More USAT legal-babble

http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/opinion/board.html

As a mere member of USAT, i personally found this highly enlightening (as i do most of Dan
Empfield's views). Well worth the reading time.

 

thanks for posting this. i'll go look. peggy

 

Is it time for a split between elite/pro triathlon and age group triathlon in the US ?

I certainly get the feeling that something has to be done here in the UK about costs. BTA membership
is now 45 UKPounds for non-affiliated club members, i.e. individual members and those who belong to
clubs, like cycling, swimming, running clubs that don't pay affiliation to the BTA. That's a
whopping 82 US Dollars at current exchange rate and its difficult to see from the annual accounts
what it gets spent on along with the annual day license fee that the BTA gets for each race from non-
members as well as the 1UKP levy on each race competitor.

Perhaps, if the elite/pro organising arms of our sport were required to focus on just the elites and
nothing else, then we would have a better chance at accountability and costs under control. Then the
boards that are attempting to run these sports organisations like pure profit making businesses to
fund their and the elites largess could be judged purely on their results at the Olympics and World
Championships!

++Mark.

 

Mark Cathcart wrote:
> Is it time for a split between elite/pro triathlon and age group triathlon in the US ?
>
> I certainly get the feeling that something has to be done here in the UK about costs. ETC.

What of course Empfield fails to mention, is that all of this wealth accumulation, by way of
spiraling "one day fees", happened under the direction of the recently departed Executive Director
to whom Mr. Empfield seems to be joined at the hip. In short it's not being spent on elites or age
groupers. Not a word was ever spoken during the process because that would have shed a poor light on
his good friend. And were it not for the recent board elections that went poorly for his supported
candidates, prompting the resignation of Steve Locke who refused to serve a board he could no longer
control, Mr. Empfield would have nothing to do but his usual reports on the latest titanium seat
posts instead of finding a new mission to overturn an election that was conducted by the same
process that had served his allies for many years.

JJ

 

JJ Waguespack <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
>
> Mark Cathcart wrote:
>> Is it time for a split between elite/pro triathlon and age group triathlon in the US ?
>>
>> I certainly get the feeling that something has to be done here in the UK about costs. ETC.
>
> What of course Empfield fails to mention, is that all of this wealth accumulation, by way of
> spiraling "one day fees", happened under the direction of the recently departed Executive Director
> to whom Mr. Empfield seems to be joined at the hip. In short it's not being spent on elites or age
> groupers. Not a word was ever spoken during the process because that would have shed a poor light
> on his good friend. And were it not for the recent board elections that went poorly for his
> supported candidates, prompting the resignation of Steve Locke who refused to serve a board he
> could no longer control, Mr. Empfield would have nothing to do but his usual reports on the latest
> titanium seat posts instead of finding a new mission to overturn an election that was conducted by
> the same process that had served his allies for many years.
>
> JJ
>

Help me out. Are you saying it was just as bad then, or that it's OK now?

Tom

 

JJ Waguespack <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>Mark Cathcart wrote:
>> Is it time for a split between elite/pro triathlon and age group triathlon in the US ?
>>
>> I certainly get the feeling that something has to be done here in the UK about costs. ETC.
>
>What of course Empfield fails to mention, is that all of this wealth accumulation, by way of
>spiraling "one day fees", happened under the direction of the recently departed Executive Director
>to whom Mr. Empfield seems to be joined at the hip. In short it's not being spent on elites or age
>groupers. Not a word was ever spoken during the process because that would have shed a poor light
>on his good friend. And were it not for the recent board elections that went poorly for his
>supported candidates, prompting the resignation of Steve Locke who refused to serve a board he
>could no longer control, Mr. Empfield would have nothing to do but his usual reports on the latest
>titanium seat posts instead of finding a new mission to overturn an election that was conducted by
>the same process that had served his allies for many years.
>
>JJ

Hmmm, it seems to me the main issue is that the election rules WERE changed for this election and
not done so properly. And they allowed little things like allowing candidates to collect and submit
UNSEALED ballots.

True, that does permit EVERY candidate the ability to stuff the ballot box equally, but it hardly
seems appropriate.

Mike Tennent "IronPenguin"

 

Mike Tennent wrote:

> Hmmm, it seems to me the main issue is that the election rules WERE changed for this election and
> not done so properly. And they allowed little things like allowing candidates to collect and
> submit UNSEALED ballots.
>

Has Empfield's media campaign put you under the false impression that this was the first election
where candidates collected unsealed ballots personally??? This has been part of the process for as
long as I can remember. Specifically what rules were changed? The only change was that the ballot
was available to be downloaded online instead of having to clip it out of a copy of USAT's mag.

> True, that does permit EVERY candidate the ability to stuff the ballot box equally, but it hardly
> seems appropriate.

I make no argument that the process doesn't needs change and improvement. My only point is that the
ruckus is purely and solely an effect of who's side won and lost. Empfield and company would be
silent as a door mouse about all these election rules that served them for years had their
candidates won again.

JJ

 

Tom Henderson wrote:

> Help me out. Are you saying it was just as bad then, or that it's OK now?
>

I'm saying that it was just as bad then and always has been but the election process was serving
quite well to keep Locke's allies in power so nobody gave a damn. The only rules change in the last
election was internet availability of the ballot instead having to clip it out of USAT's magazine.
(that's certainly worth suing over)

JJ