Topic: News: 2009 USA Sr Nationals Combined with Pan Am Champs

[Mike Wittmer]

Competing against the dopers is JUST like competing against people in the 100 meters and ceding them a 10 meter head start and allowing them to take the victory lap after they beat you anyway.

I see NO reason to grant a head start and then admit defeat.

Chris, did you get a reason for this?  I know Chicago is in the running for the Olympics in 2016, I wonder
if that is part of it?

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Chris, did you get a reason for this?

No, but I was in too much shock to ask to speak to Dennis about it. I only spoke to Linda Martin who really had no idea and I think was surprised at my objections. I will try to speak to Dennis about it tomorrow after I mail my grievance. I have been calling for the USA to boycott IWF events for years now with no result and so I have imposed a self boycott, but I hope the Casey Burgener situation on top of this might encourage others to join my boycott now.

[Mike Wittmer]

One problem I see is qualifying for the worlds, stipends (if there are any), placing in the PanAms and
placing in the nationals.  How do you choose your priority?  The national championship is used as a
qualifier for the worlds.  Do you get to choose (as the team coach selects attempts) if you are on
the "official" team?

What do you do if you need a particular weight for a PanAm medal, but three kilos more, or less, to get
you ranked high enough to make the world team?

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Mike,

Good points of course. My concern is a matter of principle. But, if you are going to speak to practical matters, I also find it hard to understand how two major meets are going to be scheduled within 4 days. It seems pretty much impossible to me unless lifting is going to go on 24x7. Of course, as I said, my objection is one of principle.

[Les Kernodle]

FROM A SPECTATORS VIEW .... I want to go see the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS and don't want to have to figure out who is not lifting in the nationals and who is, or have the competition for the NATIONAL CHAMPIONS "cluttered" in any way by having another contest run off at the same time.
I would love to see the Pan_Ams but NOT interfering with the nationals.
I know both the Pan-Ams and the Europeans have been run in conjunction with the worlds etc.... but that seems to work better , with the pan-ams as a subset to the worlds.
Here we have the nationals as a subset to the pan-ams ???? Our Nationals should be US NATIONALS and not past of another contest.
I am sure there are political and monetary reasosn for this that I don't know , but its not good.
Can't we have our Nationals ran without attaching it to other events and meets.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Here is the final version of my grievance I mailed out today:

To: USAW
Date: 8/22/2008

I hereby am filing a formal grievance against the decision to hold our 2009 USAW Senior National Championships in conjunction with the 2009 Pan Am Championships.  Since there is no rulebook available on the USAW website as of today, I can find no instructions for filing a proper grievance or rule numbers to cite. However, the USAW currently has a rule/policy forbidding extra/guest lifters in our National meets. Clearly, having the Pan Am competitors lifting in the same sessions as our National competitors competing for our Senior National Championships when they cannot earn medals or points qualifies them as extra/guest lifters in our Senior National Championships. The will have the ability to influence our own, internal contest- the most important National meet of the year. Further, they have the potential of spoiling the victories of our National Champions who could lose the session in which they win their Title. And, in my opinion, this decision spoils the level playing field the USA has striven so hard to achieve through rigorous out of competition testing by allowing competitors who do not compete under the same system and rules in to our contest where they will contaminate it.

To settle this grievance without a hearing, I need the session I intend to compete within, either 56kg or 62kg men (to be decided later), to be separate from the Pan Am Competition. If they occur at different times there is no problem and I have no concern for the other weight classes. Unless this adjustment to the schedule is made, I hereby request a formal hearing to examine this issue, along with a copy of the current rulebook and copy of the extra/guest lifter rule/policy so I can make my case.

Sincerely,

Chris LeRoux, MS, CSCS, USAW III

[Roger Sadecki]

Chris, you seem to do better at your grievances than I do. I still have a grievance on file about extra lifters that I submitted Feb 14, 2007 and has been disregarded. This referred to Addendum 5.3.12 which refers to those not making bodyweight. Non citizens are not covered in this addendum and in fact the by laws about non citizens were left untouched. I even got it on the agenda for the BOG a year later in Columbus 2008 but it was never brought up. The BOG is of course where the election was postponed and new by laws introduced. Hope your quest for a copy of the rule book is satisfied. There has been errors in it for years just as they put up the amended new proposed by laws that was incorrect also and was taken down quickly. Not even sure where you should send a grievance. The Olympics are over and the old Board is history. The BOG would be in charge now. The BOG should put an election together quickly. If new by laws would have been approved by the BOG by Olympics as USOC had hoped then the Governance Reform/Constitution ByLaws Committee would then become the Nomination & Governance/Management & Governance Committee and would serve as the Board and conduct all affairs of USAW until the new Board is seated.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Roger,

You know, I only filed one grievance before this one. I just had to remind them about it when they tried to do the same thing again. I don't quite follow what your saying about the extra lifter rule/policy. You can't quote it can you? On where to send the grievance, every copy of the rules I ever saw said to send it to the executive director. Where it goes from there right now is obviously a mystery as you said. It seems we don't really have any rules at all right now and personally I am unimpressed with the pace and direction of the "reform."