Re: No 1 WDC Amateur League OPEN World Amateur Championships CORRECT POST VERSION

martes, 01 de julio de 2008 23:09

Hi Sambatogo

A very good question. I also have to thank you for not lacing it with either sarcasm or a deliberate trap to make me look foolish.

To answer your question directly, while I understand what you are trying to say, for me it isn't that simple; there is far more to it than just having a vision and for pros and ams getting together. For me it's about the general direction we should be going in and what that vision is. To use a nautical term, the IDSF nailed its sporting colours to the mast and continues to do so. That's its basic vision. It isn't the WDCs as far as I can tell.

Foregtting the arguments for and against the Olympics etc - it has no relevenace in the point I'm making, the IDSF embarked many years ago on a path to persue Olympic recognition and eventual Olympic status. They persued this venture and succeeded in being recognised. I have no idea what input the WDC had. If it did have some impact then it is very remiss of the IDSF to not recognise this. But if the WDC had no input then I have to ask why not? The only reason I can think is that the WDC had no interest in persuing a sport direction.

Since then the IDSF has continually persued and accepted the concept that our form of dancing is sport and not just art. The WDC I feel accepts this reluctantly if it does at all. Further, the IDSF happily subscribed to the anti doping policy that all sports which Olympic recognised have to. From what I gather the WDC refused to do so. If that is now incorrect then I will be happy to let this go.

People here make much of what the IDSF have to do to appease the IOC. They are missing the point entirely when they make remarks like this. The IDSF do so because it is happy to do not just because it has to be done. They want to be seen as a sports federation. I completely concur with this.

The WDC however, I believe want to go in a completely different direction to the IDSF - an pure artistic direction. Sport is not high on its list. Yes, they do have a Dance Sport section but much is this a priority . I suspect not a lot in reality. 

Some here have suggested that we shouldn't get tangled up in an argument about one word. I have to disagree. It is the basis of the whole disagreement. Everything else including the IDSF silly bans stem from it.

The IDSF also have a structure which is similar to that of most other sports. It runs its affairs in a similar way. It has commissions which are aimed at one purpose - to develop Ballroom & Latin Dancing as a sport - Dance Sport.

This is the direction I want to go in and always have gone in from the earliest days of my dancing career. It has never crossed my mind that my form of dancing was anything other than an artistic sport.

In all conscience I can not support any organisation in our world which does not have the sporting nature of my activity as paramount.  It is this basic reason why I reject the WDC approach and favour the IDSF approach despite all its recent foolhardiness of the latter.

My hope is that the WDC will decide to join us 'sports people'. I will understand if it doesn't but will be dissapointed because it is another step towards complete split, something I don't want to see happen.

Best wishes

Steve

Re: No 1 WDC Amateur League OPEN World Amateur Championships CORRECT POST VERSION

miércoles, 02 de julio de 2008 7:40

@moderate-man

Like you I think it is sad that attempts have been to obscure the original intention of the subject. and later the concealing of the "orders"  I too have been guilty but I have tried to bring the issue to the legality or non-legality of bans boycotts and suspensions which is being threatened against the WDC World Amateur Open Championship.

Athough slightly away form the main subject I do thank you for an excellent and informative post filled with accuracy and consistency. and having relavancy.   It must have been educational for many people and any person with an open mind should certainly have re-evaluated their inaccurate beliefs and claims..

Once again you showed us by their then Presidents own words the real intention and the great "vision" of the IDSF.  A "VISION" for dance/dancesport which is tragic and shameful.

There are so many IDSF members and IDSF supporters who pretend they want "UNITY" and one governing body wheras what they truly mean is ONE body the IDSF and if you do not 100% accept what they demand then we would prefer to have divison.  Why are they ashamed to admit domination is the name of the game and they want no half way meeting and equality? Why not be honest with themselves never mind anyone else.

I do know that some National Associations have been covertly threatened if they recognised or allowed their members to compete in certain events. 

Please can you confirm for me that we have the ridiculous situation that a National IDSF member can recognise an event  and thus all their members can be banished from future IDSF events.  I cannot believe that this is the danceworld in which the competitors wish to live.

