DancesportInfo.net

BANNING IS A SHAM

quinta-feira, 22 de outubro de 2009 3:58

HAS BANNING BEEN MADE INEFFECTIVE?

In March 2008 the IDSF signed an agreement with a new organization the IPDSC. This gave IDSF control of a professional organization . The IDSF no longer had to negotiate with WDC for adjudicators. And more importantly they now had a group that were dependent on them for work, as they were not supposed to judge any “non-sanctioned” events. The IDSF must of thought they were on the way to realizing their real dream – sole control of dancesport.

Not surprisingly, the IDSF had already done a trial run of this scheme in Canada where the amateur association CADA made a deal with a few dissatisfied professionals, to only use their group for adjudicators at their events. However the new group, which became the CDF, had to agree that their members would not be allowed to judge or compete in WDC events.

This whole plan now seems to be going down the drain. Witness the disappearance of two of the founders of IPDSC. And, although they have tried to penalize adjudicators who have judged IDSF non-sanctioned events, this has been a dismal failure. The adjudicators penalized have said - so what -  and torn up their IDSF cards. At the same time, many of the top adjudicators who have IDSF licenses have judged many WDC sanctioned events and they have never been disciplined.

The same fate has happened in Canada. The CDF rules will not allow any of their members, adjudicators or competitors, to participate in a competition without their approval. The CDF rules state:

CDF registered adjudicators should not judge any competition not recognized by CDF, Professional or Amateur, before checking with CDF.

 Professional Competitors and Pro-Am Teachers, who are members of CDF, should not compete at any Championship or Competition not recognized by CDF.

Are CDF any more successful in enforcing the CADA/CDF rules than IDSF/IPDSC have been in enforcing their banning policy? Not really. There was a WDC/CDDSC event held recently in Quebec. A couple of weeks prior to this an event was held in Kingston Ontario sanctioned by IDSF/CADA/ CDF. The best Canadian Professional couples danced in both events.  There were no sanctions applied by CDF on any of the Canadian Professionals. They knew if they did they would lose them, as well as many others. They do not dare enforce their rules. They might scare the little competitor from dancing in a competition but the international class competitor pays no attention.

The top Canadian Professionals are not alone in taking this stance. It is happening all over the world.

Yes the WDC are winning the war against bans.  Simply because the competitors are no longer willing to go along with such high handed arrogance by a few individuals in the IDSF executive who themselves never gained any eminence as competitors.

Re: BANNING IS A SHAM

sexta-feira, 23 de outubro de 2009 13:56

Think of me said:

Dancing in both WDC and IDSF comps ?  What is says to me is: I exclude myself from playing your  politics, I / we shall not be used...do whatever is in your power ...but be careful, the damage and consequences could be irreversible.

The policies competitors and adjudicators exclude themselves from is the IDSF/CADA/CDF policy of banning. The competitors do not exclude themselves from the WDC/CDDSC policy of allowing competitors to join whatever organizations they wish and to dance in their competitions. In fact by their actions the competitors most strongly endorsed the WDC/CDDSC open market policy.

It is becoming more and more evident that the WDC open policy is the choice of competitors. Why wouldn’t it be? The top competitors are showing the lead. I suspect more will follow their example, as it will now be more difficult to penalize any other competitors for doing the same thing. In fact it would probably be against the law for them to now apply penalties against others and if they did they would be open to legal action.

Re: BANNING IS A SHAM

sexta-feira, 23 de outubro de 2009 18:41

@sambatogo

No , in English Should Not  is not same as Will Not, hence the term is used as vague as it may be to confuse, to threaten etc., however it is a threat without meaning, consequence, it is not enforceable and it has no teeth.  French ,  Arabs and Turks  don't seem to understand this,  reason for unnecessary disagreements and arguments.

The fact remains May Not is same as May. Where neither one is Will ,  but sambatogo  do not think of me, think of IT.

 I regret that the gentle  reader has such a tunnel vision, the reason why we may  find ourselves in such a mess,  on the other hand  a little substance is more than no substance  and I thank you for pointing it out.

Dancers have no war, dancers have no disputes,  dancers are being used, abused and  milked wherever, whenever possible and treated as if pawns ...You may remember what many Canadian dancers called the  stupid Registration requirement  a few years back , introduced by the used-to-be CDDSC to  recount (at the cost of $ 20 annual fee)  and keep track of the already counted ( by CADA)  Canadian Amateurs in order to maintain purity of amateurs and to keep pseudo amateurs away ..an failed attempt  to gain advantage in a battle...the last straw that broke the camels back   which resulted in a lost battle and possibly loss of  the perceived war.

Little do the rules makers and those who elect themselves as the  leaders (the dancers'  authority)   know of  the chess-game they try to play if   they  ignore the  metamorphoses of a pawn which reaches  # 8 position on the chess board,   and its effect on the outcome of the  Game.

You may not t like my  example, you may not  (in this case you will, which is an argument not a proof  that 'may not' is 'will not'  ) find it relevant,  what does chess to do with groceries ....  some never get it , fortunately others may,  or one can hope so.  

Back to the original  question :  

Answer:  to measure the effect of the bans, threats and other deterrents compare  the numbers of participating couples, couples impacted upon by the bans in the banned events.

Whether or not sham, or a  deterrent .... you be the judge... looking at the numbers I would say it had a significant  impact.  Unfortunately any brave enough dancers  who out of desperation went  against the ban are  immediately pointed out by the speakers for the opposite camp, hailed heroes and the exceptional and isolated  "revolt" is hailed as  example of the opposing camp allegedly winning a war....NOT EXACTLY THE MOST ATTRACTIVE METHOD OF ENCOURAGING MORE DISCONTENT COUPLES TO TEST NEW (BANNED) COMPETITIONS.

Re: BANNING IS A SHAM

sábado, 24 de outubro de 2009 21:49

Think of me

I totally disagree. Not with your sentiments, but your "results". If- repeat- if- we measure effectiveness by numbers and participative success then it would appear that the bans are becoming irrelevant.

Why do I say? Simple. The WDC Worlds in Disney is on again, with more- and even better, if possible- adjudicators- and according to them, if one so believes,made a huge profit in it's first year- the worst year since the wars on record in finance and commerce.

Regardless of position, and looking from outside as I do, one cannot argue with that.

If one accepts your rationale that is.

Regards to all.