The IASCA Finals is an invitational. There are four ways a competitor can GAURANTEE themselves an invitation,

1. Earn 70 or more points during a competition season.

2. Win a State Championship and attend at least two additional sanctioned IASCA shows.

3. Be #1 or #2 in points in your class in YOUR ZONE.

4. Be a defending Finals champion.

The one requirement common to ALL qualifying options is that you be an IASCA Competitor member during the competition season for which the Finals is the culminating event.

Simply put: In order to receive an invitation to the 2001 IASCA Finals, a competitor MUST have been a member prior to September 1, 2001.

Unfortunately, Michael was not, as were the other three competitors.

This fact came to the attention of the IdBL judges not because of a complaint, but because of the software IdBL uses to keep track of scoring. When the score keeper attempted to enter scores for these 4 competitors, there was no competitor number in the system. When it was researched in order to get the competitor membership number, it was discovered that these competitors were not members prior to the September 1, 2001 deadline. Therefore, they were competing illegally, regardless of what they were told by the IASCA office.

When it was brought to my attention, I did everything I could to resolve the manner in a way that would satisfy the competitors...ALL COMPETITORS.

Terry Miller, Tom Walker, Stan Frazier and myself spoke with Michael, he was understandably upset, however, he was a gentleman. The position of IASCA was: That while a mistake was made, bad advice given and Michael allowed to register, the rules were clear on the requirement that a competitor needed to be a member during the season.
I did not want to DQ Michael.

It was suggested to me by other competitors that I allow the competitors to vote.

I spoke with the Competition Committee and requested that I be allowed to hold a competitor meeting. Their position was that if the competitors unanimously agreed to let these four competitors compete, then they would abide by the wishes of the competitors. If the vote was not unanimous, then I was to either enforce the rule or refer it to the Competition Committee and they would enforce the rule.

A meeting was held and the vote was not unanimous. I was left with no other option but to disqualify these four competitors, Michael included.

I do not know what else I could have done. I am open to any suggestions as to any other way this could have been handled.

The IASCA office clearly made a mistake in telling Michael and these three other competitors that they could attend the Finals without fully researching the circumstances. However, a mistake in the office does not negate a rule that has been in existence since IASCA was founded.

To blame other competitors or the Competition Committee or the judges for this situation is simply wrong.

The office made a mistake...plain and simple.

I hunted for every possible out and found none.

As I said, this was a lose-lose situation.

It was unfortunate and IASCA should apologize to all 4 competitors.

I don't expect IASCA to receive "fair and balanced" coverage on the dBDrag Forum, but it is disappointing to read remarks by people that were at the Finals and see the simple truth twisted for their own personal use.

As far as other competitors being invited that shouldn't have, I am not aware of any other IdBL competitors that were not members prior to the cut-off date. IASCA awards a competitor 10 CAP points for being an active member, so maybe some of the invitees that are being referred to as "not qualified", got an invite based on their membership CAP points.

On a final note: those on this forum (or any other forum) that want to trash me for the way I handled this unfortunate situation, it is your American (or Canadian) right to do so, however, I suggest that you substitute USAC or dBDRA for IASCA in this situation and honestly question whether or not they would have handled it different or as gracefully.

To Michael and the other three competitors, I want to again state that I appreciate your anger and frustration and I commend you in the way you conducted yourself in the face of a very trying situation.

All of you were gentlemen...albeit, angry gentlemen.

--------------------

--------------------

There is no way to change the past, but the future can be a brighter day.

Thank you for offering your input, so that others may have a better understanding of
the situation.

Thanks for the update. I am not going to start the Iasca bashing on here as some know I have a sour taste for the league. This is mainly because of one staff memember which is not you or Terry.

Though a mistake like this does cost a competitor alot of money and I feel that the competitor should be compensated for this type of mistake. I personally am not aware of this rule but the last rule book that I have is 2000.

This is my suggestion. We know how the PR of Iasca has been down over the past year, this would be one way to show that Iasca does care about the competitors and not just $$$.

What is important is that when something like this does happen and a clear error was made, the competitors should be reimbursed 100% for their trip, including hotel and gas money if they can provide receipts.

I know in the business world when something does go wrong, a company is not supposed to say who is to blame for a situation, but I believe this is the time to step up to the plate and accept blame.

If it is clearly stated in the rule book as to how to become a competitor at finals, why couldn't the people at the "office" look in this rule book?

It seems you could be telling the truth here but you know what they say, there are 3 sides to every story.

To put it plain and simple, Mike was told he can compete at your finals by office, mike took time off work, his obligations at home, drove 1000+ miles with an assurance he will have a spot to compete when he gets there......and he should have been given just that, a chance to compete.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Major Jam:
For those of you that think IASCA should pay out money... I'm curious how much you think they should pay out? $10, $50, $80, $100, $250, $500, $1000, $5000?

