Changing Times: Slow Down! I'm Confused.
KathyKlg
St. Onge resumes his inspirational monologue on that noble and elusive
creature, the Olympic Dream. No, no, no. Wait a minute, hold on. Gotta put in
the Enya CD, nice fade shot of Old Glory...that's it..nearly there - switch my
caps lock….okay, got it. Try that again:
In the current issue of Racquetball magazine, former Executive Director Luke
St. Onge resumes his inspirational monologue on that noble and elusive
creature, THE OLYMPIC DREAM.
(http://www.racqmag.com/racqmag/2002/222/222luke.htm)
First time reading it, by the end of the article I was left confused and not
exactly sure what Mr. St. Onge was trying to say. Additionally, I felt uneasy
that I perhaps lacked the proper international background to take in the full
force of his arguements. All in all, this feeling of inadequacy left me feeling
pressured to get back to my comfort zone, the newsgroup. But when I got back
here I was alarmed to see that I must have missed something crucial after all -
folks here are muttering about a growing conflict between the USRA and the IRT.
But wait, why are they worried - because he is finger-pointing and vaguely
implying that the IRT is being greedy and unpatriotic and incompetent by not
bowing to his demands? How is all this any different from the status quo?
Hasn't the finger pointing been part of the game all along - namely, the
failures of racquetball are the failures of the states and volunteers to do
their job in developing the sport?
In MY mind, this rift between the IRT and the USRA is just as imaginary as the
audience to whom Mr. St. Onge is speaking, and as imaginary as the impact this
issue would have on the overall development of the sport. I'm pretty
susceptible to peer pressure, however, so I ran back to the article and reread
it to figure out what I'd missed. I'm still a little worn-out by the whole
thing. Top to bottom, it was a virtual whirl-wind tour of pc correctness, and
towards the end of the 87th reading or so, I was pretty convinced that if only
the top 10 would play on the US team, we'd all be serving feminism, patriotism,
capitalism, globalism, and the AARP in one tidy ball of wax. From what I can
ultimately gather from Mr. St. Onge, aside from the moral and spiritual value
we would all gain, the bottom line is that it would be a good thing (ta kala),
and we should ALL be prepared to make personal sacrifices to make it so. Well -
ALMOST all of us should sacrifice. It kind of reads as if the USRA is pretty
much busy "maintaining an even strength" with their payroll. As for the rest
of us, well - he's not very specific, but from what I gather, we all have our
parts to play in the noble pursuit of the Olympic Dream
¨ USRA Elite players (used to be amateurs):
should abandon their desire for National honors and a fair playing field, and
compete Nationally in order to provide fodder for pros, who will then perform
on US Teams on behalf of the USRA for more USOC funding, which will then be
funneled into the USRA, ensuring payroll is met.
¨ The IRT private enterprise:
should divert money from bona-fide marketing and promotion and instead field US
teams by forcing its pros to compete in USRA competition, who will then perform
on US Teams on behalf of the USRA for more USOC funding, which will then be
funneled into the USRA, ensuring payroll is met.
¨ IRT Pros:
should ignore the obvious gaps in skill and the economic realities of
competitive sports, and play in non-pro (USRA) events and/or divisions then
perform on US Teams on behalf of the USRA for more USOC funding, which will
then be funneled into the USRA, ensuring payroll is met.
¨ USRA players (used to be amateurs):
should stop being so selfish by training for amateur competition and work
harder at their un-paid and unsupported (AmPro who?) tasks of promotion and
development by recruiting select individuals for elite grooming who will then
either act as fodder for pros OR receive proper training to perform on US Teams
on behalf of the USRA for more USOC funding, which will then be funneled into
the USRA, ensuring payroll is met.
Sound too cynical? Sorry. Don't get me wrong - I WANT to be a team player.
It's just that I'd like to be clear what game I'm playing before we all "take
one for the team". It may be true that all of these combined sacrifices would
lead inevitably to US Team victories, but what exactly is in it for ME? Bigger
tournament draws, more regulated amateur competition, quality officiating?
Increased programming, development, and access? World dominance? Help me out
here, what IS the bottom line? Speaking of bottom lines, I hope Mr. St. Onge is
not trying to manipulate us, and that his goals aren't somehow related to his
salary being paid in large part out of USOC funding. After all, is it not an
accurate assessment of the financial plan that the more the US teams win in
these quasi-Olympic events, the more money the USRA receives from the USOC?
By the way, out of curiosity, I wonder how the payroll is looking now that the
USRA now has a newly created executive salary to pay? Naw - that's a crass
piece of innuendo. Luke is probably "volunteering" his services, for the love
of the game. After all, if we all chip in, one by one we CAN build a better
racquetball world. Right team?
