News Letter 5/28/07
It's Memorial Day! Hope everyone takes time to remember those that made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country. Also, take a moment to thank those that serve today. If it were not for their dedication to duty, the freedoms we enjoy would certainly be in peril.
At GoHeavy.com, Steve Denison (USPF State Chairman-CA and member of the EC) wrote the following:
I posted this below, but I wanted to start a new thread on where the USPF is going.
The USPF is moving in a positive direction since losing our affilation with the IPF in 97. We now have a new affiliation with the World Powerlifting Federation (WPF) and opportunities for lifters to compete at the World level with other countries using single ply gear and no testing. The USPF/WPF is the true alternative to the USAPL/IPF. Too bad its taken this long to make it happen, but with the WPF Worlds in Mexico this year and the WPF Worlds in Austria next year we are moving ahead with positive steps for lifters looking for an alternative to the other orgs.
After losing the IPF in 97 we lost many state chairman and meet promoters across the nation. Much worse than the UPA trying to take a bite out of the APF. The APF and USAPL gained alot of experience from former USPF promoters and state chairman as well as referees. We need to gain that back and build the USPF back into a dominant organization and I need lifters, promoters and new state chairman to come aboard and come back to the USPF.
So the next step is we need more meet directors and more active state chairman. If you are interested in promoting or possibly being a state chairman in a state that is inactive please e-mail me or go thru my website to contact me.
Steve Denison
note: Steve Denison is a member of the USAPL where he also serves as a National Referee. He is very active in the powerlifting community both nationally and in California where he has been a co-meet director for USAPL meets.
Denison's message appears twice at GoHeavy. It was first posted during a discussion that was started by Kieran Kidder as he made an effort to cushion possible negative impacts that may occur as a result of comments made in an article that is to appear in an upcoming issue of Powerlifting USA by APF State Chairman, Jon Grove. Kidder, in a somewhat diplomatic manner, rebukes Grove for how he portrays the current status of the APF and at the same time, he attempts to allay concerns that may develop as a result of both the rebuke and the soon to be published article that frictions between the WPO/APF leader and his state chair from Georgia will cause a further divide in the federation. Kidder insists that Grove has "given back" to the sport in a number of ways and despite their differences in opinion, is well regarded by all in the federation. Kidder is emphatic when he claims that he does not run the APF as a "dictatorship" and that there is a democratic process, though most don't participate.
The discussion that ensued included a number of comments surrounding the positive and negative effects that the APF has had on powerlifting which included laxed judging, lack of democratic process, no testing and opportunities found in having an alternative federation which allows gear not allowed in the traditional single ply federations.
Also during this thread, an historical account which describes the circumstances in which the NPA, the ADFPA (now the USAPL) and the APF came into existence was provided by John Sanchez and Bob G which ended with Denison's post:
John Sanchez:
Right after "too many" lifters bombed at the USPF Chicago Seniors in '85, Ernie Frantz and Larry Pacifico got "fed up" with the powerlifting politics of the USPF/IPF and created the THIRD breakaway federation (the first was the NPA, the second was the ADFPA) and the rest is history. He was a great lifter but damn...
Larry has already admitted what a bad mistake they made way back when...
Political pussification comes with a price, especially in strength sports.
Bob G:
Larry P played a major role in the orginal split. The apf started 1982/83. You can reference the Jan 83 P/L USA. They make the annoucement on pg 58. The problems go back to 79/80 and the are 2 sides, as there are to every story
John Sanchez:
The original intent for the APF was to give masters a lifting venue with the USPF's blessings. Of course, nobody really gave a shit yet because the sport didn't have that many masters and the rules were still consistent with the USPF/IPF guidelines.
Ernie then decided to go full bore federation after the Chicago "fiasco". That was in 85. He also decided that the APF would sanction his own double ply suits which until then had been illegal. Another can of worms opened...
Bob G:
John, there was a period of time when many lifters supported or rode both sides of the fence. In Late 1983 Ernie was advertising the ability to set open world records, without testing. Selling his equipment I am sure was a factor, but so was testing. In my opinion powerlifting has made very little progress in the last 25 years and this was the begining. What do you
think?
