All-Star Usasf Rules Gurus - Please Read

[kristenthegreat]

I work at a school system. My contact with students is very minimal. In order to work with children I had to pass a background check, a physical and have a clean driving record. Days my pass and I won't speak to a single student. I will never drive a single student anywhere. People working even near kids need to be held to a higher standard. My kid came from gymnastics. I made the mistake of assuming(i know) that USASF and USAG were on par with each other. It wasn't until this thread yesterday and found out no one is required to do a background check. Where is the smiley with the cart in front of the horse.
http://usagym.org/PDFs/Member Services/backgroundcheck_qa.pdf

Although a background check is useless if there has never been a criminal offense..it does provide at least SOME peace of mind.

 

[SkyBlue]

An old rumor has come to my attention again, so I am going to put this out there and would like a response from someone at the USASF who would have the correct answer. After worlds last year, there was a rumor that Famous Athletics had been reprimanded with a suspension of participating in this years event due to an athlete on the floor who had not been released from her old gym before competing. Myself and many of the other level 5 parents specifically asked about this rumor before we made a commitment. We were told that the rumor was untrue that the athlete that had been challenged, was challenged on age (whether or not she was 12). Since I did know her age to be appropriate, I accepted that answer, as well as many others.

What I need to know is this gym banned from competing at worlds this year for having an athlete that had not been released? I am not interested in hearing others rumors and opinions, I want to hear whether or not this is a fact from someone at the USASF with knowledge to answer the question.

 

[SkyBlue]

Although a background check is useless if there has never been a criminal offense..it does provide at least SOME peace of mind.

Background checks must include financial background checks.

 

[King]

An old rumor has come to my attention again, so I am going to put this out there and would like a response from someone at the USASF who would have the correct answer. After worlds last year, there was a rumor that Famous Athletics had been reprimanded with a suspension of participating in this years event due to an athlete on the floor who had not been released from her old gym before competing. Myself and many of the other level 5 parents specifically asked about this rumor before we made a commitment. We were told that the rumor was untrue that the athlete that had been challenged, was challenged on age (whether or not she was 12). Since I did know her age to be appropriate, I accepted that answer, as well as many others.

What I need to know is this gym banned from competing at worlds this year for having an athlete that had not been released? I am not interested in hearing others rumors and opinions, I want to hear whether or not this is a fact from someone at the USASF with knowledge to answer the question.

Well being as the only representative from the USASF who posts is RulesGuy and that is only to make blanket statements not respond to individual inquiries you will have better luck calling their organization. Office # - 800-829-6237

Feel free to call and let us know what they say.

 

[CoachTamara]

I specifically said what I teach my kids is that we will not support an ORGANIZATION in which the owner is ethically challenged and morally bankrupt.

As an owner, the best punishment for these people and businesses is simply what you have done-walk away. Without customers, they cannot be an organization that is ethically challenged and morally bankrupt. I'm trying to read between the lines of everything said, but is they are coaches/owners that have stolen money, they won't have money to steal next year, or anyone to spread their lies to. Although it is unfortunate you have to be one of the victims, it has to happen for people to get to the truth and see them for what they are.
Obviously you are not the first to leave, and won't be the last. If what I'm hearing is correct, I'm sure they will not have a gym next year. There have been many gyms closed for much worse, and naturally the bad seeds find their way out. It is not just cheerleading, but all business.

 

[King]

As an owner, the best punishment for these people and businesses is simply what you have done-walk away. Without customers, they cannot be an organization that is ethically challenged and morally bankrupt. I'm trying to read between the lines of everything said, but is they are coaches/owners that have stolen money, they won't have money to steal next year, or anyone to spread their lies to. Although it is unfortunate you have to be one of the victims, it has to happen for people to get to the truth and see them for what they are.
Obviously you are not the first to leave, and won't be the last. If what I'm hearing is correct, I'm sure they will not have a gym next year. There have been many gyms closed for much worse, and naturally the bad seeds find their way out. It is not just cheerleading, but all business.

you might be one of my new favorite posters.

 

[ACEDAD]

An old rumor has come to my attention again, so I am going to put this out there and would like a response from someone at the USASF who would have the correct answer. After worlds last year, there was a rumor that Famous Athletics had been reprimanded with a suspension of participating in this years event due to an athlete on the floor who had not been released from her old gym before competing. Myself and many of the other level 5 parents specifically asked about this rumor before we made a commitment. We were told that the rumor was untrue that the athlete that had been challenged, was challenged on age (whether or not she was 12). Since I did know her age to be appropriate, I accepted that answer, as well as many others.