Kathy Geels
Miami, FL
will kazmier
KathyKlg wrote:
> ¨ IRT Pros:
> should ignore the obvious gaps in skill and the economic realities of
> competitive sports, and play in non-pro (USRA) events and/or divisions then
> perform on US Teams on behalf of the USRA for more USOC funding, which will
> then be funneled into the USRA, ensuring payroll is met.
Kathy,
Good points throughout your post. I would just like to add that I think
it's especially convenient that in "speaking out" in the most recent
issue of Racquetball Magazine, Mr. St. Onge kept his mouth shut about
one important fact--that members of the Canadian National Team (Kane,
Brian Istace, etc) are paid $2,000 per month + health insurance costs
for the time they are on the team; the USRA, by contrast, offered its
players a pittance to play in the 10-day Tournament of the Americas
(that is, much less than the players would earn working at their full
time jobs), and certainly doesn't offer its players a monthly salary.
Given these facts, is it fair to say that the top Canadian players are
more patriotic than the top IRT Pros? Or are both the Canadians and
players like Sudsy, Jason, and Cliff simply acting in their economic
self-interest? Mr. St. Onge should be embarrassed by his performance in
this interview; he distorts the facts in an effort to besmirch the
reputations of the IRT and the top IRT pros. But the only thing he's
done is give the top pros a personal reason, in addition to the already
existing economic one, not to participate in USRA events.
will kazmier
wi...@earth.northwestern.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
dropshot99
players seeing thru the baloney and realizing that the intent of the USRA does
not necessarily meet the needs of the racquetball in general. If the two meet
it is only when it meets the personal interests of Luke St. Onge first.
Dropshot99
KathyKlg
What is going on or went on in the Tournament of the Americas? Canada seems all
fired up today!
Kathy
will kazmier
Check out this URL:
http://www.racquetball.ca/english/tournament-of-the-americas-2002-results.html.
will
Jeff Anthony
(KathyKlg) wrote:
I'm sorry Kathy, but it's a national secret.
<sound of one hand clapping>
My other hand is tied behind my back.
Jeff
PS. LJP's web page would not be permissible under olympic rules. For your
enjoyment.
KathyKlg
>enjoyment.
>
>http://www.powell-performance.com/blog/blogger.htm
>
>
Jeff -
I enjoyed her article, it expressed a lot of energy. Are the overall results
of the tournament posted anywhere?
That's a good point about under Olympic guidelines the players are not allowed
to keep diaries or anything. It's great that LJP was not under that
restriction - nice read.
Congratulations on the great finish for Canada.
Kathy
Jeff Anthony
(KathyKlg) wrote:
>>PS. LJP's web page would not be permissible under olympic rules. For your
>>enjoyment.
>>
>>http://www.powell-performance.com/blog/blogger.htm
>>
>>
>
>Jeff -
> I enjoyed her article, it expressed a lot of energy.
It is good. I hope the stragglers got home safely.
>Are the overall results of the tournament posted anywhere?
Will posted that URL previously. Here it is again.
http://www.racquetball.ca/english/tournament-of-the-americas-2002-results.html
KathyKlg
>
>Will posted that URL previously. Here it is again.
>
>
>http://www.racquetball.ca/english/tournament-of-the-americas-2002-results.html
>
Oh, I'm sorry. When I went to that URL, it appeared to be only Canadian
performance. I will try again to figure it out. I was just looking for a
straight overview, along the lines of :
Men's Singles
1
2
3
and so on.
Thanks again,
Kathy
KathyKlg
Found it. The drawsheets either were not posted yet, or I missed them. Anyway,
it would still be nice to see results by country, so I hope that is posted, as
well.
Kathy
Jeff Anthony
(KathyKlg) wrote:
Did you look at the drawsheets (the pdf files)? I didn't, so I don't know
how much info is on them. Maybe you could extrapolate the positions from
the write-ups. I noticed raqmag points to this info as well.
Jeff
self
news:janthonyANTI-0304020028090001@toronto-hse-
> PS. LJP's web page would not be permissible under olympic rules. For your
> enjoyment.
>
> http://www.powell-performance.com/blog/blogger.htm
Ain't blogger kewl!!?!?!? What's the motto - "Publishing for the masses"?
Alright! What a country.
Greg "Power to the people" Stoner
Max
<snip>
>members of the Canadian National Team
>(Kane, Brian Istace, etc) are paid $2,000 per month + health insurance
costs
>for the time they are on the team; the USRA, by contrast, offered its
>players a pittance to play in the 10-day Tournament of the Americas
>(that is, much less than the players would earn working at their full
>time jobs), and certainly doesn't offer its players a monthly salary.
>Given these facts, is it fair to say that the top Canadian players are
>more patriotic than the top IRT Pros?
So, the more financial support you get from your national organization - the
more patriotic you are???
