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?
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.
For the moment, let's put aside the irony of an open water devotee accusing anyone of insularity and 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?
Why would volunteers who put in a lot of time and effort into something they love want to come here to be insulted? 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. You all but call the OW Task Force a bunch of morons and your contempt for their efforts is pretty evident; this tone immediately puts people on the defensive and means they will not be in any frame of mind to evaluate your criticism rationally.
USMS leaders are certainly not alone in this. Almost anyone -- including most meet/race directors I know -- will not react very well if their efforts are denigrated when constructive criticism is being offered.
For the record, I agree that USMS leaders should visit the forums from time to time. The vast majority of posters and posts here are polite and well-intentioned. Unfortunately what usually sticks in one's mind are the nastier, less pleasant experiences.
And electronic arguments can get out of hand. If even a math problem on Facebook can lead to virtual fisticuffs, how about disagreements about things that people are truly passionate about? (Not to sell arithmetic short, of course!)
Second, it would have been better to state point 2 as something like “2) For better or worse USMS leadership does not typically set policy based on negative criticism offered by a few individuals through social media.”
I truly hope you meant this as a bit of levity. I am not assuming otherwise, but if it is the attitude of USMS leadership it is elitist at best.
Maybe the USMS leadership should recognize that the USMS Forum is a good source of information...It looks like, once again, I did not choose my words wisely.
First, based on forum statistics, it appears most members of the board have read this thread, however I can’t tell how closely they are following it.
Second, it would have been better to state point 2 as something like “2) For better or worse USMS leadership does not typically set policy based on negative criticism offered by a few individuals through social media.” I still believe if someone is interested in influencing policy, then your best option is to provide viable reasoned solutions.
Third, some Masters Swimming programs and policies in place today have arisen out of forum suggestions. So our leaders do listen, and like most people our volunteers are more likely to act on positive and specific suggestions rather than negative and general criticism.
Why don't we skip OW swimming events and just start up triathlons under the USAT. We can make the swim leg longer and then right before the race cancel the bike portion because it's too windy. The run will be the 50 yd jog up the beach. Insurance costs would be much lower than with USMS although I have no idea how that is possible.
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.
I have read this thread with no little interest. Mostly, I have seen how misplaced anger and lack (or ignorance?) of accurate information turns into a free-for-all with no new or useful information generated. Since no one higher up has offered to enlighten any of you, I guess I will try.
The board knew in late October that because of recent claims history, our former insurance carrier had raised our premium about 700%.***{the timing is inaccurate and was recited from my failing memory. Please see post #122}*** With a lot of scrambling, phone calls and negotiating, our ED was able to find one insurer that could write a policy for USMS that included open water events. And did not cost all of our reserves for a one year premium. It did have a bunch of strings attached, such as propeller guards.
The OW sanctioning task force had little time and was under considerable pressure to pull together guidelines that were essentially dictated to USMS by the insurer. Passing on part of the insurance premium that is exclusively OW dedicated is just a business decision. Remember, OW does not pay any extra to hold OW practices or clinics, those are covered under another part of the insurance policy. Only sanctioned events have the $1800 special premium, of which USMS eats $800 and passes on $1000 to the sanctioning LMSCs.
None of you posting to this thread can appreciate just how close USMS came to being a virtual organization at the beginning of 2013, with no insurance to cover any of our operations, sanctions or members. It would have been very easy to cut OW loose and save USMS $135,000. But USMS has had a very keen interest in building OW for the last 4 years, and did not ever consider shutting down that branch of the business. The gratitude shown for this hard work and dedication are an exodus of sanctioned events.
Some race directors simply want a sanction rubber-stamped to get insurance and event exposure, and then want USMS to get out of the way. One local race director bristles at the suggestion that a safety plan is even necessary at all.
As an athlete, if I knew this about a race director, I would be extremely hesitant to participate in their event. I'm sure this attitude is more common than I am aware of, but it is scary none the less.
Why don't we skip OW swimming events and just start up triathlons under the USAT. We can make the swim leg longer and then right before the race cancel the bike portion because it's too windy. The run will be the 50 yd jog up the beach. Insurance costs would be much lower than with USMS although I have no idea how that is possible.
It is clear that the insurance company is part of the problem. Maybe with a year to shop around USMS can get better coverage for 2014. Maybe with more time USMS might come to the conclusion that the organization can't safely sanction/insure some OW swims.
Perhaps I was not clear in prior posts. USMS does not have discretion in some of the sanction requirements. This is one of them. The prop guard is another. These exist in order for USMS to offer insurance at all.
I have no idea how USAT gets their insurance, but it would be fascinating to know how their underwriter assesses risk.
Seems to me there's far more risk in lack of swimming competence or lack of preparation for conditions, than in a swimmer getting maimed by a boat propeller. USMS' insurer seems to have been only assessing the latter.
IMO, the swim leg of the Escape from Alcatraz triathlon is far more risky than, say, the Manhattan Island Marathon Swim. Both take place in crowded urban waterways, and MIMS is more than 10x the duration. However, the level of swimming competence & preparation of even the slowest MIMS swimmer is extraordinarily high because of the vetting process, while I'm not aware of any USAT vetting process for swim capability.
As another example, take the Kingdom Swim. The 6-mile qualifying swim for this event is, IMO, far more effective at reducing risk than requiring prop guards on all the motorboats. I doubt the latter reduces risk at all.
If USMS leadership hasn't already contacted USAT to learn where they get their insurance from, I would hope they will do so in the near future.Insurance is one topic in the ongoing dialogue between the executive directors of USMS and USAT. And it was the number 1 priority in their conversations during November and December of last year.
I have no idea how USAT gets their insurance, but it would be fascinating to know how their underwriter assesses risk.
If USMS leadership hasn't already contacted USAT to learn where they get their insurance from, I would hope they will do so in the near future.