What I need to know is this gym banned from competing at worlds this year for having an athlete that had not been released? I am not interested in hearing others rumors and opinions, I want to hear whether or not this is a fact from someone at the USASF with knowledge to answer the question.

I've worked hard to get the USASF to make those rulings public. I got them to create a page where they are supposed to be posted.

Doesn't look like it's being kept up, but there is a place to find out.

http://usasf.net/members/notifications/

It can be found from the front page, so it's not hidden.

 

[debbie]

Ok here is what i am getting:
1. USASf has the rule they believe is needed for a greater good but they can't have an appeals process or enforce it because of limited resources.
2. Some gyms want the rule to avoid losing kids to more successful gyms mid season.
3. Parents dont like the rule "mostly" because there is no appeals process and can lead to abuse.

This is what I suggest to satisfy all of the above:

The USASF mandates that all gym owners have a company policy of what situations they WILL NOT release an athlete (Their policy is totally up to them)
ex:
Gym A reasons not to release: "none" if you want to leave we will give you a release and wish you well
Gym B reasons not to release: "all" it is our policy once you compete with us we will not sign any releases
Gym C reasons not to release: money owed, you go to gym A (we hate them), you are kicked off for 5 or more absences, etc, etc

Now every gym must have their policy signed and dated by the parent before the first competition. The USASF would have an appeal process that would be very black and white.
1. does gym have signed release policy
2. if so did kid leave for a reason not on the policy...if yes kid is released if no kid is not
3. loser pays 50.00

 

[ztaprincess]

An old rumor has come to my attention again, so I am going to put this out there and would like a response from someone at the USASF who would have the correct answer. After worlds last year, there was a rumor that Famous Athletics had been reprimanded with a suspension of participating in this years event due to an athlete on the floor who had not been released from her old gym before competing. Myself and many of the other level 5 parents specifically asked about this rumor before we made a commitment. We were told that the rumor was untrue that the athlete that had been challenged, was challenged on age (whether or not she was 12). Since I did know her age to be appropriate, I accepted that answer, as well as many others.

What I need to know is this gym banned from competing at worlds this year for having an athlete that had not been released? I am not interested in hearing others rumors and opinions, I want to hear whether or not this is a fact from someone at the USASF with knowledge to answer the question.

Wow I an replying to this because THIS is what I was discussing earlier in the thread about who keeps track of these releases and if this is something that could happen. I will be very interested to find out if this is true because I feel like this could happen more often if the releases aren't checked out and kept track of.

 

[rpm99]

I can say that the power is STILL in my hands. I may have preferred the power of invisibility and am stuck with the power of walking through walls, but I still have power. I may not be able to walk through every wall, but I can get through the ones I need.

Double shimmy that part.

 

[SkyBlue]

I've worked hard to get the USASF to make those rulings public. I got them to create a page where they are supposed to be posted.
Doesn't look like it's being kept up, but there is a place to find out.

http://usasf.net/members/notifications/

It can be found from the front page, so it's not hidden.

Thanks ACEDAD! You are right, it is not up to date! I have spoken with the USASF regarding this and the rumor is TRUE! This is how it was explained to me. Famous Athletics had an athlete on the floor who did NOT have a release from her previous gym. This was reported by the previous gym. Famous competed in the Large Limited Division, the sanction was that they could NOT compete in the Large Limited Division the next year. However.... the ban only pertains to that division and they are free to work around that by competing in a smaller or larger division.

So the bottom line is, that there really is no punishment for them knowingly putting an ineligable athlete on the floor, they can simply work around it by entering another division. So in the end the owner was able to hide the lie for all of this time, by creating a small limited team.

So this rumor has been put to bed, yet the scam artist of an owner is allowed to continue, while we continue to fight for our releases.

 

[King]

Thanks ACEDAD! You are right, it is not up to date! I have spoken with the USASF regarding this and the rumor is TRUE! This is how it was explained to me. Famous Athletics had an athlete on the floor who did NOT have a release from her previous gym. This was reported by the previous gym. Famous competed in the Large Limited Division, the sanction was that they could NOT compete in the Large Limited Division the next year. However.... the ban only pertains to that division and they are free to work around that by competing in a smaller or larger division.

