Author Topic: The Most Urgent Need in USA Weightlifting (Read 1938 times)

Chris Ⓐ LeRoux · « **on:** Jan 18, 2007, 10:14 PM »

The USAW needs a retirement program for its elite lifters. There is really just about no incentive for our lifters to stay in the sport at this point but for the love and the price to be paid for dedication to this sport is very high. One almost has to be poor to do well, the sport pays nothing, and it costs a lot of money. We have to have some kind of retirement program that rewards medals at our nationals and/or in international events.

Thoughts?

Jake Harrison · « **Reply #1 on:** Jan 19, 2007, 01:07 AM »

if the average weightlifter retires at 30, hes got his whole life ahead of him to do things and get another career which in 30+ years will guarantee them a retirement plan. either way these lifters arent gonna be getting the money or anything like the elite lifters in russia or china are because the popularity of the sport in the usa is very low but is rising i think and maybe then the rewards will be higher then they are now.

Chris Ⓐ LeRoux · « **Reply #2 on:** Jan 19, 2007, 08:30 AM »

The USAW provides money incentives to its elite lifters so I don't see why some kind of retirement plan couldn't be put in place, even if not huge. We have retirement plans, I am pretty positive, for our executive director and probably other staff so, again, I don't see why we can't take care of our elite athletes.

Many of our best lifters quit well before they are 30 because there is no money, it costs money, and takes a lot of time that could be used to make money. If we want to keep them longer, this is a way I think we could partly address the problem.

But, of course, I expect nothing, especially from our athlete reps who don't even respond to emails from a current senior national champion with a relatively simple question.

Mike Wittmer · « **Reply #3 on:** Jan 20, 2007, 08:01 PM »

Chris, where would this money come from and how would it be paid out? What is paid out now is pretty much bare bones minimum. Still, it's better than in the old days when I was lifting. I just don't see how it could be managed.

Regardless, there is no excuse for not responding to your question.

John Way · « **Reply #4 on:** Jan 20, 2007, 08:32 PM »

when it cames to financial matters the best long term plan is to

have schools, tech school and universities provides scholarships

for promising lifters, so the USAW should be actively recruiting

teachers, principals, supervisors of education to have a role (any) in the

development of weightlifting!

Chris Ⓐ LeRoux · « **Reply #5 on:** Jan 20, 2007, 08:45 PM »

Mike,

Thanks for asking. I agree that something significant would be hard to fund although a small percentage of total earnings in the sport could be withheld on athlete request and then matched by the USAW. This might not be a lot of money but is something in the right direction.

My question to the athlete reps regards the new rule which allows athletes' competition date to be changed after the entry deadline, at the verification of final entries meeting. This is the night before lifting starts as I understand. I believe this means that many lifters will have to pay for an extra day of hotel and perhaps even take another day off from work in order to ensure they don't show up after their session. I asked the BOD, some staff, and some of our volunteers why they voted for this change. I got some very logical and sincere responses from several of the BOD and a promise from the office to notify any affected athletes, but nothing from the athlete reps. It seems this rule would allow a lifter's competition date to be changed from a scheduled Friday to Sunday or vice versa as late as Thursday night. This might cause some athletes to miss their session and could affect weight loss plans. This seems excessive to me- to address the problem described and could cause barries to an athlete's performance.

After thinking about the BOD's response in favor of this vote, I can not see how it is in the interest of the athletes except for those that have their expenses paid, are "wealthy" enough not to care about the increase in cost to compete in our national events, and want to attend more of the competitions. For those that want to be there for more days, they can be assured of an optimal competition schedule (not very early in morning or late at night), and a decent interval between sessions for warming up and distributing awards. I think the trade for the athlete is not a good one.

In my opinion it is unfair to the athlete not to have reliable notice of the date of their competition in time to make informed decisions about hotel, airfare, and requests off from the job. This seems to be penalizing the athlete in favor of the staff and officials. I would prefer trying other solutions to the long, early and late meet hours and difficulty budgeting the scarce officials for it before penalizing the athlete. So, I would have liked to hear from the athlete reps to see where I am wrong on this issue. I really am not seeing too much that is clearly pro-athlete and innovative from the USAW, and I would like to see some more pro athlete initiatives from my reps to address this deficiency.

Mike Wittmer · « **Reply #6 on:** Jan 20, 2007, 09:30 PM »

I wondered about that as well. As a 56, or 62, you should be fine. As understand it, you would be moved one day and since those two classes are first, they'll stay on Friday. At the other end, the supers and the 105s can count on lifing on Sunday. As for Saturday, the 77s and 85s should be locked in there. That puts the 69s and 94s on the bubble. Of course, "B" sessions might get shifted around differently.

It seems that the juniors and schoolage championships would be more effected, since their entry numbers are more unpredictable. At that level, I would favor two platform set-ups before shifting the competition dates around.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Chris Ⓐ LeRoux · « **Reply #7 on:** Jan 23, 2007, 04:17 PM »

Just an update: I got an email from Tara Cunningham with a no comment, basically, due to her not attending the meeting where the decision was made. We really need to start recording video of the BOD meetings and putting them on this site. I just can't believe this rule has passed, and am quite surprised there is such little uproar about it. I fear its going to cause some serious problems- grievances, arbitration, even lawsuits possibly. I hope I am wrong.