Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Bree Wee thread [KonaCoffee] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
KonaCoffee wrote:
prattzc wrote:
Isn't Bree a relatively new pro? It does seem kind of logical that if you pay for a pro license, that a USAT membership would be included.


She is (relatively) and she's also the only local pro out here. We do have visitors or part time residents but Bree is the only local now. Oh and the mail really is slow out here. Most mail takes a minimum of 10 days from the mainland (approaching infinity if the mail is from USAT). For example, I'm just now receiving my February magazines. There's also a huge time zone difference between us and the mainland. Playing phone tag is taken to all new lows out here.

Personally, I think it's quite a stretch for failure to pay a fee for a membership to be considered cheating, at worst it'd be freeloading.

As for USAT, I think I can get banned from the forums if I use the language I'd like to regarding their customer service. The only organization I deal with routinely that I have less respect for is the TSA. I just received my annual card this week after renewing in November and spending far too much time with the idiots via email and telephone trying to get a card I didn't have to print out for every race check-in. My wife has gone 4 years without a physical card from them. She's been told to update her membership information repeatedly and done so (there was nothing to update either) as if that's an excuse for USAT dropping the ball. So frankly, I'm spring loaded to doubt anything that comes from the mouth of USAT when it comes to paperwork.

With that said, what Jordan has said is correct. It's the athletes responsibility to ensure their cards and paperwork are in order. It doesn't matter when people can be told that there's no problem or everything is in order -- it's still their responsibility. If she honestly believed that she was doing what is right and had a card that would be exculpating evidence that would lessen a penalty, if any. My wife, on the other hand, honestly believes Bree, when it comes to USAT paperwork. Can't say that I blame her either.

Wait and see what the 'kind folks' at USAT have to say and what their decision is before crucify Bree any further.

And for the record, I haven't seen or spoken to Bree is a few months. We've both been busy.


When I lived in Guam...I did not have these mail and phone issues you speak of. You want to call somebody...you figure out what time it is on the mainland and adjust your schedule to call them. Need something in the mail...order it in time. Sure, it takes a few extra days, but that is it. I always got my February magazines in plenty of time. Oh, and the same thing happened when I lived in Hawaii...two different times. It's not nearly the issue you make it seem.
Quote Reply
Re: Bree Wee thread [prattzc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thank you for having the patience to explain in simplistic terms the issue that certain people seem unable to grasp after 100 odd posts.
Quote Reply
Re: Bree Wee thread [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rappstar wrote:
I think the only time I knowingly didn't capitalize was when I wrote "ian" instead of "Ian." This because in spite of the fact that I can assume that "ian moone"'s actual first name is Ian, he chooses not to capitalize it in his username. Since not everyone's real name is their forum name, I chose to follow his lead on capitalization regarding his name. If I made another capitalization error, it's because I'm an idiot. The irony of someone this coming from someone who chooses not to capitalize their own name in their user name is not lost upon me...

Thank god. I was worried that Slowman's problem is contagious and spreading.
Quote Reply
Re: Bree Wee thread [AlwaysCurious] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Seriously. That drives me crazy when he does it, which is every times he posts... Then again, it's entirely possible his shift key is broken. His keyboard is 10+ years old. I keep trying to get him to buy a new one, but so far, no luck...

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: Bree Wee thread [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rappstar wrote:
It is clear that she didn't have a pro card since 2008, but how she managed to race without one, I don't know.

If it is true that she hasn't had a pro card since 2008, I assume she would have needed to submit results to re-earn her 2012 pro/elite card. It is harder to become a pro/elite than it is to keep the pro/elite status once it is earned. I am guessing she had sufficient results but am wondering if USAT required this before issuing the 2012 license. It is not their fault that she was negligent in renewing. I had assumed she just forgot to renew this year and had been up to date through 2011. It is very odd someone could get away with that for so long.

