Does anyone else think the Michigan thing is gross?

[gimpeltf 1,531]

1 minute ago, MDogg said:

Forgive my ignorance but what type and amount of insurance could a USAW card possibly provide if it only costs $35? 

Liability

[Lurker 1,397]

5 minutes ago, jchapman said:

Why do you keep insisting that an international athlete is not someone who competes internationally?

Two reasons. 1) because if it defined to athletes that compete internationally, then this rule would apply to JB, Snyder, Taylor, etc, because they are international athletes in that definition. That is clearly not the meaning they are given in this policy because 2) the policy applying to international athletes is separated from the section of criteria applying to USA athletes. It’s pretty obvious they are referencing athletes from another country, or I would think it would have been another bullet point under the section above. Just looking at context. 

[Lurker 1,397]

7 minutes ago, MDogg said:

Forgive my ignorance but what type and amount of insurance could a USAW card possibly provide if it only costs $35? 

35 x (enter number of USAW members)

[jchapman 1,099]

2 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Two reasons. 1) because if it defined to athletes that compete internationally, then this rule would apply to JB, Snyder, Taylor, etc, because they are international athletes in that definition. That is clearly not the meaning they are given in this policy because 2) the policy applying to international athletes is separated from the section of criteria applying to USA athletes. It’s pretty obvious they are referencing athletes from another country, or I would think it would have been another bullet point under the section above. Just looking at context. 

It says international athletes who compete for a country other than USA.  So, it does not apply to JB, Snyder, Taylor, etc

[Lurker 1,397]

54 minutes ago, jchapman said:

It says international athletes who compete for a country other than USA.  So, it does not apply to JB, Snyder, Taylor, etc

Okay my bad, didn't have it in front of me.  But again, still, pretty obvious what they are referencing.  Don't you think if they were referencing USA athletes representing a country other than USA, they would have stated USA athletes instead of international athletes?  I mean common, it doesn't take much to realize this.  This is where were are picking for things trying to make an argument about.

Bottom line, these Michigan athletes have not broken any rules, there is no reason for anyone to report any violations or for the program(s) to "get in trouble" as was suggested. If you want to discuss clarification or re-writing of certain terminology within the rules, that's a different discussion.  But as far as these particular athletes qualify as both legitimate members of an RTC, and representing another country...I think it's pretty obvious they are well within their rights and the rules to do so.  

 

[jchapman 1,099]

6 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Okay my bad, didn't have it in front of me.  But again, still, pretty obvious what they are referencing.  Don't you think if they were referencing USA athletes representing a country other than USA, they would have stated USA athletes instead of international athletes?  I mean common, it doesn't take much to realize this.  This is where were are picking for things trying to make an argument about.

Bottom line, these Michigan athletes have not broken any rules, there is no reason for anyone to report any violations or for the program(s) to "get in trouble" as was suggested. If you want to discuss clarification or re-writing of certain terminology within the rules, that's a different discussion.  But as far as these particular athletes qualify as both legitimate members of an RTC, and representing another country...I think it's pretty obvious they are well within their rights and the rules to do so.  

 

I think the exact opposite, regarding your first paragraph.

I agree with you that the wording of the rule is not specific.  However, I feel the spirit of the rule has been broken.

[Lurker 1,397]

5 minutes ago, jchapman said:

I think the exact opposite, regarding your first paragraph.

I agree with you that the wording of the rule is not specific.  However, I feel the spirit of the rule has been broken.

Fair enough.  Agree to disagree.  

Franklin Gomez has been in the US his whole life, training in the US and competing for another country since before the rise of RTC's, and is a member of an RTC.  Don't you think if this was the spirit of the rule, his situation would not be what it is?  Kind of makes me think the spirit of the rule applies to athletes from another country. But again, agree to disagree.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Lurker

[1032004 889]

30 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Okay my bad, didn't have it in front of me.  But again, still, pretty obvious what they are referencing.  Don't you think if they were referencing USA athletes representing a country other than USA, they would have stated USA athletes instead of international athletes?  I mean common, it doesn't take much to realize this.  This is where were are picking for things trying to make an argument about.

