Minutes of Athletes' Reps/Pro Committee Meeting, 27th September 2007

Harry The Hat · 11-13-2007, 04:10 PM

MINUTES of the Annual Meeting of the IFBB Professional Committee

Thursday, September 27, 2007
Salon B,
Orleans Hotel,
Las Vegas,
Nevada

The meeting was called to order at 4:00pm by Jim Manion, Chairman, IFBB Professional League.

The roll call was taken; the following members were present:

Jim Manion (USA) – Chairman
Jim Rockell (USA) – Men’s Representative
Sandy Williamson (USA) – Women’s Representative
Rob Wilkins (USA) – Athlete Liaison (the Americas)
Pawel Filleborn (Poland) – Athlete Liaison (Europe)
Steve Weinberger (USA) – Promoter Representative
Rick Collins (USA) – Legal Advisor
Bob Cicherillo (USA) – Athlete Representative
Betty Pariso (USA) – Athlete Representative
Jen Hendershott (USA) – Athlete Representative
Jenny Lynn (USA) – Athlete Representative

Proposal 1
A proposal from Betty Pariso that there be three Ms. Olympia qualifying spots for smaller shows [two-category competitions].

[Explanatory note: Currently, for any one-category female bodybuilding competition except the Ms. Olympia and Ms. International, the top 3 finalists qualify for the next Ms. Olympia. Where there are two categories, the top finalist in each category qualifies.]

Proposal Rejected

Proposal 2
A proposal from Betty Pariso that the use of props in female bodybuilding competition be permitted.

[Explanatory note: Currently, the use of props in bodybuilding competition is prohibited.]

Proposal Rejected

Proposal 3
A proposal from Betty Pariso that the “desired look” for female bodybuilding be formalized in writing as part of the IFBB Pro Rules.

Proposal Rejected

[Explanatory note: After some discussion, the committee held the majority opinion that the judges were already shaping the look for female bodybuilding with the winners they choose and therefore, there was no need for additional criteria other than what is currently expressed in the Pro Rules.]

Proposal 4
A proposal from Jenny Lynn regarding the release of contact information of Athlete-Members to the Athlete Representatives.

Proposal Adopted

[Explanatory note: The IFBB Pro League office will ensure that the Athlete Representatives are provided with up-to-date contact information.]

Proposal 5
A proposal from Bob Cicherillo that athletes be required to have a written contract, signed and approved, no later than 8 weeks prior to the date of the competition.

Proposal Adopted With Modification

[Modification: Athletes will be required to have a written contract postmarked no later than 6 weeks prior to the date of the competition. Contracts received after the due date will be subject to a US $500 late fee to the promoter.]

Proposal 6
A proposal from Bob Cicherillo that athletes with a signed contract 8 weeks from the date of competition will receive a US $1,000 fee on cancellation of the competition any time prior to the original date set.

Proposal Adopted With Modification

[Modification: Athletes with a signed contract 6 weeks from the date of the competition will split the sanction money on deposit at the time of the cancellation upon the cancellation of the competition any time prior to original date set.]

Proposal 7
A proposal from Bob Cicherillo that the “Under 210-lb” class receive one Olympia qualifying spot.

Proposal Rejected

Proposal 8
A proposal from Bob Cicherillo that all IFBB Pro League cards will be renewed by annually by January 1st. Any card renewed after this deadline, and before February 1st, will have an additional US $100 fee attached. Renewals received after February 28th will be doubled, based on the original cost.

Proposal Adopted With Modification

[Modification: All IFBB Pro League cards will be renewed (postmarked) annually by January 15th. Any card renewed after this date will cost the athlete US $400.]

Proposal 9
A proposal from Bob Cicherillo to reduce the “Under 210-lb” class to “Under 202 lbs”.
[Explanatory note: This is not a division into two categories of a men’s bodybuilding competition. The promoter, with the approval of the IFBB Pro League, may elect to open a separate competition for those competitors who are under 202 lbs.]

Proposal Adopted

Other Business

The following Other Business was briefly discussed:

1. Where possible, the individual judge’s scores should be listed in the contest results reported at www.ifbbpro.com

2. The fine of US $1,000 for athletes who withdraw from a competition without a legitimate medical reason, as certified by a physician accepted by the IFBB Pro League, will be enforced.