If she actually had been current up through 2011 and had renewed for 2012 but didn't receive the card she still could have gone online to print off the card. That is an option for all current members, pros included, if I am not mistaken. So Bree SHOULD have just printed off her supposedly renewed 2012 card rather than pay a one day fee (five times?!) if the mail takes "SOOOOOOO LONG" from Colorado to Hawaii. I found the claim about the mail being slow to be a real BS excuse. MAYBE one or two races would have been affected but not 5 races, AND pros should know they can't do one-day licenses.

While the USAT registration process is NOT ideal for pros, the athlete needs to take the responsibility to get the card one way or another. THREE years of not renewing/receiving the pro card seems a bit excessive! And that she was able to race without anyone discovering this for 3 years is pretty mind-boggling. You would think at least ONE race in 3 years would have made her show her current pro/elite card.

-leh
Quote Reply
Re: Bree Wee thread [prattzc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
From the sounds of it you think USAT and TriFed are two different entities. They are the same. The National Federation changed its name to USA Triathlon after we became an Olympic sport.
Regarding Kenny is a Duathlete and Bree is a triathlete is irrelevant, both are/where multisport athletes governed by the same sanctioning body.
The fact that the two examples took place 11 years apart is also irrelevant, the rules haven't changed, still the same rules and again the same governing body.

Mike Plumb, TriPower MultiSports
Professional Running, Cycling and Multisport Coaching, F.I.S.T. Certified
http://www.tripower.org
Quote Reply
Re: Bree Wee thread [leh] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think if I were Bree Wee I would delete my blog immediately as it seems to be somewhat incriminating.
Quote Reply
Re: Bree Wee thread [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Of course "ian" should have been capitalized in your reply.

Styrrell
Quote Reply
Re: Bree Wee thread [Mike Plumb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Mike Plumb wrote:
From the sounds of it you think USAT and TriFed are two different entities. They are the same. The National Federation changed its name to USA Triathlon after we became an Olympic sport.
Regarding Kenny is a Duathlete and Bree is a triathlete is irrelevant, both are/where multisport athletes governed by the same sanctioning body.
The fact that the two examples took place 11 years apart is also irrelevant, the rules haven't changed, still the same rules and again the same governing body.

Sooooo, nothing has changed in the past 11 years? At all? Hmm, interesting. I guess Darwin and are Obama was/are wrong after all.

BTW, I made no mention of the rules changing, I'm saying the rules have the potential for changing, as the sport evolves. I also simply stated that Kenny was governed by Tri-Fed and Bree under USAT, therefore had the potential for different rules and standards.
Quote Reply
Re: Bree Wee thread [TriBriGuy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TriBriGuy wrote:
Rapp wrote:

"Likewise, I think it's fair to question how this whole scenario might reflect on Bree's capabilities as a teacher. And I don't think it matters if you make some grammatical errors when you point that out. I'm not saying I agree - my phenomenal English teacher for my junior and senior years of high school was absurdly disorganized, but she was a great teacher. However, I can appreciate that someone who witnessed her disorganization might have said, "how does that affect her teaching?""

You answered the question...it didn't. And the question is born of the type of zero-defects mentality that bugs the hell out of me. And it's the kind of thinking that leads very quickly to trial-by-internet. I don't think it's a fair question on THIS forum at all. Who the hell do we think we are?

And that kind of mentality leads to bullshit potshots like Javelinguy's.

It's pretty damned easy to sit here from the safety of our keyboards on a half-anonymous board where few have actually ever met and take someone's mistake as an opportunity to excoriate every aspect of their lives. But just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we should. Maybe the next time one of us gets a traffic ticket or has a bill payment late by a day or three the rest of us should take that opportunity to crawl through their life with a magnifying glass to question your parenting skills, job timeliness or your IRS reporting.

I'll be the first. I got a traffic warning for unauthorized passing. Should I recuse myself from the next Technical Evaluation Board at work? I mean obviously I willfully or negligently failed to understand that I was technically in a no-passing zone. So I must be technically incompetent in every area of my life.

Sound ridiculous? That's my point.

