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

[yojaehs]

My answer is even in that case she shouldn't be allowed. By allowing at least one out in an extreme circumstance you basically open the door for any circumstance to be argued out of. If the USASF is that concerned with that one girl they should probably not have made the rule at all.

For the most part LOVE this rule, it started because of SO many "gym hoppers" and kids screwing their "old teams" and jumping months sometimes WEEKS before World's leaving their team high and dry, so YES, I agree with this rule. Does that mean it's not flawed? No, it is flawed and even in the EXTREME scenario that might NEVER happen, even ONE kid that might miss out is too many IMO.

 

[King]

great question! lets see if you are a lousy gym owner that can't keep their level 5 kids happy you don't want the rule repealed. However, if you are a good gym owner that keeps your level 5 happy kids then you want the rule to go.

Why would a good gym owner want the rule to go?

 

[King]

I for the HUGE most part LOVE this rule, it started because of SO many "gym hoppers" and kids screwing their "old teams" and jumping months sometimes WEEKS before World's leaving their team high and dry, so YES, I agree with this rule. Does that mean it's not flawed? No, it is flawed and even in the EXTREME scenario that might NEVER happen, even ONE kid that might miss out is too many IMO.

How very democrat of you

 

[King]

I would say that if the athlete owes money that it should be paid before a waiver is signed. If they cannot payit in full then something either needs to be worked out or the waiver shouldn't be signed. However if they are in good standing financially with Gym A but the parent lost their job so money is tighter and they can cheer for cheaper somewhere else and Gym A isn't willing to work with the parents (I know that many gyms would work with the parent) then I don't see why a release wouldn't be signed unless Gym A is just being difficult.

I think most of the releases not being signed are going to be personal issues between the gym and the family. There is no way to track that.

 

[Just-a-Mom]

You should be able to tell if you are with a "lousy gym owner" way before November 1st....

Unless you find out in December that the gym owner is sleeping with a minor cheerleader...

(Just playing devil's advocate and given your user name I'm gonna guess you know where I got that example... but in all actuality I'm all for the rule, I just want an appeals process for extreme cases.)

 

[ztaprincess]

I think most of the releases not being signed are going to be personal issues between the gym and the family. There is no way to track that.

That is very true which is why while there seems to be a need for some sort of an appeal process it will be tricky to implment one without really thinking it over. I would hope that unlike some of the other rules and changes to rules that if there is a change to this one that it is truly well thought out.

Unless you find out in December that the gym owner is sleeping with a minor cheerleader...

(Just playing devil's advocate and given your user name I'm gonna guess you know where I got that example... but in all actuality I'm all for the rule, I just want an appeals process for extreme cases.)

I was going to say the same thing but didn't know if it was a good idea. That is the type of example that I mean when things can happen at anytime during the season. With that exact example though I shake my head at the parents that kept their athlete there after it happened the first time.

 

[King]

Unless you find out in December that the gym owner is sleeping with a minor cheerleader...

(Just playing devil's advocate and given your user name I'm gonna guess you know where I got that example... but in all actuality I'm all for the rule, I just want an appeals process for extreme cases.)

Assume every single ruling will be appealed (why WOULDNT a family try and appeal it?). Who pays for all the appealing? The organization itself is not well funded.

 

[King]

Unless you find out in December that the gym owner is sleeping with a minor cheerleader...

(Just playing devil's advocate and given your user name I'm gonna guess you know where I got that example... but in all actuality I'm all for the rule, I just want an appeals process for extreme cases.)

That is very true which is why while there seems to be a need for some sort of an appeal process it will be tricky to implment one without really thinking it over. I would hope that unlike some of the other rules and changes to rules that if there is a change to this one that it is truly well thought out.



I was going to say the same thing but didn't know if it was a good idea. That is the type of example that I mean when things can happen at anytime during the season. With that exact example though I shake my head at the parents that kept their athlete there after it happened the first time.