3. In future, Athlete Meeting times will be approved by the IFBB Pro League and will be published at www.ifbbpro.com for each event.

4. In future, the IFBB Pro League will publish at www.ifbbpro.com comprehensive contest information, including an updated competitor list.

5. The members voted to reject the request for reinstatement from Lee Priest.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00pm.

Minutes Recorded by: Jim Rockell, Men’s Representative

Minutes Transcribed by: Tony Blinn, General Secretary

Minutes Approved by: Jim Manion, Chairman

Minutes Approved by: Ben Weider, OC, CStJ, QC, PhD, President

Picsman · 11-13-2007, 05:05 PM

oh shit....do cory and I have to argue about this again over here too?...

gotta go...but I'll be back in my hotel room ready to post in an hr or so...so get your baseball bats ready ladies and gents...and let's beat the dogshit out of Bo....uhhh...nah....furgetaboutit...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry The Hat

MINUTES of the Annual Meeting of the IFBB Professional Committee

Thursday, September 27, 2007
Salon B,
Orleans Hotel,
Las Vegas,
Nevada

The meeting was called to order at 4:00pm by Jim Manion, Chairman, IFBB Professional League.

The roll call was taken; the following members were present:

Jim Manion (USA) – Chairman
Jim Rockell (USA) – Men’s Representative
Sandy Williamson (USA) – Women’s Representative
Rob Wilkins (USA) – Athlete Liaison (the Americas)
Pawel Filleborn (Poland) – Athlete Liaison (Europe)
Steve Weinberger (USA) – Promoter Representative
Rick Collins (USA) – Legal Advisor
Bob Cicherillo (USA) – Athlete Representative
Betty Pariso (USA) – Athlete Representative
Jen Hendershott (USA) – Athlete Representative
Jenny Lynn (USA) – Athlete Representative

Proposal 1
A proposal from Betty Pariso that there be three Ms. Olympia qualifying spots for smaller shows [two-category competitions].

[Explanatory note: Currently, for any one-category female bodybuilding competition except the Ms. Olympia and Ms. International, the top 3 finalists qualify for the next Ms. Olympia. Where there are two categories, the top finalist in each category qualifies.]

Proposal Rejected

Proposal 2
A proposal from Betty Pariso that the use of props in female bodybuilding competition be permitted.

[Explanatory note: Currently, the use of props in bodybuilding competition is prohibited.]

Proposal Rejected

Proposal 3
A proposal from Betty Pariso that the “desired look” for female bodybuilding be formalized in writing as part of the IFBB Pro Rules.

Proposal Rejected

[Explanatory note: After some discussion, the committee held the majority opinion that the judges were already shaping the look for female bodybuilding with the winners they choose and therefore, there was no need for additional criteria other than what is currently expressed in the Pro Rules.]

Proposal 4
A proposal from Jenny Lynn regarding the release of contact information of Athlete-Members to the Athlete Representatives.

Proposal Adopted

[Explanatory note: The IFBB Pro League office will ensure that the Athlete Representatives are provided with up-to-date contact information.]

Proposal 5
A proposal from Bob Cicherillo that athletes be required to have a written contract, signed and approved, no later than 8 weeks prior to the date of the competition.

Proposal Adopted With Modification

[Modification: Athletes will be required to have a written contract postmarked no later than 6 weeks prior to the date of the competition. Contracts received after the due date will be subject to a US $500 late fee to the promoter.]

Proposal 6
A proposal from Bob Cicherillo that athletes with a signed contract 8 weeks from the date of competition will receive a US $1,000 fee on cancellation of the competition any time prior to the original date set.

Proposal Adopted With Modification

[Modification: Athletes with a signed contract 6 weeks from the date of the competition will split the sanction money on deposit at the time of the cancellation upon the cancellation of the competition any time prior to original date set.]

Proposal 7
A proposal from Bob Cicherillo that the “Under 210-lb” class receive one Olympia qualifying spot.

Proposal Rejected

Proposal 8
A proposal from Bob Cicherillo that all IFBB Pro League cards will be renewed by annually by January 1st. Any card renewed after this deadline, and before February 1st, will have an additional US $100 fee attached. Renewals received after February 28th will be doubled, based on the original cost.

