All-Star Usasf Rules Gurus - Please Read

[debbie]

Which time?

the one the usasf stepped in and released a kid against the gyms say?

 

[MissCongeniality]

I would say it's not. Many many many cheerleaders' goal is to go to Worlds. The gym we're in right now? Almost 200 kids and I'd bet 30 of them could even tell you what Worlds is. And probably only the parents of our Level 5 team members could tell you. The rest talk about Level 5 like it's some sort of other sport - "They're trying to win money or something...so they can go to Disney World." <---Yes, this is a real quote. So no, I would say "most" is inaccurate.



As for the original topic of this thread...I've debated on this for DAYS while following this thread. I'm sure I'm about to ruffle a few feathers and burn a bridge or 2, but at this point I don't care. I had my feathers more than a little ruffled over the last few months by some of these people anyway (and I'm sure the bridge was burned from both sides...).

I left the gym in discussion last summer in the middle of the summer. Are my kids level 5? Nope. So I wasn't worried about Worlds or anything else. Was I completely honest with the gym as to why I was leaving? Nope - quite frankly it was more drama than it would have been worth, so I claimes finances and left (we were having some money problems so not a total lie :oops:) . But I'm sorry...there is NOT ONE PERSON who was at that gym the first few months of this season who couldn't see that there were problems. So I don't care if your kids are level 1, 5, or 352...if you didn't know there were problems before now, then you weren't paying attention. The whole thing was one big unorganized mess. And all of the things that are supposedly "coming to light" now were things anyone who was paying attention could have seen last summer. Certainly the people posting in this thread knew about them.

I had MANY people who I thought were my friends who were either very ugly to me, lied about me, or just outright acted like I didn't exist over the last few months since we left there. Not surprising in any way, but still hurtful.

So now that those same people are suddenly scrambling around trying to decide where to go and what to do, I'm sorry but I'm not feeling the least bit sorry for them. You had until NOVEMBER to decide!!! Like I said, my kids are nowhere near Worlds level athletes, but quite frankly if they were that's all the more reason I would have left sooner- so I wouldn't have the problem with the release now. A friend of mine said it best on her FB when she said "

People threw stones at me and spread lies about me. Because I had to make a choice for my family. Wish you the best and when you come up and talk to me I will turn my back on YOU so you can get your knife out of my back." ​

So no, I'm still sticking to my stance from last year about the rule (I was very vocal about it, but for those of you who weren't here I'm very much for the rule and I was one of the people who volunteered to be part of an appeals board *for free* for situations like the ICC situation). If you waited until now to see something that many, many, many, many people (did I mention it was many people) saw MONTHS ago then you have to reap what you have sown. There's a reason sooooooo many of us jumped ship last summer.

I also mentioned last year about this same time I believe that I thought coaches shouldn't be able to gym hop mid season either but everyone jumped on me and said they have to earn a living. Yes, but you shouldn't be leaving and taking half a gym with you mid-season, earning a living or not, which brings up the recruitment issue somewhat. If you work somewhere and are that unhappy, then go. But you don't get to take whole TEAMS with you and think that's cool. It's not. This isn't the only time I've seen this - I've seen it plenty of times, and I never agree with it. This all goes back to what we said last year - choose your gyms wisely. And if you even THINK you might change your mind you had better make that decision before comp season starts.

I was hoping you would post here. I knew from previous threads here that you and OP were with (at least in the Summer) the same program. I, myself, know nothing about that program or any others in the area, but it sounded like a situation with a program that would have, perhaps, affected more than just one family this season.

 

[shadow]

http://forum.fierceboard.com/threads/just-read-the-link-given-for-icc-ice.19176/

The old news. The situation referred to here is the reason they are ICE now and the details of that I have no knowledge.

 

[nlow]

Just-a-Mom very well said and it was a mess and it just gets messier and messier. People stayed hoping that it would get better and it just isn't and now they're stuck......it's sad.

 

[nlow]

the one the usasf stepped in and released a kid against the gyms say?

USASF did not step in and release anyone. The gym was taken over by ICE, no need for athletes to be released.

