steve jones
Active Member
Interesting notes Hamish thank you for them.
Can you, or can someone, state clearly that the notation for those sports, as per your submission in the above thread, of "In-Competition" designates either "elite" In-Competition or "ALL" In-Competition as authorised, endorsed and sanctioned by the relevant national authority?
Can you or can someone clarify with certainty that a body - such as TBA - has the independent or indeed unilateral right to determine to what degree they apply the legislation pertaining to the actual degree of "In-Competition" - that is to say where the level of "In-Competition" is assessed?
Is this legislation specifically targeted at the elite sphere alone [and on an event by event basis] or once the legislation is embraced [by a national governing body such as TBA] does this necessitate that the meaning and intent of the legislation is required to be applied to ALL levels of "In-Competition" of and to all such events endorsed, approved, authorised or sanctioned by the national governing body of tenpins?
Your response - or the response of someone who can answer with authority will, at least in my view, be extremely interesting.
You will note Hamish in my recent comments that I am 100% behind the logic of what I assume to be the intent of the legislation...targeted to and at the elite sphere. However, if you, or others, are of the view that the FIQ is a body that is beyond question or doubt in passing legislation that is to be applied equally across all borders then, based on many decades of personal experience, I can assure such is NOT the case.
The FIQ is indeed an entity of noble cause - and many individuals associated with determining legislation and outcomes, both now and in the past, are talented, dedicated and highly intelligent people - but conversely many also are little more than posers and pretenders - driving their own agenda's and could care less what the commercial impact is on creating any sort of ruling...particularly on ....let us say the commercial reality of the Australian bowling industry
I can give you an example of how a certain NBF [National Bowling Federation] did all it could to derail the advance of a commercial change to the industry that would have earned sizable incremental revenues across the board to and for the industry in that country - yet the NBF in question elected to do all it could to snuff out this technology simply to preserve their own status and the not insignificant government income stream they benefited from. They were 100% successful as it happened...and the lane bed count in that country nearly halved in under five years. Rest assured this is but one of many similar examples I could relay.
So, am I of the view that TBA does NOT have the profitability and proliferation of the industry as a whole in it's minds eye and best interests - of course not - that would simply be idiotic. But I would trust that the overall legislation can be counted upon to be implemented universally and with clear and defined lines - and in such a manner that guarantees zero negative impact on certain crucial commercial realities.... well.. in this country, at the very least.
Can you, or can someone, state clearly that the notation for those sports, as per your submission in the above thread, of "In-Competition" designates either "elite" In-Competition or "ALL" In-Competition as authorised, endorsed and sanctioned by the relevant national authority?
Can you or can someone clarify with certainty that a body - such as TBA - has the independent or indeed unilateral right to determine to what degree they apply the legislation pertaining to the actual degree of "In-Competition" - that is to say where the level of "In-Competition" is assessed?
Is this legislation specifically targeted at the elite sphere alone [and on an event by event basis] or once the legislation is embraced [by a national governing body such as TBA] does this necessitate that the meaning and intent of the legislation is required to be applied to ALL levels of "In-Competition" of and to all such events endorsed, approved, authorised or sanctioned by the national governing body of tenpins?
Your response - or the response of someone who can answer with authority will, at least in my view, be extremely interesting.
You will note Hamish in my recent comments that I am 100% behind the logic of what I assume to be the intent of the legislation...targeted to and at the elite sphere. However, if you, or others, are of the view that the FIQ is a body that is beyond question or doubt in passing legislation that is to be applied equally across all borders then, based on many decades of personal experience, I can assure such is NOT the case.
The FIQ is indeed an entity of noble cause - and many individuals associated with determining legislation and outcomes, both now and in the past, are talented, dedicated and highly intelligent people - but conversely many also are little more than posers and pretenders - driving their own agenda's and could care less what the commercial impact is on creating any sort of ruling...particularly on ....let us say the commercial reality of the Australian bowling industry
I can give you an example of how a certain NBF [National Bowling Federation] did all it could to derail the advance of a commercial change to the industry that would have earned sizable incremental revenues across the board to and for the industry in that country - yet the NBF in question elected to do all it could to snuff out this technology simply to preserve their own status and the not insignificant government income stream they benefited from. They were 100% successful as it happened...and the lane bed count in that country nearly halved in under five years. Rest assured this is but one of many similar examples I could relay.
So, am I of the view that TBA does NOT have the profitability and proliferation of the industry as a whole in it's minds eye and best interests - of course not - that would simply be idiotic. But I would trust that the overall legislation can be counted upon to be implemented universally and with clear and defined lines - and in such a manner that guarantees zero negative impact on certain crucial commercial realities.... well.. in this country, at the very least.