Thank you for this. I'm glad that I'm not the only one annoyed with nonsensical gibberish. It's as if we now have the right to question everything in her life. We should check Bree's driver's license too, right? How in the world is her teaching career even included in this discussion (other than people read her blog)? Just because the woman is having issues with her pro card in triathlon does not give us the right or reason to probe and question every aspect of her life. Let's keep the discussion on her pro/ triathlon status, right where it belongs.






Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Bree Wee thread [styrrell] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
my real name is Borat and i like American girls



Quote Reply
Re: Bree Wee thread [prattzc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Of course plenty of things have changed in 11 years, but one thing that hasn't changed is the rule about needing an Elite card in order to compete in the Elite wave and that the card needs to be renewed each year. So I am assuming that you are saying that rule needs to be changed? How would you change that rule?
As more information comes out the more similar the two situations appear to me. Someone correct me if I have this wrong. Bree had an Elite license in 2008 but failed to renew it in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 until now. Can that be right? So assuming that is correct she has raced for 3.5 years without the correct license.
Now where I differ with the earlier ruling is that I thought then as I do now in the current situation that a year for a year is excessive. There are three Elites that sit on the USAT Board of Directors and they are the ones that should determine the actual penalty.

Mike Plumb, TriPower MultiSports
Professional Running, Cycling and Multisport Coaching, F.I.S.T. Certified
http://www.tripower.org
Quote Reply
Re: Bree Wee thread [Mike Plumb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Your understanding of the situation is - as best as I can determine - correct. At the very least, we know it was 2010, 2011, 2012 (until now), as 2010 is when the WTC pro membership came about. But USAT has no record of her having a license in 2009 either. However, they also had no record of her having a license in 2008, but it seems clear that she did in fact have one for at least part of the year, which *MIGHT* be where the error comes from, as she would have also had an AG license (though I suppose she could have just done one day licenses then as well; that would have been allowed). But given that USAT has no record of her having an elite license during a period of time when it appears that she did, obviously I'm not absolutely certain that my understanding of events is correct. But, I'm also not sure that 2.5 years / 3.5 years matters much anyway. The WTC "defense" might have held some water for part of one year, but not for three...

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: Bree Wee thread [styrrell] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
styrrell wrote:
Of course "ian" should have been capitalized in your reply.

Except his real name is NOT "ian moone." His first name isn't even, "ian" (or "Ian"). So...

FYI - http://csi.wikia.com/.../Sqweegel_(character)

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: Bree Wee thread [Mike Plumb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Your assumption is incorrect. I have nothing to do with Professional Triathletes as I am not one, nor am I a board member of any governing body in regards to the sport. I am NOT saying the rule needs to change, nor am I making any assumptions on how to change the rule.

That being said, the time difference betweeen Kenny and Bree is significant and relative since the governing body went through policy changes and name changes when Kenny Souza raced. But it was just one governing body and just one type of license. Now there are 2 governing bodies (at least) if you want to race "Ironman" events.

Kenny freely admitted that he knew he was suppose to have a license but chose not to. Bree claims differently.

Kenny was allowed to continue to race. The only reason why anything was actually done about it was because several athletes at one event didn't have a license and hadn't for a long time. There was a hearing later where Kenny was allowed to argue his point.

I can understand how mistakes could be made when governing bodies change their rules and policies, whether for better or worse. Things can get confusing. Kenny admitted to knowing the rule and not abiding by it. Bree is not claiming the same.

I have no say in punishment for such things. I don't really care. I do realize that as times change, policies can change as well. Maybe it is time for the licenses to change. Maybe Pro Athletes in triathlon can have one license that covers all bodies, national and international. Since WTC spands over into other countries, the license should too. Maybe it can be set up with a sort of auto-pay and auto-renewel. In this day of technology and databases, why can't results be automated and qualifications for pro licenses be automated? Hell, I get an email for USAT once a week stating that I qualified for Nationals and all I have to do is register. Can the same be done for professional athletes? A trigger to automate the process?

Again, I am not a pro, nor will be, nor on any governing body for the sport, just an AGer and observer. I just like to see things advance to higher levels. This seems to be a catalyst for such actions within the triathlon realm.
Last edited by: prattzc: Jul 16, 12 17:23
Quote Reply
Re: Bree Wee thread [prattzc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Maybe Pro Athletes in triathlon can have one license that covers all bodies, national and international."