I'm sorry, but that argument makes NO sense at all. If anything, it would be
the other way around. The fact that US athletes are out there competing with
as little compensation as you claim makes them as patriotic in my mind as
you could possibly ask them to be.
You sound confused!
Max
Otto Dietrich
dues, I suspect that most, if not all, of the monies received by Canadian
athletes comes from the Canadian government--either directly or indirectly.
In the USA, however, the U.S. Government is prohibited from providing any
direct or indirect financial support to the USOC or its athletes.
Just for your information.
Otto
"Max" <maxma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uas3g91...@corp.supernews.com...
dropshot99
>I cannot support this with references, but based on membership size and
>dues, I suspect that most, if not all, of the monies received by Canadian
>athletes comes from the Canadian government--either directly or indirectly.
And the IOC recieves it funding from whom?
Dropshot99
will kazmier
Did you really read my whole message? My point, which is stated pretty
clearly, is that the Canadian players play for their country because
it's in their financial interest to do so, not because they're more
patriotic. By snipping the last part of my message, you quoted me out of
context. I was defending, not excoriating, the top U.S. players in
response to Luke St. Onge's implication that the top pros show a lack of
patriotism by not participating in USRA events; the real issue though,
as my comment demonstrates, isn't patriotism--it's financial compensation.
will kazmier
Jeff Anthony
"Otto Dietrich" <ot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I cannot support this with references, but based on membership size and
> dues, I suspect that most, if not all, of the monies received by Canadian
> athletes comes from the Canadian government--either directly or indirectly.
>
> In the USA, however, the U.S. Government is prohibited from providing any
> direct or indirect financial support to the USOC or its athletes.
>
> Just for your information.
Otto, you are correct on your first point, canadian membership size and
dues amounts to less than C$10,000 in annual revenue, which is hardly
enough to fund anything.
On your second point...BFD. USOC funding is somehow *less corrupting* than
government funding. ?? hmmmph. Where the money comes from, is a moot
point. The real point, and our mutual problem, is, both NGBs *seem*
totally fixated on one task - national team performance. ("Money for
nothing" -Dire Straits) The fact the USRA supports its team players with
less financial compensation, is, I believe, a product of having many more
players to choose from, ie, supply and demand.
When all is said and done, "Who cares?" Without a fan base to cheer them
on, who really cares? The 'Tournament of the Americas' was just two weeks
ago but was it discussed on asr? No. As far as I know, it wasn't covered
directly by Raqmag either. The american stance seems to be, our pros
didn't play for us so we're disadvantaged and disinterested. Shame.
There are two basic ways to have economic power: 1) take it away from
someone else, or 2) create [more of] it. It looks now like the USRA is
trying to take power away from (control) the pros. Why not investigate the
second option? We're out here, waiting patiently.
moving on...
I cannot deny that the USRA is at least being democratic about the whole
process. I am impressed with the fact that the candidates - for USRA BOD
positions - have released their platforms to the public. If I ever wanted
to throw my considerable support <nyuk,nyuk> behind any one of them, I
could just pony up and pay the membership fee. Wouldn't it be cool if a
candidate could woo enough people into joining their NGB, just to vote
[him or her] onto the BOD? That's real power. ... Our NGB (RC) releases
candidate information to their members only. Guess they don't want any
outside influence, what do you think?
Well, here's some more news: Sport Canada (the big kahuna) is stepping in
to hold talks with Racquetball Canada. I wonder what SC has in mind. (The
very bottom news item, from the April newsletter, is quoted below.)
-<Begin quote>-
Racquetball Canada: APRIL NEWSLETTER
http://www.racquetball.ca/english/newsletter-april.html
"Strategic Planning Meeting
As supported by Sport Canada, Racquetball Canada is embarking on a major
Strategic Planning process to map out a route for ourselves for
approximately the next 10 years, which will take us through the next 3 Pan
Am Games. We have retained the services of ex National team member Lori
Johnstone to help us with this plan and facilitate the exercise. We have
started to identify individuals who have knowledge and interest in this
process and the following people so far have agreed to participate in a
two day workshop immediately following the Nationals in Montreal: Usher
Barnoff, Ken Barteski, Cheryl McKeeman, Terry Nelson, Dan Smith, Ross
Richardson, Josee GrandMaitre, Lori Jane Powell, and Gwen Prillo (Sport
Canada consultant). For more information, please contact the National
Office."
-<End Quote>-
Jeff "not even close to KLG's vaunted asr record for longest post ever"
PS. BFD = Big F****** Deal
Otto Dietrich
I sincerely beg your pardon. First, I said this:
> In article <Uior8.5982$Rw2.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Otto Dietrich" <ot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > I cannot support this with references, but based on membership size and
> > dues, I suspect that most, if not all, of the monies received by
Canadian
> > athletes comes from the Canadian government--either directly or
indirectly.
