USOC and USFencing - Discussion

[telkanuru]

I am reminded of an old video game saying-

If they are worse than you, they're incompetent noobs.
If they are better than you, they have no lives.

Thanks for trying.

Oh, and that record we're talking about? There's also one of a grudge match, making his statements at best questionable in validity.

Really, we need a wikipedia [Citation Needed] tag. Craig?

[telkanuru]

Also, why do I feel like I'm the only person in this world who knows what post hoc ergo propter hoc means?

[kuroutesshin]

Originally Posted by TooLoftheDeviL

I really don't understand how people can keep saying this when one of the noted problems is that elite fencers and coaches aren't getting paid.

Which begs the question- where did my $50 membership fee go? Where does the USFA cut of all the tournament fees I pay go? The astronomical sums still owed to the women's sabrists, or the money still needing to be paid out to NAC referees?

The horrendous mismanagement of the association hurts the rank and file more than it could ever hurt the elite athletes. How many people are going to turn away from club membership after hearing this news? It's sure as hell not people like Mariel Zagunis or Jason Rogers. It's the regular people who fence for fun on the weekends, not the people who can afford to jet-set to Havan, Paris, or Tel Aviv and hob-nob with Olympians.

I'm tired of this attitude of "elite fencers come first." Bull****. AM Fencing magazine deplored the treatment of fencing in the media as either aristocraticly foppish or theatrical and outdated. Yes, the elite sacrifice. Yes, they spend time and money to do what they do- but some concern for the mother of three who drives an hour and a half to the next town to fence would be appreciated.

The people who get out there, to every tournament, because they love the sport no matter the cost, deserve more answers than the elite coaches and fencers paid astronomical sums and endorsed six ways to sunday. How about some answers and results for them?

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Also, why do I feel like I'm the only person in this world who knows what post hoc ergo propter hoc means?

After it, therefore because of it.

But it's not always true, in fact it's hardly ever true.

-m

[arc]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Also, why do I feel like I'm the only person in this world who knows what post hoc ergo propter hoc means?

I guess 'cause you haven't been hanging around with enough lawyers ...

[WJM]

one of the logical fallacies, after the fact, therefore because of the fact...a favorite of mine, and I think it does actually occur a lot...but that's not the point.....

I don't often write on here, but I do want to say the following, since a lot of people I know are writing so much about this topic.

#1: I'm glad the USOC is doing this, and I agree with my excellent friend tchwojko about the course of action the USOC will most likely take, every word. To allow myself an I-said-so moment, if any of you (of those who know me, of course) remember, I was suggesting this very thing would happen. I thought it would happen a little sooner, I'll admit.

#2: This won't have very much effect on the rank and file, the divisions, or the state of US fencing. I don't personally (again, to underline, just IMO here) believe that there is very much that can possibly hope to affect fencing in this country because fencing is run like some countries from hundreds of years ago we could mention. Several hundred little kingdoms ruled by little self-important "all-powerful" (of their tiny realms) lords. We call those clubs. I'm no different there. Clubs run fencing, not with the support of, but in SPITE of the involvement of both the USFA, and the divisions within it. As several of you remember, I resigned from involvement in the operations of a division because of my taking issues with it that are much the same issues as the national body. Which is natural, seeing as such things trickle down from the top. So while the change is a welcome one, I expect to see a partial improvement, some meaningless hurdles for us to cross, and then a return to life as usual.

It's a good thing clubs run fencing though. As long as your club can commit to keeping the sport going in the way you see fit, we can all differ on what the form of that eternal flame should take, what should be it's fuel, and what traditions and expectations we should have, and we can differ greatly. THAT'S what is keeping our art alive. Lord knows the disgusting level of allowed incompetence continues, the same problems from a couple of years ago rage on with the same people, doing the same things. But let's be honest, fencing is about people who take the time and care enough to LEARN to fence, from a person who takes the time and cares enough to TEACH the art to them, from where they TEST their skills against an opponent, who is so important in the process they should really be called a partner. All you people arguing about the actions here and who should be in charge...power to you. You'll conduct yourselves according to your own personal code of ethics, idea of personal and public conduct and decorum (or indeed lack therof), and much will be lost in a haze of grudges and historic conflicts, regional quibbling, and local politics.

Fencing will continue.

I don't expect my issues with my own division to EVER change. There's a lot of reasons for that, none of which belong here.