 

[debbie]

USASF did not step in and release anyone. The gym was taken over by ICE, no need for athletes to be released.

oh on page 1 someone wrote the usasf stepped in?

 

[Rudags]

oh on page 1 someone wrote the usasf stepped in?

Its my assumption that, "The USASF stepping in" was the USASF saying "If your gym closes down, your released" since this was the first time something like this happened since the release.

 

[debbie]

Its my assumption that, "The USASF stepping in" was the USASF saying "If your gym closes down, your released" since this was the first time something like this happened since the release.

OK i really wouldnt call that stepping in? So as best I can tell the usasf still gives the owners King like status in every and all situations on releases

 

[Rudags]

OK i really wouldnt call that stepping in? So as best I can tell the usasf still gives the owners King like status in every and all situations on releases

Id say your probably right. SOMEONE had to say "ICC is released due to gym closing" I'm assuming that was the USASF

 

[ztaprincess]

I have voiced my opinion on this before and I can really see how this rule would work well and believe that it should stay in place but worked out so that it is fair. I have been for an appeals process since the rule was announced and still think that it should happen. One reason that I feel it should be in place is because many people have mentioned that they have until November to decide if the gym is a right fit, but what happens if something happens in Decemeber? What happens if at a competition your child is around coaches and an owner who are drinking alcohol with underage athletes and you as a parent find out. I am not a parent but if I were in this situation I would have a problem and would consider removing my child from that gym. What happens when that parent is denied a release? It can be putting their child in danger but without an appeals process they are stuck because the gym is taking offense to it.
I know that the appeals process could also be abused as much as the rule itself, so if implemented it has to have a clear cut understanding of what is a good reason is. This could be tricky to come up with, but should be looked into so that it balances out the rule more. I am not part of the USASF or a coach/gym owner but I would be more then happy to help come up with an idea.

 

[debbie]

He is.

And if coaches and owners want this, they can vote it in. I'm not opposed to an appeals process by any means.

But I think the estimate of 5-10 minutes per week is incredibly naive.

I believe its the parents that want this NOT the owners. Owners have no reason to give up ALL the power

 

[BlueCat]

I believe its the parents that want this NOT the owners. Owners have no reason to give up ALL the power

For every owner that wants to keep someone from moving, there is another owner of a different gym that wants the kid to be able to move. Not every owner is 100% in favor of the rule.

Please also bear in mind that this ONLY affects potentially Worlds-bound athletes. That is a small percentage of the athletes.

 

[kristenthegreat]

It's also not like the child can't compete at worlds forever, just not for that year. And I would like to think that most level 5 athletes have been around the cheer block long enough to either know when something's not right at their gym (considering level 5 athletes aren't born, they're made..after at least a few years anyway), or it would be a situation where the GOVERNMENT would have stepped in (abuse of various kinds).

I kinda feel like there should be a baseline of documented unsafe practices that can automatically grant an appeal: unsafe coaching/reckless behavior (partying with underage kids at competitions,) unsafe coaching methods, abuse obviously, drug/alcohol problems, etc. The rest would actually need to have merit before it's appealed...shoddy business dealings and the like. There was really only ONE instance I heard of last year where the rule actually had somebody stuck. One, out of however many level 5 athletes. Maybe it was the only one I knew of, but I feel like heck would be raised if it was a continuous problem.

 

[ztaprincess]

I think that there was 2 or 3 instances last year where athletes were not granted releases and it had quite a few people upset because the athletes helped the teams they wanted to compete with get their bid.

I forgot to mention this in my post but it goes with what I just said. I think that it needs to be added to the rule that the athlete should not be allowed to compete with a team until the release is signed. I say this because the athletes that couldn't compete at worlds last year helped the team get the bid but couldn't take mat with them. They should have never been on the mat to get the bid if they were not released from their first gym. I feel the athlete should have to be completely released before practices and competing starts with a new gym. This protects the rest of the team who now has to find another athlete to once again fill a spot that athlete filled.

 

[FierceandFearless]

Just-a-Mom
Nothing but RESPECT for you!!! :) Absolutely love how you put that, and love what you said.