Proposal Adopted With Modification

[Modification: All IFBB Pro League cards will be renewed (postmarked) annually by January 15th. Any card renewed after this date will cost the athlete US $400.]

Proposal 9
A proposal from Bob Cicherillo to reduce the “Under 210-lb” class to “Under 202 lbs”.
[Explanatory note: This is not a division into two categories of a men’s bodybuilding competition. The promoter, with the approval of the IFBB Pro League, may elect to open a separate competition for those competitors who are under 202 lbs.]

Proposal Adopted

Other Business

The following Other Business was briefly discussed:

1. Where possible, the individual judge’s scores should be listed in the contest results reported at www.ifbbpro.com

2. The fine of US $1,000 for athletes who withdraw from a competition without a legitimate medical reason, as certified by a physician accepted by the IFBB Pro League, will be enforced.

3. In future, Athlete Meeting times will be approved by the IFBB Pro League and will be published at www.ifbbpro.com for each event.

4. In future, the IFBB Pro League will publish at www.ifbbpro.com comprehensive contest information, including an updated competitor list.

5. The members voted to reject the request for reinstatement from Lee Priest.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00pm.

Minutes Recorded by: Jim Rockell, Men’s Representative

Minutes Transcribed by: Tony Blinn, General Secretary

Minutes Approved by: Jim Manion, Chairman

Minutes Approved by: Ben Weider, OC, CStJ, QC, PhD, President

Harry The Hat · 11-13-2007, 06:01 PM

What I don't understand is that the IFBB makes it quite clear that taking AASs goes against the, ahem, very foundations of their federation. Anybody testing positive can expect to be thrashed soundly and thrown out into the street, never to return.

That being the case, why do they need Rick Collins, America's foremost defence attorney for people charged with supply and possession of AAS, at a meeting of the Athletes' Reps/Pro League Committee meeting of the IFBB, spotless natty organization?

[/mock naïvety]

It looks as though it was a tough meeting for Betty. It's as though they gave out all the concessions they were willing to give last year and the message now is 'don't ask for any more'. Betty's 3 proposals were all interesting, for different reasons. The refusal to increase the number of qualifying spots for shows with weight classes seems to be a nudge for the women to go along with a single class instead. This benefits the organizers and officials (the IFBB) because they have a single class to judge, and the promoters, because they don't have to fund two separate prize pools.

The proposal about the 'desired look' for FBBing being standardized is a refusal by the IFBB to put anything into writing, that may later be held against them. God forbid that clear standards, directions and criteria should be formulated, because that would require the judging decisions to conform to them. More to the point, it would require discussions, genuine thought about what female bodybuilding is all about and, ultimately, time and money. It's much cheaper and easier to say no. It means that confused judging decisions can't be measured and found to fail against the set criteria.

The props thing is a very modest request, but the fact that they refused it probably tells its own story. It would have been a small bone to throw to FBBing, but they didn't throw it.

From what I can see Jen Hendershott didn't make any proposals, so I'm assuming that everything in the world of pro fitness is currently blissfully content. Which is nice.

I'd just point out that Jenny's Lynn's proposal at the Athlete's Rep/Pro League Committee Meeting of September 27, 2007:

Quote:

Proposal 4
A proposal from Jenny Lynn regarding the release of contact information of Athlete-Members to the Athlete Representatives.

Proposal Adopted

[Explanatory note: The IFBB Pro League office will ensure that the Athlete Representatives are provided with up-to-date contact information.]

...bears a startling resemblence to the proposal by Jenny Lynn at the Athlete's Rep/Pro League Committee Meeting of September 27, 2006...

Quote:

PROPOSAL TWELVE
The Pro Committee discussed a proposal by Jenny Lynn to improve communications between the Athlete Representatives and his or her “constituency”.

*Note; the Committee decided that each Athlete Representative would receive up-to-date contact information for his or her respective athlete-members.

Proposal ADOPTED

Effectively, they agreed to do something that they had aleady agreed to do 12 months ago to the day.

Picsman · 11-13-2007, 06:02 PM

So I wouldn't have to think too much again...I just cut and pasted my responses...you should all know that references to Boob here in this thread do no good as he doesn't come to this board...I'd probably ban him...lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry The Hat

MINUTES of the Annual Meeting of the IFBB Professional Committee

Thursday, September 27, 2007
Salon B,
Orleans Hotel,
Las Vegas,
Nevada

The meeting was called to order at 4:00pm by Jim Manion, Chairman, IFBB Professional League.

