No, I believe at this point, most people see your churlish criticisms as whining and pouting.
I have been sitting on the sidelines waiting until I had something positive to contribute to this important dialog even if it is in the form of criticism. Sadly, you felt name calling from the sidelines was sufficient. Worse is that you didn't have the confidence in your opinion to let it stand on its own, but instead summoned up the power of the "most people". Speak your opinions, argue your positions but please dump the blue font. If you want to standout, do it through solid reasoning.
Ken,
So it was a category 3 event that caused this entire thing and what makes it sad is it’s the least participated in category by USMS and most other open water events. I think the distinction is clear and something many of the race directors have been trying to convey to the USMS powers that be.
I believe “the USMS powers that be”, at least some of them fully understand the difference risks inherent in different categories of open water events. Members of the task force and board have: swum the English Channel, won the MIMS (men’s category) , competed in USA-S OW national championships (including the 25K), competed in professional marathon races, been race officials for FINA OW world championships, as well as organized, directed and participated in hundreds if not thousands of open water events.
There are lots of other external factors that also need to be accounted for, such as body of water (lake, river, ocean), water/air temperature, type of start (in/out of water, mass start, time trial, wave), other marine traffic, water quality, marine life, finish, etc. These and a lot more need to be assessed to determine risk and safety needs of the event.
But does the board think what the insurance provider required acceptable or unacceptable?This is kind of moot, we got the best insurance available. Would we have liked lower costs and fewer restrictions? Sure, but to meet our coverage needs we needed to pay the cost and abide by the restrictions. The crux of the matter addressed by the powers that be was to comply with 2013 insurance coverage requirements. These included:
1) All motorized watercraft must have propeller guards – we worked with our insurer to get this restriction greatly reduced
2) All watercraft must have a certificate of insurance listing USMS as an insured – again working with our insurer we were able to reach a compromise solution
3) Each sanctioned event will cost USMS $1,800 for insurance – this one stuck, but USMS decided to absorb $800 of each fee and most LMSC’s are picking up all or part of the remaining $1,000.
Moving forward into the 2014 season and beyond what are USMS OW goals going to be regarding this?A great question, one the Board raised not so long ago. The answer is yet to be determined.
2) For better or worse a good number of USMS leadership does not closely follow criticism reasoned or otherwise in social media. So discussion forum posts aren’t really the best method of attempting to influencing policy.
Maybe the USMS leadership should recognize that the USMS Forum is a good source of information which can be useful in their policy making process. People use social media because it is easy, and doesn't the leadership appreciate a vehicle that helps people easily voice their opinions and concerns about USMS? Of course if they thought past or current members of the USMS leadership were trolling under false identities, they might believe we are all nothing but fire breathing chimera.
I would add that (IMO of course) Ken Classen set a good bar for constructive criticism in his last post with respect to tone and being respectful of the hard work that many have put into this.
I agree. He has a different approach than I do.
I echo Rob's comments about the scope of forum posts: do not assume that TPTB will read these comments.
Maybe the USMS leadership should recognize that the USMS Forum is a good source of information which can be useful in their policy making process. People use social media because it is easy, and doesn't the leadership appreciate a vehicle that helps people easily voice their opinions and concerns about USMS?
Agree with Bob. If USMS leadership ignore the Forums, this is more a statement about their insularity and cluelessness than about the critics' approach to influence and persuasion.
ultimately you can't assume that the people here on the forum are representative of either USMS administration or the membership as a whole. (I would venture to say that the same is true for the Marathon Swimming forum.)
For whatever it's worth, I can tell you that visitor traffic to the Marathon Swimmers Forum from Sarasota skyrocketed shortly after the USMS OW Sanctioning thread started, and continues to this day.
PS: I can't give you pageview stats on this thread on the USMS Forum.
irishpolarbear, I mean Rob Copeland, may have access to that information.
My question is for Dave and Evan. Since both of you swim and direct open water events, what kind of safety protocals do you all have in place for your events?
While I don't see usms changing the rules for 2013, maybe some of the practices that you all put forth for your events could be evaluated by usms for 2014.
My question is for Dave and Evan. Since both of you swim and direct open water events, what kind of safety protocals do you all have in place for your events?
Good question. Last year, I co-directed (with Rondi_Davies) 2 USMS sanctioned events. I won’t post the entire safety plan, communications plan, permit applications, etc, but I’m happy to outline a few details:
2 Bridges 5K and 2.5k
This swim course is a loop that travels clockwise around the eastern most stanchions of the Mid-Hudson Bridge and The Walkway Over the Hudson Bridge. One loop = 2.5k, 2 loops = 5k. It is a land entry from a concrete boat ramp with a floating start and a land finish. Average depth for the swim course is 40 - 50 feet, 3 buoys were set up at each stanchion to establish the course and respect the security zones of the bridges. The length of the course is +/- 1200 yards. and there is a separation zone of +/- 100 yards between the north and south lanes where we have a roaming jet skier. 10 kayakers are stationed at 100 yard intervals and mark the western extent of the course (swimmers keep the kayaks on their left as they are heading north). Kayakers all have marine radios, and whistles. We have a dedicated channel for event communications. West of the kayaks, motorized patrol boats close the course to recreational traffic. Several municipalities join forces here... Ulster County Sheriffs, Dutchess County Sheriffs, Poughkeepsie FD, Aux CG. Further west is the commercial shippoing zone. Rondi and I are in constant radio communication... I am on a zodiac roaming among the motorized boats, she is at the finish.
For a distressed swimmer, kayaks should be the first to assist. Then jetski if evacuation is necessary.
On land, we have an ambulance and EMT’s at the ready. The nearest hospital is about 7 minutes away.
