USFA considering forcing members to use THS

[Batlleth]

Even in the best of times it is difficult to estimate the attendance for national events and therefore the number of rooms needed.

I'm not trying to be snide, but it's really not that difficult. It's a simple linear regression forecast that most people could do if given the formula (which is not entrusted only to MBA graduates in a secret ceremony never to be revealed to outsiders, we just like to make it seem that way so we have something to offer).

Best,

Jason

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Stay and Play feels to me in some sense like the USFA/THS wants to start doing room blocks but are afraid of the costs if the rooms aren't all reserved, so if there negotiating these huge blocks, they want to make sure people will be stay there.

Which goes back to an earlier concern: if the USFA is on the hook for the rooms blocked out but not utilized, then there are two potential blowbacks:

1. There is every reason to be stingy with the waivers and try to funnel as many people as possible into the THS corral.
2. Did the USFA do enough due diligence to run some scenarios where large blocks of rooms are reserved, based on historic attendance numbers; but factoring in decreased attendance due to the economy and particularly the potential refusal of the rank and file to spend the extra money for hotel rooms offered by THS (not to mention refusals based on distaste of mandated hotel participation)?

At what point would the room penalties outweigh the kickbacks?

[ysbadadden]

Thought experiment: suppose:
--enough USFA members currently use THS that
--their total savings exceed
--the total losses absorbed by the current non-users
--if forced to use THS.

1) This seems to be the thinking behind the current THS initiative, if it's well-intentioned.
2) Does anyone actually know what proportion of membes use THS?
3) There's a prima facie utilitarian argument for adopting S&P if the above assumptions are true (greatest good for greatest number).
4) It's still wrong! It places the greatest burden on those who can least afford it and should be rethought/rejected for that reason.

[fencerX]

Frankly, our right to compete is one of our membership's fundamental rights - it is clearly specified in our bylaws.

Also mentioned (with some limitations) in the USOC's charter and bylaws:

The USOC, by all reasonable means at its disposal, shall protect the right of an amateur athlete to participate if selected (or to attempt to qualify for selection to participate) as an athlete representing the USA in a protected competition (Article IX, Sec 9.1) p29

More rights:

http://videos.usoc.org/documentsnoti...ete_rights.pdf

FIE World Championship events (Open, Cadet, Junior, Veteran) are among the "protected competitions".

Aren't both Inq and flechewounds geezers over 50? Registering for V50/V60 NAC events can be an "attempt to qualify for selection to participate as an athlete representing the USA in a protected competition".

The USOC has an Ombudsman whose job is to:

Provide independent advice to athletes at no cost about the applicable provisions of the Ted Steven's Olympic Amateur Sports Act and the constitution and bylaws of the USOC, national governing bodies, Paralympic sports organizations, international sports federations, the International Olympic Committee, the International Paralympic Committee, and the Pan-American Sports Organization, and with respect to the resolution of any dispute involving the opportunity of an amateur athlete to participate in the Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games, the Pan-American Games, world championship competition or other protected competition as defined in the constitution and bylaws of the USOC.





OMBUDSMAN OFFICE FUNCTIONS:

• Provide independent advice to elite athletes and NGBs
• Assist in mediating disputes
• Develop and implement USOC policy that secures the rights and interests of athletes

[KShan5[PrFC]]

I don't see in those bylaws protecting the right to competition being broken here. Everyone still has the right to participate, it's just contingent on if you are willing to follow the rules. You have to pay to fence, you have to be a member, you have to have conforming equipment, etc. Now Stay and Play could be just one more of those rules that you must follow. There's no discrimination or anything going on here, if you follow the proper procedures, you will fence. I'm not agreeing/disagreeing with the process, I'd like to see how the soft roll works out and how the finalized waiver will look, but it just doesn't seem to me like your right to compete is being infringed upon.

[I_luv_saber]

On the subject of hotels..

Have y'all been just checking online, or calling the hotel directly? Many times, as hotels get near the sold out point, they restrict online sales in order to prevent accidental overselling.

Also, if you call, most employees are not barred from telling you what's going on, and indeed, if not busy they will probably be more than informative. If you ask about rooms and they say they are sold out, simply shoot the question, "Wow, what's going on in Atlanta that day? I can't find anything!". If they have any info on local events (for example, the theoretical case of housing a ton of volleyball players for a tourney), they'll usually let you know ("Oh, there's a big volleyball tournament that day").