Probably because USA Wrestling likely assumed that "USA athletes" wouldn't be representing other countries?   It's really just the word "international" that is confusing.  Remove just that 1 word and then it's likely they are breaking the rules.

Also, I believe Gomez has been brought up as well as far as people questioning "should the USA be helping to fund his training," same with Chamizo. BTW I don't believe Gomez came to the US until he was in high school.

Edited September 26, 2019 by 1032004

[hammerlockthree 2,042]

Maybe this is a stupid way to think, but I never really minded gomez, he wasn't born in the United States right?

One guy doing whats probably best for them strikes me differently than a public university making the exploitation of the same rule a point of policy. 

[Lurker 1,397]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

Probably because USA Wrestling likely assumed that "USA athletes" wouldn't be representing other countries?   It's really just the word "international" that is confusing.  Remove just that 1 word and then it's likely they are breaking the rules.

Also, I believe Gomez has been brought up as well as far as people questioning "should the USA be helping to fund his training," same with Chamizo. BTW I don't believe Gomez came to the US until he was in high school.

When I say his whole life I’m referring to age group wrestling, was an American state champions, American NCAA champion, etc. just for clarification. Not best choice of word on my part, but point is, As far as his wrestling career, he grew up in American wrestling. 

Edited September 26, 2019 by Lurker

[TripNSweep 477]

There is nothing that stops a foreign wrestler from coming and training at an RTC.  All they need a USA Wrestling athletes card, to fill out the right forms/application, and provide proof that they belong in there usually by presenting their verified tournament results like finishing high at their nationals, being on a world team, etc.  Sometimes the RTC will ask for a letter from their national federation saying that they are OK with them being and training here.  But it's not a complicated process and the RTC isn't breaking any kind of rules nor will they "get in trouble" for it.  

[jchapman 1,099]

1 hour ago, TripNSweep said:

There is nothing that stops a foreign wrestler from coming and training at an RTC.  All they need a USA Wrestling athletes card, to fill out the right forms/application, and provide proof that they belong in there usually by presenting their verified tournament results like finishing high at their nationals, being on a world team, etc.  Sometimes the RTC will ask for a letter from their national federation saying that they are OK with them being and training here.  But it's not a complicated process and the RTC isn't breaking any kind of rules nor will they "get in trouble" for it.  

But that’s not entirely what the RTC rules say.

Edited September 26, 2019 by jchapman

[1032004 889]

1 hour ago, TripNSweep said:

There is nothing that stops a foreign wrestler from coming and training at an RTC.  All they need a USA Wrestling athletes card, to fill out the right forms/application, and provide proof that they belong in there usually by presenting their verified tournament results like finishing high at their nationals, being on a world team, etc.  Sometimes the RTC will ask for a letter from their national federation saying that they are OK with them being and training here.  But it's not a complicated process and the RTC isn't breaking any kind of rules nor will they "get in trouble" for it.  

So why do the rules say they should only be training there on a “limited basis”?

edit: jchapman beat me to it

Edited September 26, 2019 by 1032004

[TripNSweep 477]

4 hours ago, jchapman said:

But that’s not entirely what the RTC rules say.

I know a foreign wrestler who came to the RTC close by me.  All they wanted was a letter from the federation vouching for them.  USA Wrestling had to approve it and then that was it.  Getting a USA card is easy enough so once you have those you're good to go.  The rules say "intermittent" basis.  That can mean a lot.  Generally I don't think the RTC or USA wrestling really cares.  It would be one thing if Sadulaev showed up at the same place as Cox or Snyder and was practicing there every day to help gain an edge.  Does intermittent mean you'll only be there 4 days a week instead of 5?  Or you'll be at that RTC for 6 months, then off for 3 then back again for 6?  I think the language of that rule was purposely written that way to create loopholes if foreign athletes wanted to train someplace long term.  It's ambiguous enough anyway.  