I think the great difference  and I hope you will agree between Mr Hegeman and the Presidents who have followed him  were first Mr Hegeman himself was a Champion dancer (German and European) he knew what the competitors wanted and worked for this.  He was highly respected by all.   He believed in the co-operation between Professionals and Amateurs for the mutual good .He strove tirelessly simpy for the good of Dance both Amateur and Professional and for the benefit of the competitors. He and Alex Moore achieved a great deal by talking and working together. I cannot believe that he would have been prepared for the total lunacy of tearing the unity apart over a silly issue like the word Dance or Dancesport. although I truly believe that for those at the top of IDSF it is simply an easy "reason" and for me one that is insane.  

The IDSF of today bears no relationship to the Amateur Association that previously existed and it is in my opinion totally wrong to try hijack and to claim that the former  years were the "History" of the current IDSF.  There is no connection at all.

Reading some of the contributions on this subject I have to wonder if there are a number of "Authors" amongst the membership because they are so good at inventing their own stories.  I hope(but seriously doubt )   they have learned for your great knowledge.  It would be a step too far to admit that they had been so very wrong.

From an IDSF National Member Body the full letter sent by IDSF

Dear Member,

The IDSF Presidium has received notice that World Dance Council (WDC) proposes to produce an "Open World Amateur Ballroom & Latin Championships 2008“ at the Disney Resort Paris, in France, December 5-7, 2008.
This production is not authorized by the IDSF.
It is IDSF policy that IDSF Member Federations, their athletes, official and adjudicators cannot participate in these unregistered competitions.
This event is also not running under IOC Rules and Regulations, that includes the Anti-Doping Code and controls of the WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency).

That last part shows their desperation and falsely ignores the statement issued by the WDC Am League.    One feels sympathy for the competitors they dance under the Rules of the IOC, the WADA, the IDSF, their own national federation, the country in which they live, any country in which they compete  and anyone else IDSF care to dream up.  It must be difficult to know the exact content of all these Rules.  Important to remember  "Rules" are not "Law".  There is a big difference..    

By the way under Rule I of the IDSF I found the following claim

"The only DanceSport competition that the IDSF does not claim to govern and maintain jurisdiction over are those specially declared to be excluded, or to be excluded for a period of time, by the authority of the IDSF Presidium.

This must come as a big surprise for many organisers around the world and especially the British Open, the UK Open and "the International" but in reality is another "IDSF truth".

 

My personal thanks again and very best wishes. 

Re: No 1 WDC Amateur League OPEN World Amateur Championships CORRECT POST VERSION

miércoles, 02 de julio de 2008 10:57

@keggs

PLEASE there is no need to answer my questions.  I have many of my answers from your various other posts since they were  asked.

I criticise IDSF for what they HAVE DONE and INTEND DOING your criticise WDC for what you think without any reason they MIGHT DO.

As I said before it really is not worthwhile and I am sure Admin and the other members would prefer we stay with the subject..

Re: No 1 WDC Amateur League OPEN World Amateur Championships CORRECT POST VERSION

miércoles, 02 de julio de 2008 11:54

@keggs

Sorry I prefer to stick with reality  and the subject.

WDC World Open Amateur championship.

You are either supportive of the position taken by IDSF which is your right or  you are unequivocally and without qualification opposed and join the condemnation.  It is that simple

Re: No 1 WDC Amateur League OPEN World Amateur Championships CORRECT POST VERSION

miércoles, 02 de julio de 2008 13:54

Dear onyourtoes & moderate-man

I feel so sorry for you both. You don't appear to have any real understanding of what democracy actually is. No doubt I will be attacked as being pompous, but your replies are testament to this.

We also now know that as supporters of the WDC you have no real belief in unity or taking our sport forward in a proper organised, well run, focused way. I don't think you ever had. Your only interest is to pour scorn on those who disagree with you. The only answer you want is Yes, you are right, Sir. That isn't democracy in my view.

You accuse the IDSF of being dictatorial. You are right in many ways. But I think the both of you have shown the same. You argue but have not demonstrated to me why I should go your way.

The irony is you hide behind the word 'freedom' as if that makes it alright.

Everyone has a right to freedom. But rights and freedoms come with responsibilities. I would contend that I have the right and freedom to drive on the road, but would it be responsible for me to drive up the wrong way.