If it's not a case of selling out, but simply them keeping you from using your points, ask them why you are being blacked out. Again, most employees will usually be frank and helpful (in my experience).


Also, as one who's been in this business for awhile, I cannot for the life of me figure out why USFA thinks it needs THS. All it takes is a call to a hotel's sales group and you can negotiate a group rate. Even small groups. We have consistently booked small teams of 8 or 9 rooms, all the way up to 60 odd rooms. They don't always beat Priceline and such, but you can sometimes get awfully close. It's also common to have an "open block", meaning a rooming list is not necessary. Any individual can call, mention the group, and be booked in that block (with the rate) up to a certain number of agreed upon rooms and until a certain agreed upon cutoff date.

Alternatively, some opt for a "Rooming List" setup, where people do not call directly to the hotel to set up res's, but rather call their organization which sets them up and eventually submits a rooming list. The former is simpler, needs less involvement, and I think would make a lot more people happier. It's also more individual friendly, whereas Rooming Lists are more convenient for teams.

I know if there's any comps in Fresno, our sales group would be very happy to book ANY more rooms we can possibly get! In this economy, hotels are hurting, and they are more than happy to negotiate groups, especially ones they think may come back in the future. This really should take relatively little work.

As an added note, the hotel I work at is a local chain, and as such is willing to bargain more than most big name chains. However, if big chains aren't being cooperative, I don't see why there couldn't simply be more transition to more local hotels. We often host many, many national teams (due to our proximity to the University).

Just a few cents...

[fencerX]

I don't see in those bylaws protecting the right to competition being broken here. Everyone still has the right to participate, it's just contingent on if you are willing to follow the rules. You have to pay to fence, you have to be a member, you have to have conforming equipment, etc. Now Stay and Play could be just one more of those rules that you must follow. There's no discrimination or anything going on here, if you follow the proper procedures, you will fence.

Looking at the USOC Ombudsman site, the rules also have to follow the rules:

"Athletes must be given the opportunity to decide what is best for their athletic careers . . . The decision should not be dictated by an arbitrary rule which, in its application, restricts, for no real purpose, an Athlete’s opportunity to compete." (1978 Senate Report on the Act)"

[Fechter1]

I don't see in those bylaws protecting the right to competition being broken here. Everyone still has the right to participate, it's just contingent on if you are willing to follow the rules. You have to pay to fence, you have to be a member, you have to have conforming equipment, etc. Now Stay and Play could be just one more of those rules that you must follow. There's no discrimination or anything going on here, if you follow the proper procedures, you will fence. <snip>

My disagreement with this argument would be that the rules as laid down by the USFA (NGB governing amateur fencing in the US) should not extend beyond the actual fencing venue. Unless the USFA is paying, it is none of their business what hotel I book, what airline I fly, what car I drive, where I shop for groceries, what magazines I subscribe to, what kind of underwear I wear, etc.

You might argue that since it is a fencing tournament (within the venue/outside the venue notwithstanding), the USFA has the right to make these rules. But the let's not stop there. The USFA has a current partnership with United Airlines, let's make United mandatory as the method of transportation to the venue, unless a waiver is obtained (allowed reasons: live within 200 miles or have a friend who owns a plane). Perhaps we can get a partnership with McDonalds and require fencers to only eat a McD's while at a NAC. Where does it end?

[hello?]

Can you provide hard proof? This is disturbing.

R-

Obviously, THS must have blocked rooms around all venues -- lots of rooms -- if it's planning even a 'soft rollout' of the S&P program for this year. It has to have negotiated contracts for all the NACs already. In fact, it was supposed to be offering those rooms to the membership TODAY. But, alas, they are running behind. What a surprise!

[flechewounds]

You might argue that since it is a fencing tournament (within the venue/outside the venue notwithstanding), the USFA has the right to make these rules. But the let's not stop there. The USFA has a current partnership with United Airlines, let's make United mandatory as the method of transportation to the venue, unless a waiver is obtained (allowed reasons: live within 200 miles or have a friend who owns a plane). Perhaps we can get a partnership with McDonalds and require fencers to only eat a McD's while at a NAC. Where does it end?

The United point is particularly interesting... it is the same subject matter (travel), United has far better systems in place for tracking reservations (you can put a company code in, for example), and they could probably stuff the frequent flyer miles in the USFA's pocket... so why not United?