[gimpeltf 1,531]

There's a similarly worded D1 compliance rule about alums attending practice (at the institution not the RTC). In the last few years they allowed 'recent' alums the ability to attend regularly for two Olympic cycles the same as applies to NGB approved individuals. After the two Olympic cycles the now not so recent alums can attend 'occasionally'.

[Lurker 1,397]

At the end of the day it comes down to, do we want to restrict, or open opportunities. If you want to say you want to make rules that disallow or restrict this type of “intermingling”, then please don’t jump in the arguments about wanting to grow the sport. And if you want to say you only want to best serve USA, look at the Europeans. They’ve been intermingling for decades and.....they’re pretty good. Athletics is a theivery profession. The more resources to steal ideas, tactics, techniques, etc from the better off. That’s why there’s intermingling in all sports at all levels.  

[jchapman 1,099]

7 minutes ago, Lurker said:

At the end of the day it comes down to, do we want to restrict, or open opportunities. If you want to say you want to make rules that disallow or restrict this type of “intermingling”, then please don’t jump in the arguments about wanting to grow the sport. And if you want to say you only want to best serve USA, look at the Europeans. They’ve been intermingling for decades and.....they’re pretty good. Athletics is a theivery profession. The more resources to steal ideas, tactics, techniques, etc from the better off. That’s why there’s intermingling in all sports at all levels.  

In the case of the OP referencing Michigan and Cliff Keen, there was already “intermingling” since they went to college there.  

[Lurker 1,397]

1 minute ago, jchapman said:

In the case of the OP referencing Michigan and Cliff Keen, there was already “intermingling” since they went to college there.  

I don’t know what your point is?  We all know they already go to college there. So how is that intermingling?  That’s their “home” Obviously I’m talking about, in the post you quoted,  our guys training with international guys. Here and afar. 

[jchapman 1,099]

41 minutes ago, Lurker said:

I don’t know what your point is?  We all know they already go to college there. So how is that intermingling?  That’s their “home” Obviously I’m talking about, in the post you quoted,  our guys training with international guys. Here and afar. 

My point is the Michigan is not "thieving" foreign wrestling talent, technique, and training ideas.  They are not injecting new athletes from foreign powers who will ultimately bring new ideas to the US.

Edited September 27, 2019 by jchapman

[Lurker 1,397]

16 minutes ago, jchapman said:

My point is the Michigan is not "thieving" foreign wrestling talent, technique, and training ideas.  They are not injecting new athletes from foreign powers who will ultimately bring new ideas to the US.

You know who their club coach is....right?

Edited September 27, 2019 by Lurker

[jchapman 1,099]

3 minutes ago, Lurker said:

You know who their club coach is....right?

Yes

[Lurker 1,397]

10 minutes ago, jchapman said:

Yes

Okay so I guess I don’t know where you’re going really with my post you quoted. I was talking about a concept in general...are you discussing whether or not the Michigan athletes fit what I’m referring to as intermingling?  Again, I’m not seeing your point. 

[jchapman 1,099]

6 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Okay so I guess I don’t know where you’re going really with my post you quoted. I was talking about a concept in general...are you discussing whether or not the Michigan athletes fit what I’m referring to as intermingling?  Again, I’m not seeing your point. 

Yes that is what I am discussing.

[Lurker 1,397]

1 minute ago, jchapman said:

Yes that is what I am discussing.

ok

[steamboat_charlie v2 939]

19 hours ago, MDogg said:

In other words, to the extent any gifts or donations to RTC’s are tax deductible they should be 100% precluded from training other nation’s reps on a full time basis. If Michigan’s RTC wants to train guys who will be competing against USA’s rep next year that’s their choice, but they shouldn’t get subsidized by the US taxpayer to do so. 

The US tax code is designed to incentivize certain things, and donating money to help Micic train to beat Fix at next year’s Olympics shouldn’t be one of those things. 

You're suggesting a monumental shift in US tax code... all 501(c)(3)'s are tax-exempt.  

That's sort of like saying universities should pay taxes if they accept international students.