IWSF TC Issue

IWSF Tournament Council Issue: 437
Site Code Request
Date Opened 2015-12-08
Date Closed 2019-09-01
See all other issues
Here is the issue

We have a request for a site code.  The request is from Drew Ross who owns a lake that is adjacent to the lake at the Isles of Hancock (where Freddy set a jump record).  His request triggered the site definition issue.
Please read Issues #213,214,216,217, and 219.
We did approve a policy in issue 217 as follows:
One site code will be awarded in a 1.5km (1 mile) area.  Exceptions may be requested and they will be individually considered and voted on by the TC.
In a later issue you will see that we found quite a few sites closer than 1.5 km.
However, at this point we do not have any active complaints so that would seem to indicate that the status quo is OK.
Drew supplied 2 pictures:
http://www.iwsf.com/iwsftc/2015/isthmus%20separating%20lakes.jpg
http://www.iwsf.com/iwsftc/2015/aerial%20of%20community.jpg

Drew has held tournaments using the existing tournament code for Lake Stailing.  He is on Lake Ledbetter which has a completely different ownership.

Here is an excerpt from his letter:
There are two lakes "beside" each other, but separated by a street and houses.  The original lake, known on maps as Lake Stailing, is owned entirely by the Isles of Lake Hancock Ski Club, Inc.  As you are aware. the Isles Ski Club has held a number of tournaments each year now for two decades.  Currently, the most active tournament host within the Club is the Garcia family; Dana Garcia is President of the Isles of Lake Hancock Ski Club and is cc'd on this email.  The Isles of Lake Hancock Ski Club owns the site sanction number USASO378 for its site, Lake Stailing.
 
The second lake is known on maps as Lake Ledbetter, is owned entirely by two corporate entities, Carida Ski Lakes, Inc. and Justen Properties LLC.  Each of these corporate entities is owned by wife Leigh Ross and our two children Neilly and Charles Ross.
 
The lakes are separate bodies of water with entirely separate ownership.  We would ask for guidance in seeking a separate site number for Lake Ledbetter--while the Club has graciously allowed the "use" of its site number for the Ross family to host tournaments on Lake Ledbetter, it would make sense that the site be recognized as they are, separate and independent.
 
I would especially like athlete input on this matter as they are most affected by this issue.

Thanks.
Yes to approve
No to disapprove

-------------------------------------------
2015-12-08
Wayne Briant comments: I am well aware of this situation at isles of Hancock
They are 2 very different lakes and ownership as stated. They use to be joined and have since been separated and had a housing development built between the lakes.
I do not see a problem with this application
2015-12-08
Felix Loreto comments: I have not been there, but if lakes are different water bodies, I do not see why there should be a problem.
The more lakes we have and the more skiers we have, the better for our sport growth. 
After that, the next concern should be safety for the skiers (water depth, skiers riding near shores, water etc.)  which I would believe has already been proven.
2015-12-09
Bruce Cockburn comments: As they are different bodies of water I have no problem with this request
Bruce Cockburn votes YES
2015-12-09
Kuno Ritschard has read the issue and has no comment
2015-12-09
Nigel Talamo has read the issue and has no comment
Nigel Talamo is not voting at this time
2015-12-09
Glen Williams comments: Yes . Different bodies  so  different sites .
Glen Williams votes YES
2015-12-10
Jeffry Armstrong comments: I would respectfully ask that all members go back and read or re-read what the discussions were at the time of the policy setting ..........which states that 1.5 miles must separate different sites.  At the time, we were talking about other lakes with \'completely different ownership also\'.  Based on these facts,and the fact that we were trying to STOP the BENDING OF THE RULES,which is what was said in the last discussions on this subject.......Also, one of the thoughts put forth was NOT having someone get two rankings list scores without going out of their backyard.   Things seem to have been working fine with one site code.    I am going to vote no. I see no reason for two sites codes for lakes directly adjacent to each other. This is what was decided.  What is exceptional about this place?  WE have plenty of sites with multiple lakes and different ownerships.
Jeffry Armstrong votes NO
2015-12-11
Candido Moz comments: I have to agree with Jeffry, there are many sites with multiple lake and different ownerships.
Candido Moz votes NO
2015-12-11
Bob Corson comments: I would really appreciate the point of view of the AAC on this issue.  
Bob Corson is not voting at this time
2015-12-14
Nigel Talamo comments: The protocol for site codes seems to be clear and ownership is not an issue.
Nigel Talamo votes NO
2015-12-15
Bob Corson comments: Please may we have comments from the AAC members.
Thank you.
Bob Corson is not voting at this time
2015-12-15
Hannu Rintanen has read the issue and has no comment
2015-12-15
Jacinta Carroll comments: I vote yes.
Jefferey i understand that these lakes are within the 1.5mile rule however as a skier they are different. If we want to eliminate potential for skiers doing tournaments on both lakes back to back and just gaining alot of scores maybe there could be a time frame between events. Such as lakes like this have to have a few days between each tournament. Cant be on same day and skiers ski in both.... does this make sense?
2015-12-16
Bob Corson comments: The issue is not whether the lakes are different but are the skiers who have access to this situation being given an unfair advantage over others who don\'t.  That was the position of the AAC when this was established.  
Bob Corson is not voting at this time
2015-12-16
Celementine Lucine comments: This is a tricky issue... and i understand and agree with both points of view which makes it hard to vote... 
Here are my points of view on different things :
- For a skier, each lake, (even the ones next to each other but not connected) is different. For exemple at Jacks, it\'s very different to slalom on lake 1 compared to lake 2, however, it\'s the same ownership, so we consider it the same place.
- Garcia\'s lake and Drew\'s lake are similar lakes but different lakes. They used to be connected, but are not anymore and have different owners. So we consider them as 2 different places. 
- If the main goal behind the issue is to prevent skiers to do tournaments (for scores) in their backyards only, i think keeping the same site code would not change anything anyway as there are tones of ski lakes within a few miles radius, so technically any skier that lives in Winter Garden could do many tournaments \"almost\" in their back yard anyway. (lucky!)
- The main unfair advantages are the fact that there are way more great ski lakes very near from each others compared to anywhere in the world.. So for sure it will never be fair for a kid who lives in Ukraine compare to a kid who lives in Winter Garder, but unfortunately, keeping the same site code won\'t make a difference i think.
- I believe however that every tournament should be open to anyone based on the date you send your entry form, and everyone should be aware of them. Tournaments for scores (so not the pro or title events) shouldn\'t be \"invitational only\". There should be a rule that allows any skier to ski tournaments if he enters within the rules (paid his fee, if the tournament is not full yet, etc.) You would not believe how many tournaments i wasn\'t able to do this year for ALL reasons... so i guess if this helps having more tournaments (they are also all full all the time) it\'s better and would give more advantages for foreigners to actually do those tournaments...