The roll call was taken; the following members were present:

Jim Manion (USA) – Chairman
Jim Rockell (USA) – Men’s Representative
Sandy Williamson (USA) – Women’s Representative
Rob Wilkins (USA) – Athlete Liaison (the Americas)
Pawel Filleborn (Poland) – Athlete Liaison (Europe)
Steve Weinberger (USA) – Promoter Representative
Rick Collins (USA) – Legal Advisor
Bob Cicherillo (USA) – Athlete Representative
Betty Pariso (USA) – Athlete Representative
Jen Hendershott (USA) – Athlete Representative
Jenny Lynn (USA) – Athlete Representative

Proposal 1
A proposal from Betty Pariso that there be three Ms. Olympia qualifying spots for smaller shows [two-category competitions].

[Explanatory note: Currently, for any one-category female bodybuilding competition except the Ms. Olympia and Ms. International, the top 3 finalists qualify for the next Ms. Olympia. Where there are two categories, the top finalist in each category qualifies.]

Proposal Rejected

Proposal 2
A proposal from Betty Pariso that the use of props in female bodybuilding competition be permitted.

[Explanatory note: Currently, the use of props in bodybuilding competition is prohibited.]

Proposal Rejected

Proposal 3
A proposal from Betty Pariso that the “desired look” for female bodybuilding be formalized in writing as part of the IFBB Pro Rules.

Proposal Rejected

[Explanatory note: After some discussion, the committee held the majority opinion that the judges were already shaping the look for female bodybuilding with the winners they choose and therefore, there was no need for additional criteria other than what is currently expressed in the Pro Rules.]

Proposal 4
A proposal from Jenny Lynn regarding the release of contact information of Athlete-Members to the Athlete Representatives.

Proposal Adopted

[Explanatory note: The IFBB Pro League office will ensure that the Athlete Representatives are provided with up-to-date contact information.]

Proposal 5
A proposal from Bob Cicherillo that athletes be required to have a written contract, signed and approved, no later than 8 weeks prior to the date of the competition.

Proposal Adopted With Modification

[Modification: Athletes will be required to have a written contract postmarked no later than 6 weeks prior to the date of the competition. Contracts received after the due date will be subject to a US $500 late fee to the promoter.]

Proposal 6
A proposal from Bob Cicherillo that athletes with a signed contract 8 weeks from the date of competition will receive a US $1,000 fee on cancellation of the competition any time prior to the original date set.

Proposal Adopted With Modification

[Modification: Athletes with a signed contract 6 weeks from the date of the competition will split the sanction money on deposit at the time of the cancellation upon the cancellation of the competition any time prior to original date set.]

Proposal 7
A proposal from Bob Cicherillo that the “Under 210-lb” class receive one Olympia qualifying spot.

Proposal Rejected

Proposal 8
A proposal from Bob Cicherillo that all IFBB Pro League cards will be renewed by annually by January 1st. Any card renewed after this deadline, and before February 1st, will have an additional US $100 fee attached. Renewals received after February 28th will be doubled, based on the original cost.

Proposal Adopted With Modification

[Modification: All IFBB Pro League cards will be renewed (postmarked) annually by January 15th. Any card renewed after this date will cost the athlete US $400.]

Proposal 9
A proposal from Bob Cicherillo to reduce the “Under 210-lb” class to “Under 202 lbs”.
[Explanatory note: This is not a division into two categories of a men’s bodybuilding competition. The promoter, with the approval of the IFBB Pro League, may elect to open a separate competition for those competitors who are under 202 lbs.]

Proposal Adopted

Other Business

The following Other Business was briefly discussed:

1. Where possible, the individual judge’s scores should be listed in the contest results reported at www.ifbbpro.com

2. The fine of US $1,000 for athletes who withdraw from a competition without a legitimate medical reason, as certified by a physician accepted by the IFBB Pro League, will be enforced.

3. In future, Athlete Meeting times will be approved by the IFBB Pro League and will be published at www.ifbbpro.com for each event.

4. In future, the IFBB Pro League will publish at www.ifbbpro.com comprehensive contest information, including an updated competitor list.

