February '05 BoD Agenda

[oiuyt]

Just received the agenda for next week's meeting and the minutes for the meeting back in October. Haven't read them yet, so no comments, bet here're the files. Let me (and the other BoD members that read f.net) know what you think.

-B :)

[CvilleFencer]

Oiuyt, thanks for posting those. It was some interesting reading to say the least. I am enthusiastic and hopeful that Mr. Streb and Co will be able to accomplish their goals and that the USFA will give them all the help and support that it needs. I would also hope that the USFA would realize that it does not operate in a vacuum and that if it made some of its goals and programs more public and accessible they would find that they have much more community support than they may think.

I for one would be happy to contribute some small funds to help the program that Streb is working on get off the ground and may even be able to help in other ways as I have local media contacts and nice recording studio at my disposal. I am sure I am not alone in having potential resources (even if they are simply monetary) and being willing to share them, if I knew there was a need. I am reluctant to donate undirected amounts of cash to any organization that I do not have a hand in or am not clear on where the funds are being distributed (my donation going towards a "management retreat" for example would make me very angry) but if I can contribute to specific programs that are important to me I would be glad to do so, and I think many other people would as well. Might want to mention some of this to the other folks at the meeting.

Also please point out to them that while a ban on wearing the male chest plates outside of the jacket is called for, the FIE requirement that it be worn next to the skin is insane, absurd, prejudicial and potentially hazardous. At least encourage them to restrict it to foil if they insist on it!

Thanks again,
Cville

[oiuyt]

Now that I've had a chance for an initial reading of the agenda a couple of comments.

As far as the chest protector requirement goes, I expect that the FOC will make a recommendation that will be approved. I would be surprised if the USFA doesn't follow the FIE to the letter.

One interesting note is the lack of an agenda item regarding the regional youth system for 2005-2006. Given the standard first hearing-second hearing structure of the USFA decision making process and the stated goals of various YDC members to have next year settled well in advance this is somewhat disturbing. There is a YDC committee report, but this does not include any details of what, if any, changes to the current system the YDC anticipates recommending. Without an agenda item it becomes fairly difficult to even open a discussion on a topic.

-B :)

[oso97]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

One interesting note is the lack of an agenda item regarding the regional youth system for 2005-2006. Given the standard first hearing-second hearing structure of the USFA decision making process and the stated goals of various YDC members to have next year settled well in advance this is somewhat disturbing. There is a YDC committee report, but this does not include any details of what, if any, changes to the current system the YDC anticipates recommending. Without an agenda item it becomes fairly difficult to even open a discussion on a topic.

Yep, I noticed that lack too.

But I shouldn't say that I am surprised. Not in the slightest. Yet another peice of evidence that the administration cares little for youth and developmental fencing.

Or if they do, they sure have funny ways of showing it.

[edew]

On the other hand, I would prefer a well-reasoned proposal (re: Youth events) and a shot-from-the-hip proposal just to stick one's foot in the door (which usually results in the foot being stuck in the mouth instead).

[fencerX]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

As far as the chest protector requirement goes, I expect that the FOC will make a recommendation that will be approved. I would be surprised if the USFA doesn't follow the FIE to the letter.

The FIE requirement that male foil fencers wear chest protectors against the skin was obviously implemented to try to disuade male foil fencers from wearing chest protectors. Do you expect that you and the other USFA BoD members will actually follow the FIE in so obviously trying to deter athletes from using a piece of safety equipment (no matter what incentive the fencer had for doing so)?

If a male foil fencer chooses to wear the safety equipment, requiring them to to wear any protectors under their jacket is enough. btw a fair number of veteran fencers have worn chest protectors for years. Will the USFA require fencers like Don Benge and Joe Elliot to wear their protectors against their skin? And who will get the job of checking for compliance on such a brain-dead rule, if the USFA goes the FIE route?

[edew]

There were several comments within the agenda written in a first-person voice. Who is this person (or persons)?

[R. Exnicios]

"• No male athlete may enter the room of a female athlete and no female athlete may enter the room of a male athlete during the course of the trip unless said athletes are married or otherwise relate"

all sorts of interesting stuff.

[mlr2fence]

Originally Posted by edew

On the other hand, I would prefer a well-reasoned proposal (re: Youth events) and a shot-from-the-hip proposal just to stick one's foot in the door (which usually results in the foot being stuck in the mouth instead).

