USOC and USFencing - Discussion

[jkdjeff]

Would taking money away from the USFA really help, though?

I'll still renew my membership anyway because I enjoy competing, but hopefully the USOC can help them get things straightened out.

I can understand not wanting to necessarily throw good money after bad, but they're going to still need some revenue coming in to fund possible solutions.

[sionnach]

Do Nancy Anderson and Michael Massik receive money from the USFA? If so i'd understand the hesitancy to renew your membership but I'd agree with jkdjeff, it would have a negative impact, not a positive one.

[GypsyScot]

Originally Posted by sionnach

Do Nancy Anderson and Michael Massik receive money from the USFA? If so i'd understand the hesitancy to renew your membership but I'd agree with jkdjeff, it would have a negative impact, not a positive one.

Craig and I hear alot of things, sometimes they end up being rumors, sometimes they end up being true, I wish Craig didn't sit on this story but it would've been, from a journalistic standpoint, horribly irresponsible and somewhat libelous if this turned up just speculation. A few of us, when we caught wind, couldn't believe it, really could it be that bad that we really need to be handheld and the USOC needs to buy Mariel Zuganis lunch? Craig is a journalist, I am just a schmuck who knows a lot of people, every once and again I'll make hint at something randomly, only because I don't have the restraint to keep certain things to myself especially when there is a whole forum full of ready readers. If I were to spill every little thing I hear my credibility would be shot and I'm sure Craig would code some way for me to end up with one little green dot. Lets be honest, Anderson and Massik are never ever clear in their motives and methods and reprisals for stepping on their toes stretch out farther than just to FOC officials, we should've finished that recall, a little bloody revolution is beneficial to the common good every once in a while...

[wlc]

Buried in the 2nd to last paragraph in the SI article:

Beyond that the committee will make sure a board is in place that will run transparently and be accountable to its membership.

I wonder what this means?!? I was hoping and thinking the election would accomplish this.

[HDG]

Originally Posted by GypsyScot

a little bloody revolution is beneficial to the common good every once in a while...

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

- Thomas Jefferson

[GypsyScot]

Originally Posted by HDG

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

- Thomas Jefferson

Couldn't quote it off the top of my head, thanks.

[HDG]

Originally Posted by GypsyScot

Couldn't quote it off the top of my head, thanks.

Well, it's right here on my coffee cup. Not the next sentence though, ick.

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by wlc

Buried in the 2nd to last paragraph in the SI article:

I wonder what this means?!? I was hoping and thinking the election would accomplish this.

The election we're running now is not for board members.

[nahouw]

Originally Posted by wlc

Buried in the 2nd to last paragraph in the SI article:

I wonder what this means?!? I was hoping and thinking the election would accomplish this.

I think that it means that they will take over and re-create the organization so that it is run in a manner to prevent anything like this happenning again, like they did for handball, pentathlon and some other NGBs.

[nahouw]

Originally Posted by 500gms

The article paints a dismal picture of our present President, Nancy Anderson and the managing director, Michael Massik, and implies that Stacy Johnson's and Steve Sobel's intervention during the unsuccessful recall two years ago unfortunately kept Massik and Anderson in office for the remaining two years

I can't wait to see what sort of clip NBC will paint of this story during the broadcast of the Olympics. Luckily, this announcement came after Mariel appeared on the Today show, so that she didn't have to answer questions about all this. What a distraction to have several weeks before the Olympics.

[fencerX]

Originally Posted by nahouw

I think that it means that they will take over and re-create the organization so that it is run in a manner to prevent anything like this happenning again, like they did for handball, pentathlon and some other NGBs.

The process for some of the above was

1) decertify the current NGB

2) Have the USOC run things in the interim -- or only the parts they care about.

3) take applications from and select a new group/association/federation to be the NGB

So there's a question whether those who have (or refs who are about to buy) life memberships will end up with life memberships to the USFA, an organization that might no longer be the NGB or perhaps even exists.

[sionnach]

Originally Posted by nahouw

I think that it means that they will take over and re-create the organization so that it is run in a manner to prevent anything like this happenning again, like they did for handball, pentathlon and some other NGBs.

Will this render the current election mostly useless?

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by sionnach

Will this render the current election mostly useless?

All pure speculation at this point. Need to wait and see.

[nahouw]

Originally Posted by fencerX

So there's a question whether those who have (or refs who are about to buy) life memberships will end up with life memberships to the USFA, an organization that might no longer be the NGB or perhaps even exists.