Even a cursory glance at the history of this sport will show the folly in espousing that view. WTC and ITU have necessarily called a sometimes uneasy truce to what at one point was extremely tense grappling match.

And frankly, none of this really absolves Bree or any pro from the responsibility for ensuring their eligibility is current and legitimate. "I don't know" and asking questions is perfectly acceptable before the fact. After the fact, ignorance is not mitigation for the responsibility to have known the requirements of the position, regardless of whether we're ignorant or not.

I think there are probably a lot of the pros, especially newer ones, who are double checking all their stuff right now to make sure it's in order. Its a shame the reminder comes at the expense of someone as seemingly nice as Bree...but professional competence in all aspects does not follow just because someone is nice, sunny, and even good for the cause. Licensing is a basic aspect of any profession. I'm sure we could google and find out what happens to someone attempting to practice law, medicine, engineering, accounting or other licensed profession without the requisite license.


Quote Reply
Re: Bree Wee thread [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Ian Moone" move the letters around and you get "I am no one"
Quote Reply
Re: Bree Wee thread [toughie96] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
toughie96 wrote:
It's not nearly the issue you make it seem.

You don't live in Hawaii and I can guarantee you I've lived in the state and on the outer islands far longer than you have on both of your temporary residencies here combined and I'd also bet you I lived in Guam far longer than you did. Both locations are and have been staples in my travels and business residences for many years. What I described is very typical of mail problems on the neighbor islands in the main Hawaiian chain. Whether or not you want to believe it is irrelevant.

It also is far afield from the original topic of this thread. In fact what's happened with this thread is why I was glad Jordan locked the original thread on this topic. None of our opinions matter. What matters is what USAT ultimately decides and nothing else.

Really nice distractor though, something I was excellent at as a young attorney.


---------------------------------------------------------
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. -- A fake Albert Einstein "quote"
Last edited by: KonaCoffee: Jul 17, 12 12:08
Quote Reply
Re: Bree Wee thread [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So, is there a date known for the USAT meeting to decide if they are going to do anything?

..

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep
Quote Reply
Re: Bree Wee thread [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rappstar wrote:
Seriously. That drives me crazy when he does it, which is every times he posts... Then again, it's entirely possible his shift key is broken. His keyboard is 10+ years old. I keep trying to get him to buy a new one, but so far, no luck...

aha! i knew you had an issue with capitalization.... :)

http://harvestmoon6.blogspot.com
https://www.caringbridge.org/visit/katasmit


Quote Reply
Re: Bree Wee thread [h2ofun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
her blog said 5 weeks. So I'd imagine sometime around the second week of August. It's after Philippines 70.3 but before IMLOU
Quote Reply
Re: Bree Wee thread [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rappstar wrote:

But USAT certainly should not be preparing to reimburse Bree for any expenses she incurred. The question at the moment is really do they suspend her for a year or not. And Charlie Crawford is still working on that. Which is why we haven't written a story on it. Yet.

Jordan,

Was there ever an explanation as to why Bree only got 6 weeks when one year is standard?

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Bree Wee thread [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Maybe she used Kevin Moats' attorney?
Quote Reply
Re: Bree Wee thread [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BLeP wrote:
Rappstar wrote:

But USAT certainly should not be preparing to reimburse Bree for any expenses she incurred. The question at the moment is really do they suspend her for a year or not. And Charlie Crawford is still working on that. Which is why we haven't written a story on it. Yet.

Jordan,

Was there ever an explanation as to why Bree only got 6 weeks when one year is standard?

No idea. If I had to guess - which I don't really like doing - I'd say it was probably because the precedent seemed to revolve around cases where the lack of renewal was willful. It certainly seems that wasn't the case here. My own feeling is that Bree was careless and it cost her plenty. Further punishment on top of that would have been - in my OPINION - redundant. She basically lost the majority of this year anyway, so for all intents and purposes, it was pretty close to a 1year suspension anyway...

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply

Prev Next