So the bottom line is, that there really is no punishment for them knowingly putting an ineligable athlete on the floor, they can simply work around it by entering another division. So in the end the owner was able to hide the lie for all of this time, by creating a small limited team.

So this rumor has been put to bed, yet the scam artist of an owner is allowed to continue, while we continue to fight for our releases.

It also helps there is no more large limited division.

 

[mollymags]

Thanks ACEDAD! You are right, it is not up to date! I have spoken with the USASF regarding this and the rumor is TRUE! This is how it was explained to me. Famous Athletics had an athlete on the floor who did NOT have a release from her previous gym. This was reported by the previous gym. Famous competed in the Large Limited Division, the sanction was that they could NOT compete in the Large Limited Division the next year. However.... the ban only pertains to that division and they are free to work around that by competing in a smaller or larger division.

So the bottom line is, that there really is no punishment for them knowingly putting an ineligable athlete on the floor, they can simply work around it by entering another division. So in the end the owner was able to hide the lie for all of this time, by creating a small limited team.

So this rumor has been put to bed, yet the scam artist of an owner is allowed to continue, while we continue to fight for our releases.

It seems silly that it would only pertain to the division that the team competed in the previous year. Why wouldn't they be banned from all divisions? Really the only punishment then if you get busted after worlds is that your placement is stripped... and I bet anyone who didn't make it to finals or place well in the end doesn't really care all that much about that. Actually, I'm just assuming that that is the punishment. Did they get DQ'd?

I'm not questioning what you've heard, I'm questioning the logic behind how that rule is set up. Basically any large limited coed, medium coed, or large coed team from last year is now free and clear to compete if they had an ineligible athlete on the floor last year.

 

[debbie]

Thanks ACEDAD! You are right, it is not up to date! I have spoken with the USASF regarding this and the rumor is TRUE! This is how it was explained to me. Famous Athletics had an athlete on the floor who did NOT have a release from her previous gym. This was reported by the previous gym. Famous competed in the Large Limited Division, the sanction was that they could NOT compete in the Large Limited Division the next year. However.... the ban only pertains to that division and they are free to work around that by competing in a smaller or larger division.

So the bottom line is, that there really is no punishment for them knowingly putting an ineligable athlete on the floor, they can simply work around it by entering another division. So in the end the owner was able to hide the lie for all of this time, by creating a small limited team.

So this rumor has been put to bed, yet the scam artist of an owner is allowed to continue, while we continue to fight for our releases.

I really feel for you and believe you need to continue to fight. This is wrong on every level and I for one am tired of the lame answer that the usasf don't have resources to deal with their own rules. Where the heck are the gyms that started this rule, there voices should be heard saying this is not what we intended!

 

[yojaehs]

I really feel for you and believe you need to continue to fight. This is wrong on every level and I for one am tired of the lame answer that the usasf don't have resources to deal with their own rules. Where the heck are the gyms that started this rule, there voices should be heard saying this is not what we intended!

debbie I have completely respected your perspective on this subject. The fact that all too often people push for rules that help the "here and now" or the "good kid that just joined their program" is a lot of the problem. "We lost our best kid last year, lets make a rule against it" so they get other gyms that have dealt with a similar issue (not even saying why they lost them), I feel that gyms are equally to blame for this rule as the USASF. I say this in hopes that rules or amendments in the future be more thought out. In all honesty the "small gym" group has MORE votes for rules than the "big gyms" do. All to often what's good for NOW or what's good for YOUR GYM at the time isn't what's best for the industry as a whole or the future of cheer.

I use this as an example bc I know how they stand on this issue, and I hope kingston doesn't mind.
Ex. Dropping the number of large from 36-32 in all actuality HURTS Rays (and all other gyms that could actually field multiple teams of 36). BUT in order to have teams to compete against which makes divisions available for other gyms to create, they supported the rule (funny I remember Happy saying if you vote to drop the number you BETTER put a team in that division lol). This rule hurt the "few" but was voted as the BEST decision for the "whole". Is it? Idk, but I know that that rule was thought out and discussed in great length and was ultimately decided that 32 would be the "best" number. I don't think ALL rules are thought through this much. So I ask and even BEG that before you push for a rule, you step back and think of ALL sides, large and small and FUTURE ramifications.

Idk if anything will change in regards to this current rule but the fact that there are many sides discussing whether you agree or disagree I'm glad to see that all sides are at least expressing their thoughts so that hopefully future rules can get it "right".