So overall :

- If the goal is to prevent backyard tournaments, keeping the same site code won\'t achieve this goal anyway
- The lake, organisers, owners, etc. are different (like Swiss and Champion lakes for exemple) so i think it\'s ok if they are separated.

Hope you understand what i mean...
Celementine Lucine votes YES
2015-12-16
Dimos Alexopoulos comments: Clementine, I understand your point of view but I will stay with the policy that was decided some time ago concerning the issue of distance between lakes
Dimos Alexopoulos votes NO
2015-12-16
Celementine Lucine comments: No problem Dimos, i\'m just giving my input ;)

Just one more thing. Here is a link to the lakes :https://www.google.fr/maps/place/Winter+Garden,+FL,+%C3%89tats-Unis/@28.4535128,-81.6084753,16z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x88e7837293f8c4ad:0x1ac778dc28a29702

You can see the two small lakes, drew\'s lake on the left, Garcia\'s on the right, and in the back there is the big lake hancock. This is were i have my boat and train with Pierre.
If hypothetically i were to organise a tournament, as the lake is within the 1.5 miles radius, that means i won\'t be able to have a separate side code? (even though those lake are so different that we could be in two different cities) right?
Thanks for the input
Celementine Lucine is not voting at this time
2015-12-16
Jeffry Armstrong comments: Dear Jacinto, Ryan and Clem:
I argued very heavily (at the time this policy was passed) that a separate body of water that was owned by a different individual should be able to have a different site code(go back and read the comments about numbers 213 214 and 217 not positive)  That is when E&A came up with the proposal we have now passed.
I am only trying to stay with what we passed several months ago with different TC members.  I don\'t think the TC can change just \'with the wind\'.  I will say that the position the TC took could be changed, I guess......like any rules, BUT we need to decide on something for this issue and STAY WITH IT!!!!AND NOT CHANGE because it is a friend of someone.
Jeffry Armstrong is not voting at this time
2015-12-17
Peter Person comments: My view, as earlier, was for a different code but that the issue of its use and advantage/disadvantage to be managed or controlled through other rules/policy such as distance. 
Peter Person is not voting at this time
2015-12-18
Geoffrey Kee                     has read the issue and has no comment
Geoffrey Kee                     is not voting at this time
2015-12-18
Hanifah Yoong Yin Fah comments: Hi all, very interesting discussion indeed. By the way we have 2 ski sites with slalom courses in Putrajaya 3.5km apart and maybe it is possible to apply for a different site code for each site? 
2016-01-02
Bob Corson comments: Peter, can you suggest a specific example of a policy that could be used and how that would control/manage the situation?