5. The members voted to reject the request for reinstatement from Lee Priest.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00pm.

Minutes Recorded by: Jim Rockell, Men’s Representative

Minutes Transcribed by: Tony Blinn, General Secretary

Minutes Approved by: Jim Manion, Chairman

Minutes Approved by: Ben Weider, OC, CStJ, QC, PhD, President

WTF????

Proposal 3
A proposal from Betty Pariso that the “desired look” for female bodybuilding be formalized in writing as part of the IFBB Pro Rules.

Proposal Rejected

[Explanatory note: After some discussion, the committee held the majority opinion that the judges were already shaping the look for female bodybuilding with the winners they choose and therefore, there was no need for additional criteria other than what is currently expressed in the Pro Rules.]
This is a joke right?

Proposal 4
A proposal from Jenny Lynn regarding the release of contact information of Athlete-Members to the Athlete Representatives.

Proposal Adopted

[Explanatory note: The IFBB Pro League office will ensure that the Athlete Representatives are provided with up-to-date contact information.]
Why wasn't this done years ago?

Proposal 5
A proposal from Bob Cicherillo that athletes be required to have a written contract, signed and approved, no later than 8 weeks prior to the date of the competition.
Oh yeah Bob...Good One....NOT!
Proposal Adopted With Modification

[Modification: Athletes will be required to have a written contract postmarked no later than 6 weeks prior to the date of the competition. Contracts received after the due date will be subject to a US $500 late fee to the promoter.]
Oh Boooobbbb...Good One again...NOT!!!....This is really looking out for the athletes....pfft...Tell me which athletes this was good for?

Proposal 8
A proposal from Bob Cicherillo that all IFBB Pro League cards will be renewed by annually by January 1st. Any card renewed after this deadline, and before February 1st, will have an additional US $100 fee attached. Renewals received after February 28th will be doubled, based on the original cost.

Proposal Adopted With Modification

[Modification: All IFBB Pro League cards will be renewed (postmarked) annually by January 15th. Any card renewed after this date will cost the athlete US $400.]
Again...WTF are you thinking Bob? You're supposed to be an advocate for the athletes.....looks like to me you friggen sold them out....AGAIN! You want them to pay $400.00 for a piece of paper because they're late?...and this one has NOTHING TO DO WITH SIGNING A CONTRACT TO COMPETE....so...This is one of your most idiotic proposals ever... Who paid you to propose that one? I think the athletes need a new rep!

Tre · 11-13-2007, 06:37 PM

Does Bob get a kickback for every dollar his new policies extract from his constituents?

Picsman · 11-13-2007, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tre

Does Bob get a kickback for every dollar his new policies extract from his constituents?

not sure....but IMO...he just raped all of the pros on behalf of the federation...

Harry The Hat · 11-13-2007, 07:18 PM

Bob's strike record on proposals is light years ahead of any of the women's. He just seems to have the uncanny ability to make suggestions that the committee feel compelled to say yes to.

Now, far be it for me to suggest that this is possibly because the proposals come from the IFBB themselves. The only Chic proposals that get rejected seems to be the ones that keep cropping up on the message boards (the right to compete in other feds, a salary for each pro) and they're basically put up to be shot down so the Pro Committee can close the issue for good.

But yeah, it does look like a lot of very minor issues being shuffled around. The splitting of the sanction fee amongst athletes for cancelled shows interests me. Does it mean that the whole pot paid by promoters is shared equally amongst all the competitors? So for example, if a promoter has paid $16,000 for a pro MBB sanctioning fee and 3 x $4,000 for the three female physique disciplines (total: $28,000), that 28k goes equally to every pro with a contract for that show? Or does the 16k for the men's sanctioning fee get split amongst the pro men?

It can lead to huge disparities. Say an average men's field of 30. 16k divided by 30 is $533 each. Say an average pro figure field of 50. 4k divided by 50 is $80 each. And if for example the new Tampa show goes belly up with a few weeks to go, that does mean the pro FBBs who have signed for the show get nothing at all, since the promoter got a sanction fee waiver for his first year FBB contest? It'd be nice to see some of the details filled in.

Picsman · 11-13-2007, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry The Hat

Bob's strike record on proposals is light years ahead of any of the women's. He just seems to have the uncanny ability to make suggestions that the committee feel compelled to say yes to.