> >
> > In the USA, however, the U.S. Government is prohibited from providing
any
> > direct or indirect financial support to the USOC or its athletes.
> >
> > Just for your information.
Then, you confirmed my first point--about where Racquetball Canada's funding
comes from!
> Otto, you are correct on your first point, canadian membership size and
> dues amounts to less than C$10,000 in annual revenue, which is hardly
> enough to fund anything.
However, you then seem to have totally miss-read my second point--which was
merely that, unlike Canada, the U.S. Government is prohibited from funding
the USOC or individual sports/athletes. Please read my second
paragraph/point again and see if I said or even implied anything else.
Where on earth did you get the following?
> On your second point...BFD. USOC funding is somehow *less corrupting* than
> government funding. ?? hmmmph. Where the money comes from, is a moot
> point. The real point, and our mutual problem, is, both NGBs *seem*
> totally fixated on one task - national team performance. ("Money for
> nothing" -Dire Straits) The fact the USRA supports its team players with
> less financial compensation, is, I believe, a product of having many more
> players to choose from, ie, supply and demand.
>
> When all is said and done, "Who cares?" Without a fan base to cheer them
> on, who really cares? The 'Tournament of the Americas' was just two weeks
> ago but was it discussed on asr? No. As far as I know, it wasn't covered
> directly by Raqmag either. The american stance seems to be, our pros
> didn't play for us so we're disadvantaged and disinterested. Shame.
Huh? Disadvantaged? Disinterested? Where did that crap come from?
Disappointed would be a better word--reflecting only that I am rather sad
that some of our very best athletes do not recognize that they all, to
varying degrees, owe a debt of gratitude to the USRA for where they are
today, and, discounting that, should feel a sense of national pride that
would drive them to compete for their countries regardless of compensation.
> There are two basic ways to have economic power: 1) take it away from
> someone else, or 2) create [more of] it. It looks now like the USRA is
> trying to take power away from (control) the pros. Why not investigate the
> second option? We're out here, waiting patiently.
Exactly what "power" do you see the USRA trying to take away from the pro's?
I'm at a loss.
> moving on...
>
> I cannot deny that the USRA is at least being democratic about the whole
> process. I am impressed with the fact that the candidates - for USRA BOD
> positions - have released their platforms to the public. If I ever wanted
> to throw my considerable support <nyuk,nyuk> behind any one of them, I
> could just pony up and pay the membership fee. Wouldn't it be cool if a
> candidate could woo enough people into joining their NGB, just to vote
> [him or her] onto the BOD? That's real power. ... Our NGB (RC) releases
> candidate information to their members only. Guess they don't want any
> outside influence, what do you think?
Basically, but not totally, the USRA makes the platforms available to
members only. There is no attempt to control the distribution, but we don't
go out of our way to broadcast the info. In the past, some folks have tried
to steal the election, but never by getting people to buy a $30 membership
just to vote. It would be cool, but not realistic since it would cost the
person far more than the value received. The perks associated with board
membership are pretty meager!
> Well, here's some more news: Sport Canada (the big kahuna) is stepping in
> to hold talks with Racquetball Canada. I wonder what SC has in mind. (The
> very bottom news item, from the April newsletter, is quoted below.)
>
> -<Begin quote>-
> Racquetball Canada: APRIL NEWSLETTER
> http://www.racquetball.ca/english/newsletter-april.html
>
> "Strategic Planning Meeting
> As supported by Sport Canada, Racquetball Canada is embarking on a major
> Strategic Planning process to map out a route for ourselves for
> approximately the next 10 years, which will take us through the next 3 Pan
> Am Games. We have retained the services of ex National team member Lori
> Johnstone to help us with this plan and facilitate the exercise. We have
> started to identify individuals who have knowledge and interest in this
> process and the following people so far have agreed to participate in a
> two day workshop immediately following the Nationals in Montreal: Usher
> Barnoff, Ken Barteski, Cheryl McKeeman, Terry Nelson, Dan Smith, Ross
> Richardson, Josee GrandMaitre, Lori Jane Powell, and Gwen Prillo (Sport
> Canada consultant). For more information, please contact the National
> Office."
> -<End Quote>-
Sounds like the Canadian government is stepping in to help make sure that
Racquetball Canada is not merely adrift in the world of racquetball, but
rather has a definitive 10-year plan that it operates from. I see nothing
sinister, just a good approach.
Thanks for the chance to straighten things out!
Sincere regards,
Otto
OTTO E. DIETRICH
President, United States Racquetball Association 1998-Present
National Rules Commissioner 1988-1998
Member of National Rules Committee 1982-Present
Paul Stroud
> Huh? Disadvantaged? Disinterested? Where did that crap come from?