Hi, all. You guys are some of the people I respect most.
As "race directors", we can find an alternate insurance coverage. But can we somehow be able to be recognized events by USMS? That way, we can hold OW events that are listed on the calendar. And, why has the Tampa Bay Marathon Swim been taken off the USMS calendar? We're not going to be sanctioned by USMS, but we're going to make an announcement soon regarding the alternate sanctioning. There are events for Barbados and Bermuda listed, and they can't even be considered for USMS sanctioning.Ron,
I hope you don’t mind that I moved your post to its own thread. I figured this was a topic that should be discussed independently of this “Stupid people and lawyers” thread.
forums.usms.org/showthread.php
For the moment, let's put aside the irony of an open water devotee accusing anyone of insularity
Chris, I may not be a Greek Olympian, but at one point I was a Div. 1 collegiate pool swimmer, and for my first several years with USMS I was also primarily a pool swimmer. I've participated in about as wide a variety of USMS events as humanly possible, from the 50 Fly to postal swims to cable swims to buoy-loop OW courses to the Catalina Channel (which, when I did it in 2011, was a USMS sanctioned event). I've been a member of four different LMSCs in various parts of the country.
So I'm not sure there's any irony here.
compare the language used in the above two quotes. Both are saying the same thing, which do you think would be more persuasive in getting USMS leaders to the forums?
Without a doubt, my abrasive approach is more effective in getting people to read this thread (including leadership). I happen to manage an online swimming-related forum myself, and there's no contest. I'm sure irishpolarbear/moderator will confirm this.
Why would volunteers who put in a lot of time and effort into something they love want to come here to be insulted?
You all but call the OW Task Force a bunch of morons
That's fair. To clarify, I think perhaps the problem is less with the volunteer members of the OW Task Force (who probably did the best they could with what they were given), but rather with the people responsible for selecting the Task Force in the first place (some of whom are paid quite handsomely). And also the process by which input was solicited (also, largely determined by salaried folks).
Evan, you seem to think that an abrasive style will somehow better further your goals of persuading or informing but I submit that the opposite is true.
Unfortunately, mild-mannered constructive criticism is only effective if the targets of the constructive criticism are open to hearing it. Otherwise, it tends to get ignored. It would be interesting to see a graph of the visitor traffic from USMS leadership plotted along a timeline of this thread.
Incidentally, Chris: What is your opinion of official forum moderators posting under anonymous aliases as an attempt to undermine his critics?
My question is for Dave and Evan. Since both of you swim and direct open water events, what kind of safety protocals do you all have in place for your events? While I don't see usms changing the rules for 2013, maybe some of the practices that you all put forth for your events could be evaluated by usms for 2014.
'been meaning to answer your question, Wook, since it's a good one, and I hope (now that everyone is listening) it signals a new and more productive direction in this discussion.
As far as my administrative experience & responsibilities go, they are limited to channel swims ("category 3" in Ken Classen's system - solo swims escorted by motorized watercraft). IMO, these events should separate from USMS entirely because they are too different from other USMS events (even other OW events) from an insurance perspective. The fact that (for example) Catalina Channel swims were ever insured by USMS in the first place is actually kind of shocking.
Channel swimming organizations -- CCSF and Santa Barbara CSA, but also possibly NYC Swim, Tampa Bay Marathon Swim, Boston Light, 8 Bridges, In Search of Memphre, END-WET, S.C.A.R., Swim Across the Sound, Rose Pitonof, Farallones, and the new Cape May Circumnavigation (did that cover everyone??) -- may find that the best solution is to form a new national "marathon swimming association" for better negotiating power.
To answer your question, I believe there are a few fundamental keys to promoting safe channel swims:
1. Properly vetting swimmers for open water marathon swimming experience and competence.
2. Working with boat pilots who are experienced at escorting swimmers.
3. Training official observers on how to deal with various contingencies that might happen in the middle of the ocean. I would note that the Catalina Channel Swimming Federation is probably the gold standard in the entire world on observer training and mentorship.
Category 1 swims (smaller, closed-loop courses) -- these are what the new USMS guidelines were seemingly designed for, so these swims have no problem.
Category 2 swims (longer swims with roaming motorized craft as secondary support and/or unusual courses) are more problematic. I believe USMS should WANT to sanction these swims:
- the participation numbers are higher than for channel swims
- as Chris said, they provide good aspirational goals for newbie OW swimmers
- they provide a good value proposition for USAT triathletes who may want to try longer swims
However, the new guidelines are - for the many reasons already discussed here and elsewhere - inappropriate for such swims. In crafting better safety guidelines for Category 2, I'll gladly defer to those with relevant experience. Off the top of my head, and in no particular order:
- Morty Berger
- David Barra & Rondi Davies
- Current and past swim commissioners of the South End Rowing Club & Dolphin Club in San Francisco
- Phil White (Kingdom Swim)
- Ron Collins (Tampa Bay)
- Greg O'Connor (Boston Light)
- Karah Nazor (Swim the Suck)
If I were the USMS OW Task Force, I would absolutely want these people's input, and if possible, have them directly involved in the decision-making. Not just for better decisions, but for the perceived legitimacy of the process.
Category 1 swims (smaller, closed-loop courses) -- these are what the new USMS guidelines were seemingly designed for, so these swims have no problem.
Well, no problem except potentially cost. Even with the new requirements USMS's premium still went up; and because USMS has elected to pass on part of that cost increase rather than spreading it among all membership, some races now can't afford to sanction. If a way to resume insuring and sanctioning "Category 2" swims exists, the cost of that insurance and how to share that cost also will be important points for debate and decision.
