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

[REA Dad]

So basically you can forge the waiver, go to Worlds and let the fur fly then. Original gym said they didn't sign, new gym has the waiver thats signed, everyone is saying they are are not lying, and USASF has no control because its just a piece of paper and they have no system in place to follow through with the waivers. Sounds like a good plan to me...

Actually the penalty for falsifying documents is less than when a gym owner won't sign your waiver because you'll more than likely be able to compete at Worlds and you'll also be allowed to have your day in court. Of course I'm not condoning that, just mentioning it to show how ridiculous it is to not have an appeal process for release waivers.

 

[Nothanks]

You all have already pointed out how it can be faked. Whats to stop one gym from faking one... or another gym from signing it THEN claiming at Worlds they never signed it?

so to make the rule slightly more legitimate (read: enforceable) what's wrong with requiring the releasing gym to have their signature notarized? Do you see that as a good first step in helping the rule to be ironed out?

 

[nlow]

does two wrongs make a right?

no but 2 negatives (her not signing and his threat not to compete) makes a positive (signed release) :chestbump:

 

[wcdad]

The question that needs to be asked is what is going to happen to the kids that are already on gym B. The ones that have been signed up at gym B from May. The ones that have been with gym B for several years. The ones that started at the start of the year with gym B at tryouts. The ones that are on the level 5 team that the kids from gym A are going to go on to. What do you think should happen to those kids when they get replaced because the Suzie’s from gym A come to gym B and take their spots because they have that double or the skill that the kid from gym B is working on very hard but has not quite gotten it?

This is an ugly situation all around. But I have to say it is not fair for the kids in Gym B as well if they get displaced.

This rule is a needed rule for many reasons. It may not be perfect but it is in place for many reasons. Dr Spock sums this rule up best, “the needs of the many far out way the needs of the few.”

Do you homework and be prepared to move by November 1st from this point on. This rule should not be such an issue this year as it is not new and people discussed this to death last year. And remember it only deals with level 5 Worlds Cheerleaders.

 

[newcheerdad]

because the perception will prevent most gym hopping and the hoops you have to jump through. 99% of gym hopping is bad. and if someone really felt that strongly against it they would test he system in the faults i have mentioned. raise a big stink about it, and the system would adjust. now, they would pretty much black list themselves because what gym wants to deal with an individual who will willingly make political statements, but they would make a point.

and honestly this rule highly helps good businesses. because all decisions need to be made on a year long basis (or is the perception and this rule is even perceived to affect kids all the way down to mini 1... for what reason i have no idea) it means they will choose stronger more solid businesses that look like they will be around all year long.

I think you can discourage gym hopping with a 90 or 120-day no-compete rule just as easily, you don't have to have some convoluted appeals process, and it would be relatively easy for the USASF to handle. (120 days from your last competition, unless you leave after the 1st competition of the season, means you'll likely miss a number of world's bid comps anyway)

 

[King]

I think you can discourage gym hopping with a 90 or 120-day no-compete rule just as easily, you don't have to have some convoluted appeals process, and it would be relatively easy for the USASF to handle. (120 days from your last competition, unless you leave after the 1st competition of the season, means you'll likely miss a number of world's bid comps anyway)

That would be more limiting than the current rule.

 

[REA Dad]

I think you can discourage gym hopping with a 90 or 120-day no-compete rule just as easily, you don't have to have some convoluted appeals process, and it would be relatively easy for the USASF to handle. (120 days from your last competition, unless you leave after the 1st competition of the season, means you'll likely miss a number of world's bid comps anyway)

While Ultimately I feel the rule should be adjusted to include an appeals process even if it is with predetermined guidelines for what would grant an appeal (see examples below) process, I would accept a rule that said no signed waiver you have to wait a MAX of 60 days to transfer to a new gym and with a signed waiver you are eligible immediately.

 

[King]

While Ultimately I feel the rule should be adjusted to include an appeals process even if it is with predetermined guidelines for what would grant an appeal (see examples below) process, I would accept a rule that said no signed waiver you have to wait a MAX of 60 days to transfer to a new gym and with a signed waiver you are eligible immediately.

But here is the issue, there is no rule that says you cannot transfer immediately. There is nothing that says you cannot compete with a Worlds team and help them get a bid (from all the pieces I have seen). So all these time constraints don't mean anything. Wait 60 days for what? Before you can walk into a new gym? That has nothing to do with the current incentive and is MORe limiting in that you are forcing parents and athletes to stay at a current gym longer OR not cheer.

The release affects one competition, Worlds. It does not affect practicing, competing, anything of all the competitions BEFORE Worlds. So what would waiting out 60 days do? That is why waiting periods don't work in this case. The one little incentive is a one time event.

 

[kristenthegreat]

So as the rule stands now, if I am to be understanding this correctly:
*You can leave a gym at any time, for any reason.
*You still are not required to finish paying.
*If you are levels 1-5 you do not need a release UNLESS:
-You competed on a Worlds team after Nov. 1st.
-You are intending to compete on another Worlds team that year.
-That team is preparing to secure a bid and hasn't already.
-The gym hasn't collapsed under the weight of awful scandal.