My counterpoint is that because these are only level 5 athletes and only affects senior age worlds eligible ones how many athletes do you think enter for the first time into cheerleading on a Worlds team and discover a gym they have never been to before are not what they thought?

 

[ztaprincess]

I like the idea that was thrown out in the other thread that if the appeal does not go through that the athlete (parent) who sent in the appeal would need to pay for it and if it goes go through then Gym A would pay. I also liked that someone mentioned that the people who makes sure the waivers are signed already would be able to check over the appeals. This would cut having to bring on more people to do this. Maybe once a month go through appeals.

 

[King]

I like the idea that was thrown out in the other thread that if the appeal does not go through that the athlete (parent) who sent in the appeal would need to pay for it and if it goes go through then Gym A would pay. I also liked that someone mentioned that the people who makes sure the waivers are signed already would be able to check over the appeals. This would cut having to bring on more people to do this. Maybe once a month go through appeals.

If the family is having financial troubles already and that is the reason they are leaving a gym how will they afford the appeal? And a month out affectively makes an athlete a non-factor.

Which, just for arguments sake, how many level 5 Worlds traveling athletes who have the ability to make a team that is worlds capable have money troubles? If they have money troubles and can't pay at one gym but will go to another gym mid-season mind you (because this only goes into affect after a late date) that will pay all their bills for free... isn't that wrong in the first place? Isn't that what this is meant to prevent?

 

[debbie]

Why would a good gym owner want the rule to go?

Because he\she always has kids knocking on the door asking to be part of their gym.

 

[Mamarazzi]

1. So if there is a valid reason to not release someone because of geographical move, how do you track it and enforce it?
2. Yes but as you are suggesting that there should be times when a waiver should not be needed I was curious how you determine this.
3. As most gym hopping happens at the top I think this is, for the moment, the best system and should not be applied to the lower levels.

1. My original answer was valid reasons TO BE released, not valid reasons to DENY release, and I think geographical move, be it across town or across country can be simply rectified (in the waiver scenario) by providing a copy of a utility bill from the new address, in a parent/guardian's name, if it actually came down to that.
2. Ok.
3. The question was, if the same rules should apply, IF the rule was enacted at all levels, so even if most gym-hopping occurs at the top, why do you think the same rules shouldn't apply?

 

[yojaehs]

How very democrat of you

You really called me that!? I thought we were friends LOL JK!
Now in response to the "cost", I really and truly don't feel that there will be a lot of appeals. I feel like even LESS will appeal if it is taken seriously and "I'm not happy" doesn't cut it. There are way too many "what if's" being tossed around (Guilty, yes I'm aware). A group of people got together to START this rule just like many many others, why can't they can't they amend this? Again, for the most part I like this rule, just needs some tweeking.

 

[Mamarazzi]

Let's say I am a gym owner. Why should I want this rule repealed?

100%, no. But seeing as there are so many athletes and parents that take issue with the rule, isn't it clear that it appears that the rule is weighted very heavily in gym owner's favor? That doesn't even address the fact that it was a mid-season rule, not voted on by athletes, and there's no process to appeal. Basically, a few gyms are getting screwed, so those businesses that are getting screwed can ask for a rule to be made so they don't get screwed, it will be effective immediately, and no process exists to protect the athlete from shady businesses that want to screw each other, at the expense of the athlete.

 

[BlueCat]

1. ...parents feeling that their child has been put in danger (drinking with athletes ect.), ....
2. If a gym is removing an athlete because of illegal activities (drinking or drugs) then they better be able to prove this.

So the gym owners would be required to have proof, but athletes could get a release based on a rumor? I'm certainly not suggesting that athletes should stay in a situation they don't think is safe. However, parents could simply make something up to get a guaranteed release. (I know most parents wouldn't do this - any more than most gym owners wouldn't deny a release for non-financial reasons.)

I think that the general feeling among many gym owners was that this rule addressed two main problems that face many gyms:

1. Athletes leaving without paying their bill, and gyms having no real threat to keep them from going somewhere else and starting with a zero balance.
2. Athletes (particularly high-level ones) being recruited away during a season.