I do not see any sense of responsibility in any answer you have given. All I have seen is anger when you can't get me or others who support me to 'go your way'. Sir Thomas Moor was beheaded because he couldn't find the other way when Henry VIII wanted a divorce. Is this what you would like to see happen to dissenters of your point of view. If you do, then what of your attack on Rudi Baumann.

The real truth is as I said so long ago that many of the problems that exist between the IDSF and the WDC are based on jealousy. The IDSF has done some awful things (I have acknowledged that) but your and the WDC's hatred for this organisation is so great you can't even acknowledge the achievements it has made. Even saying IDSF probably causes palpatations. The same I suppose could be applied to the WDC. The IDSF should acknowledge achievements made by the WDC, although I am unsure what they are. I am not being sarcastic. So perhaps you could enlighten me and everyone else as to what they are.

Having thought about it, it is likely anyway that you will poor scorn on those supposed achievements of the IDSF. So perhaps we should drop that one.

That said, perhaps acknowledging each other achievements would be a way of bringing the 2 closer together.

You recently attacked me for not answering your questions in some allotted timeframe only you knew about. Sorry about that. I didn't realise I only had a short time to answer.

I have now answered your questions but as expected (and stated in a previous post) you can only make an acidic remark and I quote: "Sorry I prefer to stick with reality and the subject. The reality to remind you is that there is world wide conflict in our sport and unless people stop grandstanding and get down to proper discussion we are never going to solve the problems. Even if we split the problems won't go away. More likely they will be exacerbated and in line with what Martyn said. Sorry, you put no store by what he says. You don't see the relevance.

Well, we shall see who is right. Probably sooner than we would like.

Despite your supposed belief in democracy, you obviously didn't like the answers I gave you so rather than discuss you took the decision ignore. I did give you an opportunity to ask though. But.......

To echo your own words: that's your choice. But, isn't it rather strange that you had a go at me for having not answered your questions when you thought I should, but when I do, you suddenly find that you have nothing constructive to say. What was so very wrong with them? Don't hang back. Please have a go but please be sensible about it. Perhaps between the three of us we could come up with a plan and suggest it to both parties.

Sorry, we shouldn't bother - the IDSF won't agree. There are 2 parties at least in this dispute. What about the WDC. Why should everything fall on the shoulders of the IDSF? Why should it just be them to do all the running?

As I have said many times, I appear to be the only one on this forum that has come up with any ideas. You might not like them, but would it not be more constructive if you could at least suggest something that perhaps (even me) would find more interesting and more importantly work better for the benefit of all.

The answer to this sadly has to be a 'no' as you never have offered alternative views except to say that people should be 'free' to do whatever they want. The ancient Greeks would have had a field day with that. After all they invented the idea of democracy! It's also possibly the reason why they did invent it, namely to stop a free for all.

A free for all which is what you appear to advocate is in my book the complete opposite of democracy. It's called anarchy. Mind you, even anarchists have rules! Think about that one.

As for the forum topic which you have for so many hours been debating with me you still want a different answer to the one I have already given. In case you have forgotten I will state this again perhaps more fully this time:

I condemn the IDSF for operating a silly ban on their so-called members taking part in what they perceive as an unregistered event. I understand your reasoning but in a spirit of harmony would like you to relinquish that ban. Then get talking to resolve your differences.

I condemn the WDC for deliberately stirring up disharmony and causing further heartache by creating an organisation which you know would cause your antagonist (the IDSF) to react. If your reasons are genuine then I can understand the reasons for doing so but you should have thought far more seriously about what you were doing. While I wish the world championship event a success for the dancers sake, I wish you would cancel it and then get talking to resolve your differences.

Quote: It is that simple.

No, onyourtoes. It is isn't that simple. Nothing in life is. You can accuse me of sitting on the fence. I don't see it that way. I am even handed in my dealings so will not bow to pressure from either side.

If both sides want to destroy each other then so be it. In the end they will have my vision to fall back on.

No doubt you will dislike this answer but it is the only one you will get. Perhaps we can now move on and perhaps come up with ways to persuade both sides to come to the table and talk.

Best wishes

Steve.