It's getting to the point where I'd just settle for knowing the daily schedule before the entry deadline!! As in the Chattanooga NAC being 2 months away and still no posted schedule!!

[DHCJr]

It is interesting that it is already out of date, at least for the Foil Timing. In the second document, they talk about approving the valid timing changing, but not the off-target timing and they have been using boxes, except for the first NAC with the off-target changed.

[Peach]

I hate the idea of making all the events in Summer Nationals 80% up. In the over-50 WS, we usually have less than 20 people, many of whom only have that event, which would mean some people would fence a pool and get knocked out. It seems bizarre to pretend that we need to raise the intensity or heighten the consequences for that kind of event (or the Y-14, for that matter). Just adjust our medication if you want more intensity. Sheesh.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by R. Exnicios

"• No male athlete may enter the room of a female athlete and no female athlete may enter the room of a male athlete during the course of the trip unless said athletes are married or otherwise relate"

all sorts of interesting stuff.

I hope that is enforced as effectively as it is on high school field trips.

Also,

"The act or appearance of intoxication from the act of using illegal drugs or alcohol in the presence of an athlete by a cadre member"

- Well I don’t care if you are sober, you're acting drunk and that’s against the rules.

As for the Essay in appendix E

Fencing is not the only sport that has been refused additional medals. This is a general policy that has effected all of the events in the summer Olympics. Therefore It is specious rezoning to say "since the IOC wouldn’t add 2 fencing medals, we are at risk of getting eliminated."

I am not sure what the sources for this article are but the last review by the Olympic program commission made no mention of fencing in its most recent list of sports that it recommends eliminating. The new set of recommendations should be coming out in July.

Despite a great deal of speculation, I have not seen any conclusive evidence that our sport is at risk. Certainly nothing to suggest the level of crisis implied in this document. IF USFA membership numbers are any indication, fencing is becoming more popular at least in the United States.

Here is more of my own bias:
Things that are popular are shown on TV. Things that TV makes popular last for 1-3 years and then fade away.

Neither this article and the actual motion suggest a course of action. I am extremely leery of someone saying essentially, "Give me a lot of money so I can make a TV show about fencing. Don’t worry, it will be good. Besides, if you don’t the IOC is going to cut fencing from the Olympics."

"NOW COMES, JOSEPH S. STREB, duly authorized member of the Board Of Directors of the United States Fencing Assocition ("USFA") and hereby makes the folowing motion(s) on this 2nd October 2004:"

"WHEREAS, it is recognized that such programing requires a dramatic structure as well as the recording of fencing competition"

It does?

"However no other similar funding technique shall be used by the USFA until television programing is complete."

My project is the most important one! ?!?

As a side note, what network is going to be carrying this gem?

[/rant]

[oso97]

Originally Posted by R. Exnicios

"• No male athlete may enter the room of a female athlete and no female athlete may enter the room of a male athlete during the course of the trip unless said athletes are married or otherwise relate"

all sorts of interesting stuff.

That should be interesting to try and police. I can understand it for Junior/Cadet stuff. But for adults? Sheesh.

Of course I know of at least one couple that were a "fencing couple" before they were married and even went to several world events together.

[mfp]

Originally Posted by Peach

I hate the idea of making all the events in Summer Nationals 80% up. In the over-50 WS, we usually have less than 20 people, many of whom only have that event, which would mean some people would fence a pool and get knocked out. It seems bizarre to pretend that we need to raise the intensity or heighten the consequences for that kind of event (or the Y-14, for that matter). Just adjust our medication if you want more intensity. Sheesh.

The average number of fencers in the seventeen vet events at the 2004 Summer Nationals was a whopping 26 fencers. While "raising the intensity" of say the five fencers competing in Vet60 Women's Epee might be kind of interesting (in a sadistic sort of way), making such vet events 80% up promotion isn't going to accomplish that.