> Disappointed would be a better word--reflecting only that I am rather sad
> that some of our very best athletes do not recognize that they all, to
> varying degrees, owe a debt of gratitude to the USRA for where they are
> today, and, discounting that, should feel a sense of national pride that
> would drive them to compete for their countries regardless of
compensation.
A debt of gratitude for what? The USRA is supposed to be in the business of
racquetball. When they were USRA members they should have got their $20
worth of products and services like every other dues paying member. If
they got something else of value I'd like to know what that was?
Jeff Anthony
"Otto Dietrich" <ot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Hi Jeff
>
> I sincerely beg your pardon.
Granted.
> First, I said this:
>
> > In article <Uior8.5982$Rw2.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Otto Dietrich" <ot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I cannot support this with references, but based on membership size and
> > > dues, I suspect that most, if not all, of the monies received by
> Canadian
> > > athletes comes from the Canadian government--either directly or
> indirectly.
> > >
> > > In the USA, however, the U.S. Government is prohibited from providing
> any
> > > direct or indirect financial support to the USOC or its athletes.
> > >
> > > Just for your information.
>
> Then, you confirmed my first point--about where Racquetball Canada's funding
> comes from!
>
> > Otto, you are correct on your first point, canadian membership size and
> > dues amounts to less than C$10,000 in annual revenue, which is hardly
> > enough to fund anything.
>
> However, you then seem to have totally miss-read my second point--which was
> merely that, unlike Canada, the U.S. Government is prohibited from funding
> the USOC or individual sports/athletes. Please read my second
> paragraph/point again and see if I said or even implied anything else.
> Where on earth did you get the following?
All you're saying is that the U.S. team players can't receive funding
directly from a government source, as they can in Canada. Bravo. I cannot
confirm (or deny) that the C$2000/mo (A$1200) stipend (mention by the
previous poster) is correct, I simply haven't been paying attention to
that stuff for quite a while now.
However, I still say that the particular problem is one of supply and
demand. Ca has to pay 'our' players something to keep them interested,
sadly, and you can't. It makes me wonder though, if the american pros got
the same stipend, would the IRT still exist? The american way, in this
case, is probably the better way. There, I said it. Okay?
> > On your second point...BFD. USOC funding is somehow *less corrupting* than
> > government funding. ?? hmmmph. Where the money comes from, is a moot
> > point. The real point, and our mutual problem, is, both NGBs *seem*
> > totally fixated on one task - national team performance. ("Money for
> > nothing" -Dire Straits) The fact the USRA supports its team players with
> > less financial compensation, is, I believe, a product of having many more
> > players to choose from, ie, supply and demand.
> >
> > When all is said and done, "Who cares?" Without a fan base to cheer them
> > on, who really cares? The 'Tournament of the Americas' was just two weeks
> > ago but was it discussed on asr? No. As far as I know, it wasn't covered
> > directly by Raqmag either. The american stance seems to be, our pros
> > didn't play for us so we're disadvantaged and disinterested. Shame.
>
> Huh? Disadvantaged? Disinterested? Where did that crap come from?
> Disappointed would be a better word--reflecting only that I am rather sad
> that some of our very best athletes do not recognize that they all, to
> varying degrees, owe a debt of gratitude to the USRA for where they are
> today, and, discounting that, should feel a sense of national pride that
> would drive them to compete for their countries regardless of compensation.
If it starts with 'dis' it's still dis. <smile>
Offer to pay the american pros a stipend and then see what happens. I
frankly don't think that's the answer though.
Put a pot of gold out for them, ala, the U.S. Open, ...that's if you
really want them. They're trying make a living, for crying out loud. Solve
that problem first and I'm sure playing for their country would be a joy.
> > There are two basic ways to have economic power: 1) take it away from
> > someone else, or 2) create [more of] it. It looks now like the USRA is
> > trying to take power away from (control) the pros. Why not investigate the
> > second option? We're out here, waiting patiently.
>
> Exactly what "power" do you see the USRA trying to take away from the pro's?
> I'm at a loss.
"Economic power." ie, "Come play for us."
What would they get in return? ...national admiration? They've got that
already, at least to the extent the USRA could deliver. What else have you
got? Here's a thought, if you worked seriously on the second option
(above), you'd have much more clout with the pros. My opinion.
> > moving on...
> >
> > I cannot deny that the USRA is at least being democratic about the whole
> > process. I am impressed with the fact that the candidates - for USRA BOD
> > positions - have released their platforms to the public. If I ever wanted
> > to throw my considerable support <nyuk,nyuk> behind any one of them, I
> > could just pony up and pay the membership fee. Wouldn't it be cool if a
> > candidate could woo enough people into joining their NGB, just to vote
> > [him or her] onto the BOD? That's real power. ... Our NGB (RC) releases
> > candidate information to their members only. Guess they don't want any
> > outside influence, what do you think?