I'm glad I didn't take them up on their offer. But for those who did, and if the USOC does start this process to re-create a new NGB for fencing, I would hope that they would honor those lifetime memberships for referees, especially if the USFA was aware of what the USOC planned to do and went ahead with the lifetime membership to referees without disclosing to thereferees that it would be a very short-lived membership.

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by 500gms

USOC to Audit US Fencing
...
The article paints a dismal picture of our present President, Nancy Anderson and the managing director, Michael Massik, and implies that Stacy Johnson's and Steve Sobel's intervention during the unsuccessful recall two years ago unfortunately kept Massik and Anderson in office for the remaining two years

Notice that they both are still there. Massik continues to draw his pay. One wonders if they get a free trip to the Olympics to boot.

[sheck]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Notice that they both are still there. Massik continues to draw his pay. One wonders if they get a free trip to the Olympics to boot.

I was thinking the same thing. I sure the hell hope not.

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by swordsen

Lord, what a nightmare. I think the saddest part is

"Many were strikingly concerned about speaking up directly, for fear that their standing within the fencing community would be jeopardized. For years the complicity of silence allowed leadership that was increasingly overburdened with responsibilities that went over their heads to remain idle. "When people are afraid to put themselves out there and rock the boat," says one member, "the boat just keeps sinking. That's what happened with us."

This can clearly be seen even here where posters refuse to use names when talking about stuff that is going on.

This hasn't stopped. Even in the current election I've heard arguments (FUD really) that allowing an election would lead to the USOC decertifying the USFA. Take a look at the threads prior to and during the election period. I would characterize many as being vitriolic that anyone would dare to suggest that the USFA should change or that change might come from outside the ranks of those who currently run the USFA. This is an active manifestation of the same complicity of silence that the article refers to.

Interesting the timing of the article and this thread coming on the last day to vote. Serendipitous it has to be as I can't see SI altering its publication dates. But terribly frustrating for anyone who cared enough about the USFA to vote.

Originally Posted by swordsen

Well, it will be interesting to see what will happen. Any comments from the candidates for office?

I doubt Tracy Hurley will after the several verbal maulings she received for daring to post here.

[Mo]

Originally Posted by GypsyScot

Lets be honest, Anderson and Massik are never ever clear in their motives and methods and reprisals for stepping on their toes stretch out farther than just to FOC officials, we should've finished that recall, a little bloody revolution is beneficial to the common good every once in a while...

That may be true but the motives of the people behind the recall were just as bad.
A lot of that money from the 360,000 bucks made it's way into the women's saber program. Not all of it did of course but over the last four years much of it did.
Too many greedy people are in office and on boards. They figure they somehow earned their right to be paid to wine and dine on the USFA's bill. The high preformance committe has benefitted greatly from the USFA's spending non policies.
I can say that Andrea has been very good about helping the saber girls keep competing. She has helped our family a great deal and made it possible for the kid to keep doing what she does so well.
Her club has offered little support for her and mostly just tried to make life difficult.
It is a hopeful sign that perhaps fencing will survive another day with people in charge who actually care about fencing and not just their own little section of it.
The Momster

[Phrogger]

Everyone seems so shocked- from all I read about the USFA's money problems it seems like it was just a matter of time. While I'm sure we all wished it could have waited until after the Olympics, there is a silver lining here:

1. Someone is finally going to fix the USFA
2. Any publicity is good publicity

I'm sure many will disagree with #2 but it might just get fencing the extra attention it needs going into the games. The USOC press release was very positive in its portrayal of the athletes, just not the NGB.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

I would characterize many as being vitriolic that anyone would dare to suggest that the USFA should change or that change might come from outside the ranks of those who currently run the USFA....Interesting the timing of the article and this thread coming on the last day to vote. Serendipitous it has to be as I can't see SI altering its publication dates. But terribly frustrating for anyone who cared enough about the USFA to vote.

I don't pretend to understand all of the ins and outs of how the USFA is run, but I'll just mention that so far, the article only touches on the President and the Executive Director. Just because the nominating committee chose a specific set of candidates does not imply that those candidates are any more inside or outside the USFA than you or I are.

Yes, some of the candidates have served as National Coaches, committee members, FOC members, etc. I just don't see how that makes any of these people somehow culpable for the current mismanagement. I think that it's unfair even to imply that without a lot more information. It's not like some random member of the Tournament Committee had much power over the USFA's budget or financial controls.

I thought the same thing as you did about the timing of this announcement. But I agree that the USFA had little power to change the timing of the USOC's announcement or (especially) the SI article.