[ 10-24-2001: Message edited by: Major Jam ]

---

It is not us to us to place an amount on reinbursement, but if it were, I would think the competitors would have to itemize all of their expenses, then submit the completed forms to the IASCA office for approval. On another note, maybe it is not the actual amount that is the issue, but the idea that IASCA is willing to do "something" to make up for the error.

I think now, would be a good time to wait until Mr. Hughes and/or the other competitors have a chance to respond to the original post, before we step too far out of our means.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iggster:

If it is clearly stated in the rule book as to how to become a competitor at your finals, why couldn't the people at the "office" look in this rule book?

[ 10-24-2001: Message edited by: Iggster ]

---

They can't be forced to memorize the rulebook, just like db drag judges, LOL. -- Sorry, had to do it. This was meant in fun, don't bash me.

I agree with all that has been said, and I believe that some form of compensation needs to be done, whether that be return of membership fees, free invite and membership to finals next year, whatever, they need to do something. It would be nice and appropriate to cover travel expenses, but that could get really expensive, really fast. It is no longer about "assigning blame" and is now in the "let's fix this" stage, so really the people now to deal with are IASCA. I would imagine that some PROFESSIONAL written letters to the office would help voice our opinions better than bashing IASCA on this forum.

I think I need to make something very clear here: several posts have referred to IASCA as "your organization" as if this is my decision. The facts are that I am not an owner, employee or Board member of IASCA. I am not empowered in any way to decide whether or not IASCA should compensate these competitors for their expenses.

I was at the Finals to run IdBL. My role was similar to that of a Head Judge.

Ask your self, "Does Brantley Waites have the ability to commit dBDRAG funds to compensate competitors at the dBDrag Finals for mistakes made due to malfunctioning equipment or staff mistakes? The answer is no. Only Wayne can make such decisions and at IASCA, only the Board of Directors can make such a decision.

I have not been an IASCA Board member since January 2000. I have not been an IASCA subcontractor since August 2000. I have not worked for Rockford Fosgate since September 1999. My current employer is First Choice Solutions - a software company. My involvement with IASCA is limited to the role of a judge and as an independent event coordinator.

People need to get that clear in their head before they make posts that suggest that I Ron Trout need to "step up to the plate". I did step up to the plate in all of the capacity that I could.

I addressed the unfortunate situation. Identified the problem and searched for a fair solution. As I said in a previous post it was a lose-lose situation. But I stood there and took the arrows. I didn't "refer it to a higher authority".

I find it funny that some people on this forum, who don't know me or have never been involved in any ventures with me, think of me as a "pile". What a joke.

If anybody wants to engage in meaningful discussions, I respect that. If they hold a different opinion, I respect that. If they want to duke it out, I respect that. If they just want to engage in name calling, I don't have the time.

Thank you,

Ron Trout

I had 96 points. The next closest competitor had 56, then one with 30, one with 28, and one with 12. All received finals invites. From what I can tell with my own research, there was a competitor in my own zone, from my own town, that placed higher than myself, without having competed at all in the 2001 season.

I would wager this may have occured in other classes as well.

Regardless, the executive board did what it felt was correct in the case of the IDBL competitors. I can respect that decision, I don't agree with it when it was potentially allowed to occur in another portion of competition. I am not 100% sure, but in my own research, there is a competitor in my class who never took to the lanes, yet competed at finals. I could be wrong. But I'm not demanding his DQ either. I think if he got there, he should have been allowed to compete.

Most of all, I believe that IASCA and IDBL competitors need to take this lesson into account to make the 2002 season better.

Lastly I will add that it takes a great deal of guts on the part of Ron Trout to come on here and lay it all out on the table so to speak. More often then not when something bad goes down at an event like this rumor and innuendo spread like wildfire and the real truth is never known or addressed by the folks in the know. Ron stepped up to the table and admitted fault and he should not be crucified for it because he did what he and the organization thought was the only fair thing to do regardless of how painful it was.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BetaTDI:
Just an FYI for all the IASCA bashers that may be reading this and steaming inside. IASCA has refunded all the competitors involved their registration fees as well as their membership fee and has given them free memberships for the 2002 season. Add to this they are in the process of collecting money together to pay these guys something for their troubles. This money is being given by the competitors themselves along with the judges and board members. It may not amount to much after all is said and done but this is an organization that is run on a shoestring budget as is and is doing all they can to stay solvent. I think it is a very noble gesture by them to try and right a wrong.

Lastly I will add that it takes a great deal of guts on the part of Ron Trout to come on here and lay it all out on the table so to speak. More often then not when something bad goes down at an event like this rumor and innuendo spread like wildfire and the real truth is never known or addressed by the folks in the know. Ron stepped up to the table and admitted fault and he should not be crucified for it because he did what he and the organization thought was the only fair thing to do regardless of how painful it was.

My $.02

---

Glad to see the right thing is being done.