>
> Basically, but not totally, the USRA makes the platforms available to
> members only. There is no attempt to control the distribution, but we don't
> go out of our way to broadcast the info.
I haven't looked this year but the candidates platforms have been posted
on usra.org in the past. That's public, afaic. I've seen some platforms
posted here on asr recently too. The canadians, on the other hand, are so
xenophobic, it's frustrating as hell.
> In the past, some folks have tried
> to steal the election, but never by getting people to buy a $30 membership
> just to vote. It would be cool, but not realistic since it would cost the
> person far more than the value received. The perks associated with board
> membership are pretty meager!
I think you missed my point.
Would it be stealing the election if 16,001 joined the USRA just to vote
peter mcmillin onto the board? We're not taking about sensibilities here,
just the numbers. Sorry, peter. <smile>
What if someone came along with loads of natural charisma and great ideas
for the sport, and encouraged every club player across the country to join
his revolution, by buying a membership and voting for him. Is that
stealing the election? Not that it would happen, but it might be cool.
Someone like that would get tons of exposure for the sport, don't you
think? But you're right, he wouldn't be doing it for BOD perks, that's for
sure.
> > Well, here's some more news: Sport Canada (the big kahuna) is stepping in
> > to hold talks with Racquetball Canada. I wonder what SC has in mind. (The
> > very bottom news item, from the April newsletter, is quoted below.)
> >
> > -<Begin quote>-
> > Racquetball Canada: APRIL NEWSLETTER
> > http://www.racquetball.ca/english/newsletter-april.html
> >
> > "Strategic Planning Meeting
> > As supported by Sport Canada, Racquetball Canada is embarking on a major
> > Strategic Planning process to map out a route for ourselves for
> > approximately the next 10 years, which will take us through the next 3 Pan
> > Am Games. We have retained the services of ex National team member Lori
> > Johnstone to help us with this plan and facilitate the exercise. We have
> > started to identify individuals who have knowledge and interest in this
> > process and the following people so far have agreed to participate in a
> > two day workshop immediately following the Nationals in Montreal: Usher
> > Barnoff, Ken Barteski, Cheryl McKeeman, Terry Nelson, Dan Smith, Ross
> > Richardson, Josee GrandMaitre, Lori Jane Powell, and Gwen Prillo (Sport
> > Canada consultant). For more information, please contact the National
> > Office."
> > -<End Quote>-
>
> Sounds like the Canadian government is stepping in to help make sure that
> Racquetball Canada is not merely adrift in the world of racquetball, but
> rather has a definitive 10-year plan that it operates from. I see nothing
> sinister, just a good approach.
Didn't mean it was sinister at all. I'm just curious to know what it is SC
is looking for, or maybe they are introducing a new program for all
qualifying sports. I don't know anything, it's just my curiousity.
> Thanks for the chance to straighten things out!
Thank you. It's always fun.
Jeff
self
> USOC funding is somehow *less corrupting* than
> government funding. ?? hmmmph.
> ("Money for
> nothing" -Dire Straits)
Yeah, but where are my 'chicks for free' <grin>?
> There are two basic ways to have economic power: 1) take it away from
> someone else, or 2) create [more of] it. It looks now like the USRA is
> trying to take power away from (control) the pros.
Whut I sez.
Greg Stoner
dropshot99
..>Basically, but not totally, the USRA makes the platforms available to
>members only. There is no attempt to control the distribution, but we don't
>go out of our way to broadcast the info. In the past, some folks have tried
>to steal the election, but never by getting people to buy a $30 membership
How does one "steal and election" when the USRA controls the count? Please
explain?
>Exactly what "power" do you see the USRA trying to take away from the pro's?
>I'm at a loss.
>
The power of controlling their own destiny instead of contributing to Luke's.
The USRA has already sucked the life and livelyhood out of local clubs and
organizations by not supporting them, while in the same breath telling these
same venues that the USRA is there for them. After these venues collapsed the
USRA set up shop because of the void it created. Instead of having big time
local venues like in the past, the USRA controls whatever local tournaments are
left only for the purpose of feeding the National events, there by eliminating
any competition for participants even on the local level.
Dropshot99
Linda Mojer
> There are two basic ways to have economic power: 1) take it away from
> someone else, or 2) create [more of] it. It looks now like the USRA is
> trying to take power away from (control) the pros.
I hate to do this -- I *really* do ... but can anyone explain how
they've interpreted that the USRA is "trying to take power away from
(control) the pros"?
The international federation [IRF] has cleared the way for the best
athletes in the sport to compete on behalf of their country -- ANY
country. The USRA has extended that invitation to ANY eligible U.S.
athlete, including the top IRT players. All-inclusive. Simple.