Well, it could have something to do with this (from the Colorado Revised Statutes - probably similar in many states - and the same statute quoted far above):

6-4-104. Illegal restraint of trade or commerce.
Every contract, combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce is illegal.

Me thinks that United would probably prefer not to be deemed to be in a conspiracy to restrain trade. After all, they've got shareholders, real E&O insurance for their boards, and a bevy of lawyers advising them on important issues. I would also think that they have a CEO/COO and even a Chief Marketing Officer with enough experience and savvy to recognize that such a plan would have to be run by their lawyers (and would probably be nuked) first.

THS? Probably not...

[gladius]

On the subject of hotels...

Also, as one who's been in this business for awhile, I cannot for the life of me figure out why USFA thinks it needs THS. All it takes is a call to a hotel's sales group and you can negotiate a group rate. Even small groups....

It's also common to have an "open block", meaning a rooming list is not necessary. Any individual can call, mention the group, and be booked in that block (with the rate) up to a certain number of agreed upon rooms and until a certain agreed upon cutoff date.

Alternatively, some opt for a "Rooming List" setup, where people do not call directly to the hotel to set up res's, but rather call their organization which sets them up and eventually submits a rooming list. The former is simpler, needs less involvement, and I think would make a lot more people happier. It's also more individual friendly, whereas Rooming Lists are more convenient for teams.
...
In this economy, hotels are hurting, and they are more than happy to negotiate groups, especially ones they think may come back in the future. This really should take relatively little work.

As an added note, the hotel I work at is a local chain, and as such is willing to bargain more than most big name chains. However, if big chains aren't being cooperative, I don't see why there couldn't simply be more transition to more local hotels. We often host many, many national teams (due to our proximity to the University).

Just a few cents...

(emphasis added)

Ah but these few cents of yours did they enter the equation of the future revenue stream as calculated by USFA-THS of the S&P plan?

Probably not because they are too "simple" and reflect common sense which unfortunately is not so common...

The irritant in all this, aside from a monumental distraction from real problems of the USFA (how to promote the sport in a difficult economy and with increasing costs--did you check how much it costs now to organize a FIE WC, a Grand Prix, a World Championship?) is that the only way to even attempt to make S&P work is if it is IMPOSED to all fencers who want to compete, causing huge resentment among the core of your supporters, the competitors.

That ain't smart...

Unless the USFA is paying, it is none of their business what hotel I book, what airline I fly, what car I drive, where I shop for groceries, what magazines I subscribe to, what kind of underwear I wear, etc.

You might argue that since it is a fencing tournament (within the venue/outside the venue notwithstanding), the USFA has the right to make these rules. But the let's not stop there. The USFA has a current partnership with United Airlines, let's make United mandatory as the method of transportation to the venue, unless a waiver is obtained (allowed reasons: live within 200 miles or have a friend who owns a plane). Perhaps we can get a partnership with McDonalds and require fencers to only eat a McD's while at a NAC. Where does it end?

(emphasis added)

What you state are the rights we all have to live our "fencing" lives as we choose. It is quite incredible to see that the USFA feels it can impose this type of "lodging" restriction in order to allow you to compete, and yet the USFA does not see fit to impose FIE safety regulations concerning uniforms and equipment worn and used by fencers in national USFA competitions.

In Europe now almost everywhere you cannot compete, and in many countries you cannot even practice, unless the fencer wears FIE approved uniforms (Under 14 CE 350 N, Mask 1600 N; everybody else CE 800 N, Mask 1600 N) and uses Maraging blades (with very few exceptions for epee) [see http://www.britishfencing.com/Attach...%20m.pdf,pages 45-46].

The USFA does not require this, in other words you are free to risk your life because of substandard (according to the FIE) equipment. But if you want to compete at national events you must Stay and Play or else (for your own good, you understand).

Talking about priorities and common sense...

[teacup]

If all of the rooms are gone at the hotels attached or adjacent to the convention centers or if a fencer books at a cheaper hotel to save money but is unable or unwilling to rent a car, wouldn't under Stay and Play the USFA be obligated to provide shuttle services?

[flechewounds]

One thing that just struck me is the population who are dead set against S&P. Many of us (Gladius, Joe Biebel, Teacup, myself and, I'm sure, others) already sink thousands of dollars into this sport every year (between my two kids, I'm probably at around $25k including national and international travel, lessons, club fees, coaching fees, entry fees, camps, equipment, etc.). That's one of the reasons that I've been spottier on the V50 circuit.