Here's the breakdown of attendance at Vet events for the 2004 summer nationals:

Veteran 60 and over Women's Épée
(5 Competitors)

Veteran 60 and over Women's Foil
(8 Competitors)

Veteran 50/59 Women's Saber
(12 Competitors)

Veteran 40/49 Women's Saber
(13 Competitors)

Veteran 50/59 Women's Foil
(15 Competitors)

Veteran 60 and over Men's Saber
(17 Competitors)

Veteran 40/49 Men's Saber
(19 Competitors)

Veteran 50/59 Women's Épée
(22 Competitors)

Veteran 60 and over Men's Foil
(22 Competitors)

Veteran 60 and over Men's Épée
(25 Competitors)

Veteran 40/49 Women's Foil
(30 Competitors)

Veteran 50/59 Men's Saber
(31 Competitors)

Veteran 50/59 Men's Foil
(35 Competitors)

Veteran 40/49 Women's Épée
(37 Competitors)

Veteran 40/49 Men's Foil
(49 Competitors)

Veteran 50/59 Men's Épée
(50 Competitors)

Veteran 40/49 Men's Épée
(60 Competitors)

[oiuyt]

The code of conduct "will be strictly applied to all United States Fencing Association (USFA) athletes including, but not limited to, members of the delegation at any international or domestic World Cup, World Championships, Pan American or World University Games competition, camp or other fencing activity. Any failure to adhere to this code of conduct may result in disciplinary action."

So it certainly does apply to adults (including consenting ones).

And with the most inclusive reading of the text, each and every one of the 17,000 USFA members at all times.

Having pending felony charges is a violation of the code of conduct, despite the general "innocent until proven guilty" sentiment in the US.

Hmmm, just noticed that that one is in the non-athlete section but not in the athlete section. Need to go through those more closely to see what other differences there are...

Originally Posted by EDew

There were several comments within the agenda written in a first-person voice. Who is this person (or persons)?

All I have is what I sent. No clue whose comments were included (presumably accidently).

Originally Posted by fencerX

Do you expect that you and the other USFA BoD members will actually follow the FIE in so obviously trying to deter athletes from using a piece of safety equipment (no matter what incentive the fencer had for doing so)?

Yes. I thought I was clear on that.

Originally Posted by fencerX

btw a fair number of veteran fencers have worn chest protectors for years. Will the USFA require fencers like Don Benge and Joe Elliot to wear their protectors against their skin?

Yes. Then again, so will the FIE at the vet world championships in Tampa this fall.

Originally Posted by fencerX

And who will get the job of checking for compliance on such a brain-dead rule, if the USFA goes the FIE route?

Same person who gets the job of checking for compliance on any of the other rules, brain-dead or otherwise, the referee.

Originally Posted by EDew

On the other hand, I would prefer a well-reasoned proposal (re: Youth events) and a shot-from-the-hip proposal just to stick one's foot in the door (which usually results in the foot being stuck in the mouth instead).

A well-reasoned proposal such as the one the YDC has been working on since the middle of October? Yeah, I would love to see it. Absent that, perhaps we need ad hoc committees generating shoot-from-the-hip proposals.

I suspect that such a proposal will actually be presented despite not appearing on the agenda that was released today. Various unofficial conversations that I've had have indicated that such a proposal had been approaching a releasable state as of a week ago or so. Perhaps it will be a part of Ro Sobalvarro's VP report (which was not one of the included reports, and he's the VP with oversight of the YDC among other duties).

Mmmm, I also thought that there was going to be a first-hearing item re: division boundaries for PA. That's not in the agenda anywhere. Now I need to go find where I got that idea from.

Anyway, continue to pass along your sentiments about any or all of the agenda items.

-B :)

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

And with the most inclusive reading of the text, each and every one of the 17,000 USFA members at all times.

Wow... even the Catholic Church is more lenient.

[Andrea]

I'm very interested to hear thoughts about the code of conduct. This is Task Force that put a lot of hours into creating these 3 documents. They (hopefully) should be clear, understandable and enforceable. Coaches, USFA staff, athletes, and legal counsel (of course) were involved in the end result.

Of course this code will be only be effective if it is enforced, but I have a lot of faith in that for the future.

[oiuyt]

I assume that it's only intended to be in force when USFA athletes/non-athletes are functioning in USFA-related roles (primarily when on trips representing the USA or USFA)?

That's a common-sense interpretation, but the language, as written, is broad enough to cover all activities, whether USFA-related or not.

Meh, I'm just a trouble-maker. :)

-B :)

[noodle]

that plastic chest protector directly against my nips will chafe, cause friction burn, and possibly draw blood. i demand a thin layer comprised of mostly tshirt between the skin and chest protector!