Straightforward. Does the U.S. want to win internationally with the
best players that the U.S. has to offer? Absolutely.
Individuals, and groups, hold certain opinions about the situation. It
seems that they are within their rights to express any disappointment
they may feel if those top players choose *not* to showcase their
talents on the U.S team. Or vice versa.
The fact remains that it's an opportunity. It's optional. It's based
on the ability of all prospective players to exercise free will. How
on earth does that equate to the USRA having any interest in
"controlling" the pros?
--
Linda L. Mojer
USRA Associate Executive Director
Managing Editor, RACQUETBALL Magazine
www.usra.org | www.racqmag.com
Jeff Anthony
LMo...@usra.org (Linda Mojer) wrote:
> jantho...@sympaticoSPAM.ca (Jeff Anthony) wrote in message
> news:<janthonyANTI-1...@toronto-hse-ppp3661351.sympatico.ca>..
> . > There are two basic ways to have economic power: 1) take it away from
> > someone else, or 2) create [more of] it. It looks now like the USRA is >
> trying to take power away from (control) the pros.
>
> I hate to do this -- I *really* do ... but can anyone explain how they've
> interpreted that the USRA is "trying to take power away from (control) the
> pros"?
>
> The international federation [IRF] has cleared the way for the best
> athletes in the sport to compete on behalf of their country -- ANY
> country. The USRA has extended that invitation to ANY eligible U.S.
> athlete, including the top IRT players. All-inclusive. Simple.
> Straightforward. Does the U.S. want to win internationally with the best
> players that the U.S. has to offer? Absolutely.
>
> Individuals, and groups, hold certain opinions about the situation. It
> seems that they are within their rights to express any disappointment they
> may feel if those top players choose *not* to showcase their talents on
> the U.S team. Or vice versa.
>
> The fact remains that it's an opportunity. It's optional. It's based on
> the ability of all prospective players to exercise free will. How on earth
> does that equate to the USRA having any interest in "controlling" the
> pros?
(This is a really good example of perception overwhelming reality.)
Linda, everything you said is correct and true, however...
There may seem to be nothing sinister going on from your point of view,
but it makes the pros look like schmucks if they don't comply. When Otto
(and Luke) says he's disappointed, THAT, in itself, is a control tactic.
And that, is what's wrong with it. It was (apparently) an action taken
unilaterally, not with the pros firmly on board, and maybe they weren't
even consulted, were they?
Yes, the pros playing for their country is now an option. That part
doesn't have to change, now that it's already done. They might play
someday, who knows. It's just not an option that the pros are interested
in right now.
So, the intentions may have been good and honorable, but it came across
differently. It should have been handled differently. How can anyone be
disappointed when there was no agreement to begin with?
Jeff
dropshot99
>I hate to do this -- I *really* do ... but can anyone explain how
>they've interpreted that the USRA is "trying to take power away from
>(control) the pros"?
>
Pretty simple really....offering this possiblity at this point in time can be
construed as a tactic to undermind the viablity of a separate and competing
racquetball organization. Who's to stop the IRT from making a play for IOC
funding? By being separate and having the top 8 players in the United States
standing their ground, they simply are a threat to the USRA's control over the
IOC funding. If I was the IOC I certainly would want to have access to the very
best players for the money that I pay. Right now the USRA cannot deliver that,
but the IRT can.
Dropshot99
in the world
will kazmier
Jeff Anthony wrote:
>
> Yes, the pros playing for their country is now an option. That part
> doesn't have to change, now that it's already done. They might play
> someday, who knows. It's just not an option that the pros are interested
> in right now.
>
>
Like I've already said, if the USRA wants to pay the U.S. pros
$2,000/mo. + insurance costs--the same level of compensation the
Canadian players receive--I'm sure the U.S. pros will be interested in
playing USRA events. Why should they play for less? They are
professionals, and should be treated as such. Is anyone out here naive
enough to believe that Scottie Pippen played for the Dream Team because
he's a patriot? He played because he saw an opportunity to make eight to
eleven million dollars for a few weeks of work. If governing bodies
formerly oriented around amateur competition want to re-orient
themselves around professional competition, that's their decision. But
they can't expect professionals to accept the same terms of competition
as those amateurs. Their play is paid labor. No pay, no play.
self
> I hate to do this -- I *really* do ... but can anyone explain how
> they've interpreted that the USRA is "trying to take power away from
> (control) the pros"?
Yes.
> The international federation [IRF] has cleared the way for the best
> athletes in the sport to compete on behalf of their country -- ANY
> country.
No. The USRA simply decided to ignore the one of it's original founding
principles, amateurism, and so it then it simply had the old fart that you
have stashed in the backroom of the USRA HQ (the dude you call the IRF)
rubber stamp it for you.