So what can you do?
#1: Support the USOC's efforts for transparency.
#2: Demand (or continue to demand) a high level of behavior from club, your fencers, and yourself.
#3: Don't look to them to "solve" all our problems. They don't care. As tchwojko said, it's about money, and the olympics.
#4: If for some reason the USOC demands change and the USFA refuses (unlikely), and they are de-certified, support whichever new NGB the FIE wants...

yes, the FIE. Sure, the USFA and USOC have so many issues historically (think Salt Lake City olympics) it's easy to be wary of either of them. And the FIE is often a charming barrel of angry monkeys, jabbering away and tampering with timings and such. Eventually, you have to decide with whom you'll buy the membership card. My vote is for whichever the FIE likes best at the time. I'll take a jabbering fuddy-duddy over the corrupt (USOC) and (possibly) merely raging incompetents (some people in the USFA at all levels).

Now, I'll return to not talking for another couple of years.
(Not planning on answering replies to this, or possibly even reading them, so don't take it personally if I don't reply).

[jjefferies]

Just returned from a NorCal Division meeting at which this topic, USOC<->USFA, figured, of course. One of our club owners who is knowledgeable and has had extensive experience with the USFA's high performance programs gave the opinion that a good part of the financial problem stems from changes in the timing of USOC disbursements for high performance activities. Specifically mentioned as an example was a month's slippage in payment dates which - and this is my description - caused a negative snowballing effect on the USFA's finances. I was given the impression that this was not that unusual. My correspondent though was very concerned that the USOC's reaction of taking over the high performance program meant that there will be more USOC actions. And if the USOC were to take over or impose restrictions the development programs and the VETERAN programs would likely be at risk. Possibly through reduced funding, neglect or decreased responsiveness at the national level.

Caveat: USFA/USOC finances have not been an area of my expertise and I've no personal knowledge or experience in how robust or timely the financial relationship between the USFA and USOC is.

Point being that if this is correct then the USOC may in fact be partly implicated in - at least the depth - of the hole the USFA has dug for itself.

An additional bit of information making the rounds is an e-mail I received:

From: ALBERT MERRITT
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 5:41 PM
To: nancy anderson; Brad Baker; Gerrie Baumgart; William Becker; Beth Bell; Jerry Benson; William Cracraft; Greg Dilworth; Ron Herman; Paul Levy; George Masin; Dave Micahnik; Michael Morgan; Jon Moss; Evan Ranes; Scott Rodgers; Joseph Streb; Serge Timacheff; Alex Wood; felicia zimmermann
Cc: donald alperstein; jane carter; sam cheris; derek cotton; kalle gerritz weeks; stacey johnson; michael massik; bill oliver; carla mae richards; Ro Sobalvarro; steve sobel; Edward Wright
Subject: SI article

Dear All,

In the Wednesday, June 25th article in SI. COM by Brian Cazeneuve entitled "USOC TO RESCUE WAYWARD U.S. FENCING ASSOCIATION", the writer cites a letter purportedly written by Michael Morgan in 2006 to the USFA Board of Directors re: Fundraising Committee. This letter which is attributed to Michael is not the one sent January 25, 2006 to Nancy Anderson. It has been significantly doctored and altered.

At Michael's request and for the official public record and public good I am attaching the letter actually written by Michael.

Best Regards,

Linda Merritt

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

After it, therefore because of it.

But it's not always true, in fact it's hardly ever true.

-m

Originally Posted by arc

I guess 'cause you haven't been hanging around with enough lawyers ...

Why is it I feel like I'm the only one who knows what "rhetorical question" means?





(Nice WW quote)

[Peach]

Originally Posted by Wingate85

Like many forum veterens you are someone who . . .

Is (a) an example of the ad hominem logical fallacy (b) wrong about the person in question and about the population of the forum in general (c) just plain mean-spirited. With friends like this, perhaps heretic needs more enemies?

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Peach

Is (a) an example of the ad hominem logical fallacy (b) wrong about the person in question and about the population of the forum in general (c) just plain mean-spirited. With friends like this, perhaps heretic needs more enemies?

Or, put another (more classical) way:

Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?

[KD5MDK]

jjeffries - Was the original email attached as well?

[CadetVet]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

<snip>.. a good part of the financial problem stems from changes in the timing of USOC disbursements for high performance activities.<snip>

Once again, we're screwed by new timing!

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Wingate85

Like many forum veterens you are someone who has done nothing but spend your time posting on this site in addition to scribing a very boring blog.

While you and your cohorts were and continue to engage in this meaningless activity Eric has used his personal time and resources to advance American fencing. Of the current 15 members of the Olympic Team 6 were training at the FC when he was in charge. In addition to nurturing his elite corps Eric invested countless hours looking after those members who were college bound regardless of their level of fencing. A disproportionate number of young fencers from the FC have landed in many of the top universities in the country, due in large part to his personal advocay in their behalf. There are many other examples of his contributions which are on record for anyone to see.