Now, far be it for me to suggest that this is possibly because the proposals come from the IFBB themselves. The only Chic proposals that get rejected seems to be the ones that keep cropping up on the message boards (the right to compete in other feds, a salary for each pro) and they're basically put up to be shot down so the Pro Committee can close the issue for good.

But yeah, it does look like a lot of very minor issues being shuffled around. The splitting of the sanction fee amongst athletes for cancelled shows interests me. Does it mean that the whole pot paid by promoters is shared equally amongst all the competitors? So for example, if a promoter has paid $16,000 for a pro MBB sanctioning fee and 3 x $4,000 for the three female physique disciplines (total: $28,000), that 28k goes equally to every pro with a contract for that show? Or does the 16k for the men's sanctioning fee get split amongst the pro men?

It can lead to huge disparities. Say an average men's field of 30. 16k divided by 30 is $533 each. Say an average pro figure field of 50. 4k divided by 50 is $80 each. And if for example the new Tampa show goes belly up with a few weeks to go, that does mean the pro FBBs who have signed for the show get nothing at all, since the promoter got a sanction fee waiver for his first year FBB contest? It'd be nice to see some of the details filled in.

I honestly believe that he hasn't done ONE SINGLE THING of any merit...all the so called proposals he's brought up are red herrings and of little concequence...well...maybe one..but I can't remember what it was...nothing he did here to me benefited the athletes very much...now if you say...hey it's something...well...yes it is...but...hey...websites are something too...he just doesn't bring anything but bullshit to the table IMO....
Interesting points Harry...I had similar questions....and I'll bet no one from the boys in blue have an answer....boob may stumble forth spouting largely unadulterated crap relative to those issues....but he's nothing but a parrot who sometimes talks on his own....in the words of the Allman Brothers "wasted words...so absurd...go on home babe...watch it on TV"

What you've suggested is probably what will happen. What ever sanctioning fees that were collected for each event (mbb,fbb,fit/fig) will probably be divided as you suggested...each will only get a portion of "their" sanction fee...stupid....yes better than nothing...but like most of the shit they come up with...mickey mouse bullshit at best...

CoryC · 11-13-2007, 09:37 PM

Eh, its all just asswipe in the end.

CoryC · 11-13-2007, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry The Hat

What I don't understand is that the IFBB makes it quite clear that taking AASs goes against the, ahem, very foundations of their federation. Anybody testing positive can expect to be thrashed soundly and thrown out into the street, never to return.

That being the case, why do they need Rick Collins, America's foremost defence attorney for people charged with supply and possession of AAS, at a meeting of the Athletes' Reps/Pro League Committee meeting of the IFBB, spotless natty organization?

[/mock naïvety]

It looks as though it was a tough meeting for Betty. It's as though they gave out all the concessions they were willing to give last year and the message now is 'don't ask for any more'. Betty's 3 proposals were all interesting, for different reasons. The refusal to increase the number of qualifying spots for shows with weight classes seems to be a nudge for the women to go along with a single class instead. This benefits the organizers and officials (the IFBB) because they have a single class to judge, and the promoters, because they don't have to fund two separate prize pools.

The proposal about the 'desired look' for FBBing being standardized is a refusal by the IFBB to put anything into writing, that may later be held against them. God forbid that clear standards, directions and criteria should be formulated, because that would require the judging decisions to conform to them. More to the point, it would require discussions, genuine thought about what female bodybuilding is all about and, ultimately, time and money. It's much cheaper and easier to say no. It means that confused judging decisions can't be measured and found to fail against the set criteria.

The props thing is a very modest request, but the fact that they refused it probably tells its own story. It would have been a small bone to throw to FBBing, but they didn't throw it.

From what I can see Jen Hendershott didn't make any proposals, so I'm assuming that everything in the world of pro fitness is currently blissfully content. Which is nice.

I'd just point out that Jenny's Lynn's proposal at the Athlete's Rep/Pro League Committee Meeting of September 27, 2007:

...bears a startling resemblence to the proposal by Jenny Lynn at the Athlete's Rep/Pro League Committee Meeting of September 27, 2006...

Effectively, they agreed to do something that they had aleady agreed to do 12 months ago to the day.