> The USRA has extended that invitation to ANY eligible U.S.
> athlete, including the top IRT players. All-inclusive. Simple.
> Straightforward.
Ha. It is anything BUT straightforward. It seems to me that you are and have
been applying inordinate public and private pressures on the current pro
tour to kowtow to your demands that they allow their top tour pros to be
used for YOUR purposes, which is Olympic aggrandizement, even if it is not
in their best interests to do so.
> Does the U.S. want to win internationally with the
> best players that the U.S. has to offer? Absolutely.
And you dare to proclaim yourself the "U.S."? You are NOT the "U.S." and
never will be. I believe that you are just some people who went out to the
mountains and promptly FORGOT what it was all about, and sold out to
Samaranch and crew; lock, stock, and member's-barrel. *WE* are the "U.S." -
the people who play in YMCAs and JCCs and all kinds of courts, all across
the nation. The former members of the AARA. Even the top pro players, who do
things their way. You guys out there seem to now be just some self-serving
politicos, trying to ride the Olympic gravy-train.
> Individuals, and groups, hold certain opinions about the situation. It
> seems that they are within their rights to express any disappointment
> they may feel if those top players choose *not* to showcase their
> talents on the U.S team. Or vice versa.
Not if they use their publicly-financed bully-pulpit to interfere with the
operations of an independent business, who prefer to be left in peace.
> The fact remains that it's an opportunity.
According to YOU!!!! (And once again, here we go with the hubris, assuming
she knows what is best for everyone, and that what she wants IS, naturally,
best for everyone. Sheesh.)
> It's optional.
Yeah, so is paying taxes. And breathing. When you bring your
not-inconsiderable pressure to bear on the pro tour, I can imagine what the
outcome will eventually be. Just like whether or not you gave a #$^@#$^
whether we dues paying members wanted to dispense with amateurism. SO WHERE
WAS THE FREAKIN' VOTE ON THAT ONE? WHERE WAS THE "OPPORTUNITY" FOR THE
MEMBERS TO SPEAK? "OPPORTUNITY" MY BEHIND.
> It's based
> on the ability of all prospective players to exercise free will.
Oh, forgive her, for she knows not of what she speaketh!!!!!!!!!!
> How
> on earth does that equate to the USRA having any interest in
> "controlling" the pros?
Listen, do you, or do you not, want them to capitulate to your plan of
having the top pros on your Olympic dream-team?
And are you, or are you not applying pressure to change the clear decision
they have already made on this topic?
Greg Stoner
self
QUOTE
There may seem to be nothing sinister going on from your point of view,
but it makes the pros look like schmucks if they don't comply. When Otto
(and Luke) says he's disappointed, THAT, in itself, is a control tactic.
And that, is what's wrong with it. It was (apparently) an action taken
unilaterally, not with the pros firmly on board, and maybe they weren't
even consulted, were they?
END QUOTE
And don't forget the use of the National Magazine that WE AMATEURS pay for,
being used to club the pros like baby seals. He didn't just express
disappointment, it was a total smack job, and just one aspect fo the total
campaign.
Go ahead, Linda, tell us that there wasn't an orchestrated campaign out
there at HQ, with strategy sessions, overheads and all, to "win over" the
pros.
Greg Stoner
Jeff Anthony
"Otto Dietrich" <ot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Basically, but not totally, the USRA makes the platforms available to
>members only. There is no attempt to control the distribution, but we don't
>go out of our way to broadcast the info. -->In the past, some folks have
>tried to steal the election, but never by getting people to buy a $30
>membership just to vote. It would be cool, but not realistic since it would
>cost the person far more than the value received.<-- The perks associated with
>board membership are pretty meager!
Now there's an admission I wouldn't have expected. (I missed this before.)
Did you mean that a [USRA] membership is not fair value at $30, or what?
And if you meant a candidate's efforts to sign people up isn't worth
"value received", that's even more troubling.
Shame on you. :)
Jeff
Kevin
"Jeff Anthony" <jantho...@sympaticoSPAM.ca> wrote in message
> Now there's an admission I wouldn't have expected. (I missed this before.)
>
> Did you mean that a [USRA] membership is not fair value at $30, or what?
> And if you meant a candidate's efforts to sign people up isn't worth
> "value received", that's even more troubling.
I think what Otto was saying was it wouldn't be worth it to a candidate to
buy a bunch of memberships in friends names just to have the votes.
However, this is not as far out an idea as it sounds. So few people
actually vote (I did) that they don't even like to produce the numbers.
They like percentages. So and so got 28% of the vote, instead of saying he
got 58 votes....
The value received part I believe was his way of saying it cost too much to
buy votes compared to the prestige and perks you get as a director.....
only the dedicated should apply.
The magazine alone is worth $30 ;^)
My best,
-Kevin-