Eric has earned the right to be blunt and, yes angry about the current situation. This is tough stuff and requires that you do your homework. The only mistake Eric is making is bringing these issues to this forum. It is naturally threatening especially to the senior members (3k-23k posts) who use this as their sole social outlet.

BTW as far as bashing is concerned those of Coach Korfanty and Mr. Bukantz
appear at a very high frequency with little or no challenge by the members of this forum.

if you're trying to help eric with his credibility, you're certainly not helping by posting something so full of ad homs.

in addition, while i don't think any of the major contributors to this forum are on the olympic squad, a decent number of them devote their time and energy into the fencing community as a whole. we have board/section/division members. we have quality, prolific referees. we have knowledgeable coaches. we have higher level competitors.

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by noodle

if you're trying to help eric with his credibility, you're certainly not helping by posting something so full of ad homs.

in addition, while i don't think any of the major contributors to this forum are on the olympic squad, a decent number of them devote their time and energy into the fencing community as a whole. we have board/section/division members. we have quality, prolific referees. we have knowledgeable coaches. we have higher level competitors.

And some of the best darn armorers in the world.

We never get any respect.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

And some of the best darn armorers in the world.

We never get any respect.

armorers too. and many other sub-groups too numerous to name.

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

jjeffries - Was the original email attached as well?

Oops, my error. It was late and I was dead tired from a long day of training and then a long meeting with the usual issues. Here is what was with the original e-mail and purports to be a copy of the original letter. Do understand these are third hand so take them with a grain of salt - so to speak

January 25, 2006

Ms. Nancy Anderson
President
The United States Fencing Association

Re: USFA Fundraising Committee Chairmanship

Dear Nancy:

First, I love our sport in which I have actively been involved for almost 50 years. I am deeply committed to its ongoing nurturing, sustenance and growth. As you know, my wife Ann and I were honored to be able to provide the primary sponsorship funding for the 2005 World Veteran’s Championships held in Tampa this past September. Indeed, the support of fencing locally, nationally, and at the intercollegiate level is among our primary philanthropic activities.

However, two weeks ago I inadvertently discovered on an internet blog that I had been appointed Chairman of Fundraising for the USFA. Prior to that, I was never officially consulted as to my willingness or ability to serve as Chairman of this critical committee. Indeed, I have received no communications regarding my participation on this Committee in any capacity from any officer, USFA Board Member, or USFA Staff Liaison. I have absolutely no knowledge of any actions taken or planned by this Committee.

Also since learning of my appointment I have received numerous emails from across the country. Some blame me-- as Chairman of the USFA Fund-Raising Committee--for the committee’s inactivity and lack of progress; others question if I am Chairman, or ask me to detail the process by which I was appointed.

This is exceptionally troubling and stressful, and it only exacerbates my very serious health situation, for which I am still undergoing treatment, and which has severely limited all my activities for over three months.

Since it never was officially offered to me, nor had I accepted this appointment, it is unnecessary for me to submit a formal resignation. However, for the public record, I would like you to remove my name as Chairman of Fund Raising for the USFA. I would be most appreciative if you could explain how my appointment occurred.

Thank you.

Sincerely,


Michael P. Morgan, Jr

[heretic]

The Morgan letter in SI is not addressed to Nancy Anderson. It was addressed to the BOD. Two different letters.

The facts are immutable. Morgan was named to chair an important committee without being asked or informed. Nancy, Massik et al have not done any substantive fundraising over the last four years. Great work for the President and ED of a non-profit.

BTW, while the USFA Secretary was launching the administration's weak counterattack, it would have been nice if she sent out the Agenda and reports addendum for the BOD meeting that is now less than one week away. I expect they will produce something the night before the actual meeting so no one will have a chance to read and analyze it.

It seems like a lot of people are asking why membership dues and entry fees along with the USOC money was insufficient to keep our budget balanced. Wouldn't anyone out their like to see some actual numbers instead of propaganda?

[telkanuru]

Propaganda? I don't think any one here is saying that the current USFA administration is anything but culpable in this economic idiocy. However, we're not quite so free with our brush when we paint on blame.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

(Nice WW quote)

Thought you'd appreciate it.

-m

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by JEC

... high performance weapon teams were going to more World Cups than anticipated, and were also doing better than anticipated. USFA had to pay and send referees because of the size of the group, and had promised performance bonuses that couldn't be paid. On top, the dollar has been tanking 30% (a hidden tax), the travel costs for athletes, coaches, and referees skyrocketed beyond the primitive budgeting. That is why we needed professionals running budgets. No accountability as to how many competitions USFA was paying for, etc.

These are excellent points.

Ideally, no organization should be skating on the edge of breaking even year to year. A reserve fund is almost a necessity, because things such as those you mention are always going to occur, usually at the worst possible time...