Nice catch on that one. As I pointed out on Mayhem I REALLY am enjoying the selective enforcement of the rules. It makes for big fun.

Echo · 11-13-2007, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry The Hat

That being the case, why do they need Rick Collins, America's foremost defence attorney for people charged with supply and possession of AAS, at a meeting of the Athletes' Reps/Pro League Committee meeting of the IFBB, spotless natty organization?

Because the IFBB/NPC does not have an "active" drug policy despite having athlete/participants who have been implicated in federal/state steroid probes. This makes the organization vulnerable to media/governmental investigations. It is now feared that such investigation(s) may be forthcoming pending autopsy findings on Dan Puckett, the 2006 NPC Collegiate bodybuilding champ who was found dead in his dorm room after returning from the gym. The autopsy was performed last thursday and included an array of toxicology tests which will come back in a few weeks.

As a result, it is expected that the subject of drug testing will be brought up at the NPC Board of Governors meeting in Dallas, prior to the National Championships.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry The Hat

The refusal to increase the number of qualifying spots for shows with weight classes seems to be a nudge for the women to go along with a single class instead. This benefits the organizers and officials (the IFBB) because they have a single class to judge, and the promoters, because they don't have to fund two separate prize pools.

Not true. The total purse is a fixed amount for each contest, not each weight class. The effect of having more than one class is, therefore, revenue neutral to the promotion. Having one class has the illusory effect of a greater payout to "the athletes" because the top three in a single class will receive more individual prize money than would be the case by offering prize money to the top three in two classes (i.e. $10K divided by 3 as opposed to $10K divided by 6).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry The Hat

The proposal about the 'desired look' for FBBing being standardized is a refusal by the IFBB to put anything into writing, that may later be held against them. God forbid that clear standards, directions and criteria should be formulated, because that would require the judging decisions to conform to them. More to the point, it would require discussions, genuine thought about what female bodybuilding is all about and, ultimately, time and money. It's much cheaper and easier to say no. It means that confused judging decisions can't be measured and found to fail against the set criteria.

In this situation the rejection is not attributable or motivated by an "anti-FBB" bias. What the IFBB Professional League fears more is that formalized standards for women would create a precedent that opens the door to calls for similar formalized standards for men. The IFBB Pro League desires to be free from any constraints in selecting the person they choose to be Mr. Olympia. At present, the IFBB wants to install people like Jay Cutler(present) and Dennis Wolf(future) as opposed to an athlete along the lines of a Dexter Jackson. The men's division is, from a financial perspective, the only thing that counts in their view and, therefore, demands a maximum of internal control.

Picsman · 11-13-2007, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Echo

Because the IFBB/NPC does not have an "active" drug policy despite having athlete/participants who have been implicated in federal/state steroid probes. This makes the organization vulnerable to media/governmental investigations. It is now feared that such investigation(s) may be forthcoming pending autopsy findings on Dan Puckett, the 2006 NPC Collegiate bodybuilding champ who was found dead in his dorm room after returning from the gym. The autopsy was performed last thursday and included an array of toxicology tests which will come back in a few weeks.

As a result, it is expected that the subject of drug testing will be brought up at the NPC Board of Governors meeting in Dallas, prior to the National Championships. .

So I guess that's why on the application given to the "new pros" there is a statement to the effect that by signing, you agree to random and scheduled drug testing?...fodder...pure fodder....Stevie Wonder could see that if they started testing...there would be no one to pass the test except for MAYBE 2 or 3 athletes.....and therefore no one left to take the competition stage...bring on the seeing eye dogs please....

Tre · 11-14-2007, 09:53 AM

Is the IFBB Professional League based in the U.S.?

CoryC · 11-14-2007, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tre

Is the IFBB Professional League based in the U.S.?

I believe so. Based out of Pittsburgh.

(don't hold me to that though)

Echo · 11-14-2007, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tre

Is the IFBB Professional League based in the U.S.?

Is this another one of your "tongue-in-cheek" joke questions?