So, if you are levels 1-4, or did not compete on a Worlds team after Nov. 1st, or your gym is no longer around, you do NOT need a release. You do not need a release to tumble at, practice with, or compete for another program. The only time it matters is if you intend to try to go to Worlds with another team after leaving your first gym. NOW- restricted 5/youth 5/junior 5 teams (the very small percentage of them that there are), if one of them would like to switch to a gym that's going to have a senior 5 team, would THEY need a release? Because they intend to go to Worlds and have competed on a team after Nov. 1st?

I think I'm going to start referring to Halloween as 'The Mass Exodus'. Because I feel like everybody will be switching gyms then because it's the last day they can do it without a release...

 

[King]

So as the rule stands now, if I am to be understanding this correctly:
*You can leave a gym at any time, for any reason.
*You still are not required to finish paying.
*If you are levels 1-5 you do not need a release UNLESS:
-You competed on a Worlds team after Nov. 1st.
-You are intending to compete on another Worlds team that year.
-That team is preparing to secure a bid and hasn't already.
-The gym hasn't collapsed under the weight of awful scandal.

So, if you are levels 1-4, or did not compete on a Worlds team after Nov. 1st, or your gym is no longer around, you do NOT need a release. You do not need a release to tumble at, practice with, or compete for another program. The only time it matters is if you intend to try to go to Worlds with another team after leaving your first gym. NOW- restricted 5/youth 5/junior 5 teams (the very small percentage of them that there are), if one of them would like to switch to a gym that's going to have a senior 5 team, would THEY need a release? Because they intend to go to Worlds and have competed on a team after Nov. 1st?

I think I'm going to start referring to Halloween as 'The Mass Exodus'. Because I feel like everybody will be switching gyms then because it's the last day they can do it without a release...

From what I understand if you want to compete at Worlds and were previously at another gym during that same season you need a release. It does not matter for bid getting, thats it. One competition.

 

[DJ]

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.

BlueCat
Most gym owners, at the top of the spectrum where you and kingston are typically do not have to deal with unhappy Level 5 Athletes wishing to leave your programs (even if their families are moving away). But for many smaller gyms, this clause essentially holds them hostage to their unsuccessful level 5 team that is going nowhere. (At least that is my experience around these parts).

I'd like to see the opinions of the Gym Owners from the Top 10 Placements at Worlds in comparison to how the Owners from the Bottom 10 Placement at Worlds would feel on the same issue. (I'm sure that the opinions will be hugely different)

Furthermore, what is good for one is good for ALL this should be applied to Levels 1-4 as well.
None of these kids deserve the type of screwing over that they get when someone up and quits because their spankies are in a twist.

 

[kristenthegreat]

From what I understand if you want to compete at Worlds and were previously at another gym during that same season you need a release. It does not matter for bid getting, thats it. One competition.

So someone could be on that team and get the bid with them, and then you could kick them off if you get a waiver? I thought you could only compete at Worlds with the people who were on the team when you got the bid?

 

[King]

So someone could be on that team and get the bid with them, and then you could kick them off if you get a waiver? I thought you could only compete at Worlds with the people who were on the team when you got the bid?

You can make 10 substitutions. 3 can be from anywhere for anything and the rest HAD to be members of your gym that competed on the floor at that competition.

 

[BlueCat]

BlueCat
Most gym owners, at the top of the spectrum where you and kingston are typically do not have to deal with unhappy Level 5 Athletes wishing to leave your programs (even if their families are moving away). But for many smaller gyms, this clause essentially holds them hostage to their unsuccessful level 5 team that is going nowhere. (At least that is my experience around these parts).

I'd like to see the opinions of the Gym Owners from the Top 10 Placements at Worlds in comparison to how the Owners from the Bottom 10 Placement at Worlds would feel on the same issue. (I'm sure that the opinions will be hugely different)

Furthermore, what is good for one is good for ALL this should be applied to Levels 1-4 as well.
None of these kids deserve the type of screwing over that they get when someone up and quits because their spankies are in a twist.

I'm sure that the views of those two different groups are probably very different. This is oversimplifying things, but the higher up the "food chain" you are, the more likely you are to be opposed to the rule.

Why does this whole rule apply only to Worlds athletes? Because the USASF only has direct control over 1 event a year. Their rules about waivers/etc. only apply to that one because they don't run the other events.

 

[King]

BlueCat
Most gym owners, at the top of the spectrum where you and kingston are typically do not have to deal with unhappy Level 5 Athletes wishing to leave your programs (even if their families are moving away). But for many smaller gyms, this clause essentially holds them hostage to their unsuccessful level 5 team that is going nowhere. (At least that is my experience around these parts).

I'd like to see the opinions of the Gym Owners from the Top 10 Placements at Worlds in comparison to how the Owners from the Bottom 10 Placement at Worlds would feel on the same issue. (I'm sure that the opinions will be hugely different)

Furthermore, what is good for one is good for ALL this should be applied to Levels 1-4 as well.
None of these kids deserve the type of screwing over that they get when someone up and quits because their spankies are in a twist.

Just want to be clear I am NOT a gym owner.

This rule actually hurts bigger gyms. In the middle of the year if an athlete is disgruntled and would like to go to a bigger (and usually more successful program) and they are level 5 and Worlds eligible and that is their goal they cannot go.

This would be never be passed for anything not Worlds related. It would be unenforceable, hurt all gyms, and what would be the 'carrot' taken away to 'keep people from leaving'?