We're not casually into it... we spend a lot of our income on it. I'd characterize myself as middle-class, maybe slightly upper middle class (modest house, toyota & honda, etc.). I don't know the means of the others who have been posting here, but I trust that not everyone is Steve Jobs (and yes, his son does fence a little).

That is part of what makes this program so offensive to people like me. Our family uses lodging savings to buy equipment - it is a pretty direct correlation. If save $300 in a weekend, I buy a couple of FIE foil blades, a couple of body cords or gloves, or a pair of shoes. The money goes back into the sport.

Now, I'm not complaining about the expense (too much). But I do feel that, if I'm already choosing to spend $25k/year on this sport, I'm doing enough. Furthermore, if I'm choosing to spend $25k/year on this sport, I shouldn't be forced to use vendors that I don't wish to use for unrelated services. It is, simply, offensive.

By my calculations, S&P will raise my average daily cost for a US event by $75 (more expensive food, more expensive lodging, etc., for my family). We attend every NAC & JOs (I have two kids who fence in classes ranging from Y14 to Div 1), usually for 3 days. Historically, I have refereed at Nationals to offset some cost, but who knows if that will continue. Thus, Nationals is at least 5 days - unless I start competing in V50 again - then it's 10 days.

So, what is the THS tax? $225 on average per NAC and JO (that's 7 events)... or $1575 for NACs. $375 for Nationals (5 days). 26 room-nights. A grand total of $1,950 of my money that the USFA feels somehow entitled to...

Of that money, the USFA may get $312 (based on the $12/night rebate that USV uses). THS will get at least $195 - $195 that I don't want them to have (using the 10% fee that USV uses - but note that the USV form calls for a $15 rebate, but only gives USV $12 - there is $3 that "disappears"). And a hotel far more expensive than I want to use gets the rest.

Oh, and the comps. If I stay in a single when I referee (I often do), I pay half the room cost. But what is 1/2 the room cost of a comp??? I'm still charged... I'd like to see the audit on that.

[fdad]

That is part of what makes this program so offensive to people like me. Our family uses lodging savings to buy equipment - it is a pretty direct correlation. If save $300 in a weekend, I buy a couple of FIE foil blades, a couple of body cords or gloves, or a pair of shoes. The money goes back into the sport.

I think you've hit on the solution. Stay tuned for the annoucement of the new USFA approved vendor program. All entrants at USFA sanctioned events will need to wear USFA approved gear, and use USFA approved weapons, available only from USFA approved vendors.

[tchwojko]

I have been debating whether to continue fencing, taking it more seriously as a vet (turning 40 this year), and see what I can do with some work, and get serious about reffing; or bail on fencing and find a more amenable and flexible winter sport.

Policies like this make my decision easier.

[edew]

See you on the slopes?

[tchwojko]

See you on the slopes?

That or curling.

Seriously, I can travel 5 minutes away and get in a reasonably competitive squash league at my local gym. That and cycling in the summer and I have a family friendly, inexpensive pastime.

I have to deal with enough bureaucracy with traveling for work. I don't want to deal with an agency to travel to Des Moines for a hobby.

[keith]

i have been debating whether to continue fencing, taking it more seriously as a vet (turning 40 this year), and see what i can do with some work, and get serious about reffing; or bail on fencing and find a more amenable and flexible winter sport.

Policies like this make my decision easier.

.qft.

[ivlobane]

...and make parents decide to put their kids into something better organised.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

I think you've hit on the solution. Stay tuned for the annoucement of the new USFA approved vendor program. All entrants at USFA sanctioned events will need to wear USFA approved gear, and use USFA approved weapons, available only from USFA approved vendors.

Not that I think they'd do it, but couldn't the USFA make an almost identical argument and mandatory plan for, say, equipment?

Take the Leon Paul sponsorship. The USFA could amend it to say: in return for free gear for the National Teams and a substantial yearly honorarium, LP agrees to reduce the price of their FIE gear by $20 a unit. For every piece of gear sold (knickers, lames, masks, jackets, underarms, rolling bags, etc) LP also kicks back $20 to the USFA. Meanwhile, every fencer at an NAC, JO or NOC must wear only fencing gear purchased through Leon Paul, or they will not be allowed to compete. There will be a separate armory table to verify garment tags at check in.

The fencers get the benefit of reduced prices on the best gear on the market, the USFA gets a substantial revenue stream increase. It's a win-win for everyone.

Sound familiar?