the first step in keeping your child safe.

This is actually already in place. There are potential legal ramifications associated with 'mandatory' background checks, but the USASF is creating a Professional Membership level for Coaches, Choreographers and Gym Owners. Industry professionals will take the background check. If they pass the background check, they become a professional member. If they don't, they won't be on our published list. At some point, Parents will be able to log on to see if their daughter's coach is a Professional Member of the USASF or not. If their coach isn't listed, this will provide the parent the backing to ask questions of the gym owner and the qualifications of their staff. USASF doesn't have a right to step in and regulate a gym's personnel and human resources but can aide gym owners and parents in making sure only the best individuals are training our athletes.

 

[Coach Troy]

Oh great the full-top crowd is back (

 

[ASCheerMan]

The "scandalous" tumbling rules for Level 5 were met with over 7,000 signatures on change.org. So are you verifying the Image Policy had a formal process but the tumbling rules were "scandoulous" and did not follow a formal process?

I am verifying that the Image Policy went through a formal process and that the Level 5 Tumbling rule changes were viewed by our industry as scandalous.
Did they go through an officially acceptable process, yes. Did they go through the most popular and widely accepted official process, no. Was the public understandably blindsided by the rule changes, yes. Given the chance to do it all again, would the USASF gone about things differently? I'm pretty sure.

 

[cheercurl]

I am sorry if I painfully insulted you but complaining on a forum is not action it it sitting on your chair typing to others who read this thread. Your rights can't be taken from you if you make the choice to join a group and must follow within the rules in how that organization is run. You can not like how you are represented and want to change it but many are making it sound like they suddenly pulled representation that was previously in place and that is not the case. I applaud you if you are doing more than that and hope that others follow suit if they feel so strongly that they are not being represented in this organization. As I have said I feel the USASF should have greater representation from parents, gym owners, coaches, and older cheerleaders - but I know that this is not how it is and I can not complain about my rights and choices being taken when the way USASF works is already set in place.
I hide behind nothing and the number of posts I have compared to yours does not have any matter on how much I know about an issue or care about it.
You may not agree how the ruling went down. But you make it sound like they did not follow what there governing charter states and as far as I can see they were well within their rights and if anything did more than required. No one said every organization was a full democracy when you join a group that all ready has a governing body you can not like how things go down but your rights aren't trampled as long as they follow their charter.
The reason I keep mention leaving the USASF is because even Coach Troy mentioned at one point that was something that gyms should do and show how free commerce can take effect. If it is your belief that the majority of gyms are against this then band together and create an alternative organization - has been done with other groups.

You are not sorry and you do not know me...so stop making sweeping statements about what I should or shouldn't do or what I can and can not think. I don't see leaving USASF as a viable option. I did not state anything other than my opinion. I HAVE NEVER stated anything about a governing charter...I NEVER EVEN SAID it was was not within their rights. I stated an alternative. YOU do not know me....do not speak for me or pretend you know what I meant or what I might have been thinking when I wrote it. I will ask kingston to remove any of your "she meant this__________ kind of statements..." Are we clear?

 

[ASCheerMan]

Oh great the full-top crowd is back (

Coach Troy: hey man, reading this shot an image through my head of a bunch of Mean Girls in the cafeteria. I love reading the opposing viewpoints. While I think some people could show a little more respect for one another, I've barely read any comments on this thread that I don't agree with, appreciate, or at least shed some light on a perspectice I haven't considered.
This is great education, so can I please sit at the crop top lunch table and share my jello pudding?

 

[Coach Troy]

Huh!????
Jello???

 

[FamousxMindset]

All of this over 8 inches of fabric.

 

[Coach Troy]

All this over the ability of one segment of the industry to have thier uniform preference made superior to another ...... LARGER portion of the industry by a governing body that only has its power because another option is not avalible.

 

[ASCheerMan]

All this over the ability of one segment of the industry to have thier uniform preference made superior to another ...... LARGER portion of the industry by a governing body that only has its power because another option is not avalible.

out of curiosity, which segment do you attribute to being in favor of the policy and had their uniform preference made superior and which segment lost the race?

 

[cupieqt]

Huh!????
Jello???

He meant you're acting like a kid that catches an attitude when anyone tries to post a viewpoint that is not yours.
It's the same thing I tried to tell you before. Read and reply with something that contributes to the conversation and not a backhanded insult muttered under your breath.

 

[Coach Troy]

Crop tops are the clear majority.
Full tops were deemed superior by the usasf even though the overwhelming uniform preference was the crop top.
So the real looser are those that while in the majority had there freedom restricted. And the defacto winner are those that would have chosen a full top anyway get there fit mandated.

 

[coachrah]

This is actually already in place. There are potential legal ramifications associated with 'mandatory' background checks, but the USASF is creating a Professional Membership level for Coaches, Choreographers and Gym Owners. Industry professionals will take the background check. If they pass the background check, they become a professional member. If they don't, they won't be on our published list. At some point, Parents will be able to log on to see if their daughter's coach is a Professional Member of the USASF or not. If their coach isn't listed, this will provide the parent the backing to ask questions of the gym owner and the qualifications of their staff. USASF doesn't have a right to step in and regulate a gym's personnel and human resources but can aide gym owners and parents in making sure only the best individuals are training our athletes.

Why don't other governing bodies (water polo, hockey, baseball, volleyball, even pop warner etc.) face legal ramifications or do they? What are the legal ramifications?

 

[Skeeter]

Wll

 

[Mom2Cheergirls]

You are not sorry and you do not know me...so stop making sweeping statements about what I should or shouldn't do or what I can and can not think. I don't see leaving USASF as a viable option. I did not state anything other than my opinion. I HAVE NEVER stated anything about a governing charter...I NEVER EVEN SAID it was was not within their rights. I stated an alternative. YOU do not know me....do not speak for me or pretend you know what I meant or what I might have been thinking when I wrote it. I will ask kingston to remove any of your "she meant this__________ kind of statements..." Are we clear?

Okay well I never personally called you out in my first post where you responded that you were painfully insulted - you choose to include yourself in the group of adults I was speaking about. My comment about being tired of adults whining about there rights being taken away and not taking action were not directed to one individual but you choose to respond as if they were. Nor did I say you said "governing charter or anything to the like". I think cheercurl you have read far too much into my post and have taken comments personally that were not directed specifically to you.
I have the right to my opinion that adults whining about rights being taken away is ridiculous in my opinion and unless I @ you and said specifically that you cheercurl said something then go for it get Kingston involved because I have never said you have other than "painfully insulted".
I have used the universal concept of you in most cases followed by words like many others. In fact the only person I have generally mentioned as saying something is Coach Troy because we have had a long dialogue on this thread and I go back and check before I post if those remarks occurred in our debate.
You don't know me either. I have not been making any comments to you about number of posts, accusing someone of having 2 usernames, or telling someone "are we clear?". If anyone needs to get Kingston involved perhaps it is me. I have kept a level tone, used the universal concept of the word "you" unless in a direct dialogue with a person and tried to keep this a debate and not make it personal. Threatening me is not something that will make me quiet - perhaps Kingston does need to get involve - I feel comfortable with my posts and my attempts throughout to try to understand even though I have become at times frustrated with the other side of this issue.

 

[ASCheerMan]

Why don't other governing bodies (water polo, hockey, baseball, volleyball, even pop warner etc.) face legal ramifications or do they? What are the legal ramifications?

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.