Yes; I've read all of that. What I have not read, which could be my fault for not paying better attention, is why the "task force" and "OW committee" recommended the new requirements. Insuring our big organization and all its activities that are basically open to all comers willing to pay the USMS membership fee probably is a different proposition than insuring a single race, or even than insuring a small organization that sanctions just a few events and that uses rigorous screening criteria for the participants in the most taxing of those events. Could USMS have done something different, and if so at what price?
Could have doesn’t matter now, but moving forward, the question is will they do something different.
A $5 surcharge to membership could cover the costs associated with insurance premiums. (I know.... socialism)
...but the deal breaker for many events is the one size fits all approach to safety conceived by people inexperienced in providing safety for the full range of OW events taking place.
Yes; I've read all of that. What I have not read, which could be my fault for not paying better attention, is why the "task force" and "OW committee" recommended the new requirements. Insuring our big organization and all its activities that are basically open to all comers willing to pay the USMS membership fee probably is a different proposition than insuring a single race, or even than insuring a small organization that sanctions just a few events and that uses rigorous screening criteria for the participants in the most taxing of those events. Could USMS have done something different, and if so at what price?
Could have doesn’t matter now, but moving forward, the question is will they do something different.
A $5 surcharge to membership could cover the costs associated with insurance premiums. (I know.... socialism)
...but the deal breaker for many events is the one size fits all approach to safety conceived by people inexperienced in providing safety for the full range of OW events taking place.