Geoffrey, please cast your vote.
Thanks.
Bob Corson is not voting at this time
2016-01-02
Peter Person comments: My thinking is to simply allow the site code as wanted, perhaps defining a site as one slalom course with perhaps a jump course. A multi lake site could be one or more codes as owners may desire. While national sanction policy may or may not permit multi events that are too close or same day, for IWWF purposes, skiers may record scores from only one site(event) within some radius (say 25km or whatever) and also consistent with current policy of 4 rounds maximum and 3 days between events within that radius distance.
Peter Person is not voting at this time
2016-01-03
Bob Corson comments: Peter, with your proposal, you could not record scores from both lakes (with different site codes) on the same weekend, but could record scores if there were separate tournaments, one for each lake, 1 week apart, for example.
The original concept was that a skier shouldn\'t be able to record all their performances on their home site (without leaving their house).  This concept was proposed and supported by the AAC at the time.
Bob Corson is not voting at this time
2016-01-03
Jeffry Armstrong comments: Bob:
Do you think it would help for you to list what the exact policy is right now.
If we have a policy that covers this situation then, we have to vote to change the policy ??????? correct or not.  We have had request that were this same exact scenario and we voted it down, I think.
Jeffry Armstrong is not voting at this time
2016-01-03
Peter Person comments: Does it not work to say only one performance may come from within a certain region/distance? (Make that distance arbitrarily large enough to eliminate multi lake sites. If it happens to eliminate a nearby site, too bad, encourage diversity not familiarity). One could still ski at a second, close site, but only one will count, the better one perhaps. 
Peter Person is not voting at this time
2016-01-04
Celementine Lucine comments: I dont believe distance is the right choice at all. It would penalized some region of the world where the lake are all closed by. For exemple Drew\'s lake and Freddy\'s lake are close by if you look with google map, but they are as different as if they were in two different countries. Scores on both lake should be recorded. They are less similar than Hancock and Travers or Fluids, even though there is just a bit more distance with the others. This is not right. If a small man made lake happens to be near a big lake for exemple, they should be two different sites. 
What if the rules specifies : \"for the same body of water and also for adjacent man made not connected lakes\"?
Celementine Lucine is not voting at this time
2016-01-08
Geoffrey Kee                     has read the issue and has no comment
Geoffrey Kee                     is not voting at this time
2016-01-09
Wayne Briant has read the issue and has no comment
2016-01-09
Ryan Dodd comments: My  feeling is it should need to be a separate lake and ownership and proximity shouldn\'t matter. 
If I buy land bordering a man made tournament site  and build a lake parallel to it and have my own private lake why can I not also host a tournament and try to get a score ?
Seems fair to me ...


2016-01-09
Bob Corson comments: For Jeffry (and all) the current policy as approved by this committee is as follows:
One site code will be awarded in a 1.5km (1 mile) area.  Exceptions may be requested and they will be individually considered and voted on by the TC.

This policy was suggested and supported by the AAC members at the time.
We are in the process of considering a requested exemption.  There are 3 outstanding votes.  We should complete this vote.  If you want to change your vote, you may do so, but we should complete this issue.
Thanks.

Bob
Bob Corson is not voting at this time
2016-01-09
Peter Person has read the issue and has no comment
Peter Person votes YES
2016-01-09
Jeffry Armstrong comments: For those who have answered YES, what makes this request different that the one that was requested from a year ago, where the site was not connected.....no contiguous water..... at all and HAD  another owner and it was REJECTED.
Jeffry Armstrong votes NO
Non-voting members who have
commented and
Voting members who have Voted
Wayne Briant - Commented
Felix Loreto - Commented
Bruce Cockburn - voted Yes
Jose Antonio Perez Priego - Commented
Glen Williams - voted Yes
Jeffry Armstrong - voted No
Candido Moz - voted No
Nigel Talamo - voted No
Hannu Rintanen - Commented
Jacinta Carroll - Commented
Manon Costard - voted Yes
Dimos Alexopoulos - voted No
Hanifah Yoong Yin Fah - Commented
Ryan Dodd - Commented
Peter Person - voted Yes
Non-voting members who have
not commented and
Voting members(*) who have not Voted
Bob Corson
Gill Hill
Robin Wright
Larry Gisler*
Stian Lilleberg
Sergio Font*
Javier Julio
Geoffrey Kee*
Donal Connolly
Paul Fong
Corey Vaughn
Ricardo Botas
Santiago Correa
Mario Pigozzi
Richard Carlson
Robert Ritter
James Timothy
Georgi Renosto
Dana Garcia*
Peter Frei
Martin Kolman*
Gavin Kelly*