Here's the "straight" answer:

Jim Manion
Chairman
IFBB Professional League
P.O. Box 3224 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA 15230
Toll Free: 1-866-304-4322 Tel: (412) 276-5027 Fax: (412) 281-0470

Echo · 11-14-2007, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Picsman

So I guess that's why on the application given to the "new pros" there is a statement to the effect that by signing, you agree to random and scheduled drug testing?...fodder...pure fodder....Stevie Wonder could see that if they started testing...there would be no one to pass the test except for MAYBE 2 or 3 athletes.....and therefore no one left to take the competition stage...bring on the seeing eye dogs please....

For the time being, on the IFBB pro-level, you are, for all intents and purposes, correct. It is fodder. However, that is not where you are going to see random drug testing first implemented, anyway. Where you will first see it, if you see it at all, will be in the NPC, with NPC athletes that have qualified for national-level competition, have maintained their NPC membership status, and have indicated an intent to compete in NPC national-level contests.

Echo · 11-14-2007, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry The Hat

The splitting of the sanction fee amongst athletes for cancelled shows interests me. Does it mean that the whole pot paid by promoters is shared equally amongst all the competitors?

Don't waste your time trying to flesh out all the details because this proposal is a sham. If you didn't already realize it, Bob Chicherillo has been hovering around Jim Manion's feeding trough, literally and figuritively, for quite some time. This proposal is unlikely to be triggered. But that is not its intended purpose.

For quite some time, Jim Manion has been struggling to find a fast, easy, and enforceable mechanism to extract liquidated damages from IFBB pro athletes who fail to appear, as promised/"contracted", at IFBB contests and guest appearances. I think you can figure out what "Chick" and Mr. Manion are up to, or do I need to elaborate?

Picsman · 11-14-2007, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Echo

Don't waste your time trying to flesh out all the details because this proposal is a sham. If you didn't already realize it, Bob Chicherillo has been hovering around Jim Manion's feeding trough, literally and figuritively, for quite some time. This proposal is unlikely to be triggered. But that is not its intended purpose.

For quite some time, Jim Manion has been struggling to find a fast, easy, and enforceable mechanism to extract liquidated damages from IFBB pro athletes who fail to appear, as promised/"contracted", at IFBB contests and guest appearances. I think you can figure out what "Chick" and Mr. Manion are up to, or do I need to elaborate?

bob dickarillo is a puppet for the ifbb...his proposals are red herrings...as an example....he proposed that the athletes have their contracts to compete 8 wks in advance....lol....now here's the bullshit....the revised proposal was 6 wks...but with a late fee attached if later than 6 wks....As I said on MM...he should have just STFU and left it at 8 wks with no penalty....he's a dooshbag....AND he dresses funny

Harry The Hat · 11-15-2007, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Echo

Don't waste your time trying to flesh out all the details because this proposal is a sham. If you didn't already realize it, Bob Chicherillo has been hovering around Jim Manion's feeding trough, literally and figuritively, for quite some time. This proposal is unlikely to be triggered. But that is not its intended purpose.

For quite some time, Jim Manion has been struggling to find a fast, easy, and enforceable mechanism to extract liquidated damages from IFBB pro athletes who fail to appear, as promised/"contracted", at IFBB contests and guest appearances. I think you can figure out what "Chick" and Mr. Manion are up to, or do I need to elaborate?

Ah well, I fleshed out the details anyway. Chic responded on Mayhem to say that, yes, the athletes get a split of only the sanctioning fee paid for their discipline - not of the overall sanctioning fee total. In other words, if there are for example 10 MBBs with contest contracts 6 weeks out and the contest is cancelled, the contracted MBBs will share (at last year's rates) $16,000 divided by 10 = $1,600. If 10 fitness/figure or FBBs are in the same situation, they'd share in the $4,000 sanctioning fee. $4,000 divided by 10 = $400.

The least established show on the calandar is obviously the new one in Tampa, which gets a first year waiver on the sanction fee for FBBing. And, as I suspected, contracted FBBers for that show will therefore get nothing if the show doesn't happen.

And yes, a show not happening after the sanction fees are paid is a rarity, while athletes not showing up for a contest is commonplace, so the IFBB is likely to gain hugely on that particular pair of proposals. In fact, the promoter is effectively paying the athletes off for a cancelled show, even though his or her's money is residing in the Pro League vaults. So, it's win-win for the fed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Echo

I think you can figure out what "Chick" and Mr. Manion are up to, or do I need to elaborate?

You might need to elaborate, I'm feeling particularly dense this morning.