John Sanchez:
Larry Pacifico summed it up very nicely in his
autobiography...
In retrospect, he believed the best course of action for the sport was to have had ONLY a tested fed and an untested federation; he was very upset that the ADFPA saw the need to break off on its own and felt the USPF should have been more rigorous with its own drug-testing stance.
Kinda ironic, coming from Larry, especially since he was one of the big time suppliers of that era, but that was his opinion when he wrote the book.
It's not too hard to figure out that Ernie and the APF were on the flip-side of the drug-testing equation since the '85 Seniors inaugurated the IPF drug-testing protocol in this country.
Poor old Larry now concedes that the direction the APF took in later years has been an abomination to the sport.
Paul Kelso:
So the APF was formed in '85???,,, ...and the WPC in '86? Is that correct?
Denison's original message was posted between John Sanchez's last message and Paul Kelso's inquiry.
When the USPF lost it's affiliation with the IPF, for those of us here in Maryland who had been members of the USPF, it was a matter of mandate that we switched to the newly formed USAPL. Our by-laws, in which the Maryland State Powerlifting Association was founded, required that we sanction and conduct our meets in accordance with IPF rules and through the IPF affiliate. For the membership, it was a matter of following that which they worked hard to achieve. And that was an opportunity to compete in IPF championships. The IPF had become known as the standard bearer for excellence in powerlifting due to their efforts to test for banned substances, standard in judging performance of lifts, maintaining standards in which allowed only certain pieces of equipment to be used and maintaining a democratic process which included checks and balances when making rule and policy changes. While no one process is perfect, that which could be found in the IPF was desired by most here in Maryland over that which could be found in following or joining any of the alternate federations or remaining with the USPF which now had no world body affiliation.
Considering the upheaval in the WPO/APF, the formation of yet another federation in the United Powerlifting Association (UPA) and the obvious desire by most lifters to have a alternative federation where testing is not performed, but the standards/rules/democratic process are equal to that found in the IPF, is Denison's rally call one which will cause lifters to give consideration to joining the USPF? Now that the USPF is an affiliate of a world organization (WPF), is it enough to grow membership and increase representation in more states in the form of chairmen and meet promoters?
While there are only questions that will be answered with time, there are choices to be made. Would Maryland lifters support an alternative federation like the USPF? Is there enough appeal for lifters that they would welcome being able to compete under similar conditions as that found in the USAPL/IPF and not be subject to drug screening? For some, drug testing procedures currently followed by most federations, are ambiguous in that there doesn't seem to be an established policy that all can review prior to entering a meet. Simply being told that if you win or have an unusually strong lift, you are likely to be tested is not a policy which they can accept. The general feeling for those who view testing in this manner is that the process is very selective in who is chosen for testing. For others, it is a matter of questioning ones credibility. It is an offense to them when asked to submit to screening. The general feeling is that if your going to test, test all.
For more discussion and to participate in a survey (I don't like surveys!), go to the message board and let everyone hear about it.
News from the World Around Us:
Powerlifting Watch for news, comments and opinions.
note; opinions expressed in articles written by others and posted here on Maryland Powerlifting does not necessarily reflect those of Maryland Powerlifting.
At GoHeavy.com, Steve Denison (USPF State Chairman-CA and member of the EC) wrote the following:
I posted this below, but I wanted to start a new thread on where the USPF is going.
The USPF is moving in a positive direction since losing our affilation with the IPF in 97. We now have a new affiliation with the World Powerlifting Federation (WPF) and opportunities for lifters to compete at the World level with other countries using single ply gear and no testing. The USPF/WPF is the true alternative to the USAPL/IPF. Too bad its taken this long to make it happen, but with the WPF Worlds in Mexico this year and the WPF Worlds in Austria next year we are moving ahead with positive steps for lifters looking for an alternative to the other orgs.
After losing the IPF in 97 we lost many state chairman and meet promoters across the nation. Much worse than the UPA trying to take a bite out of the APF. The APF and USAPL gained alot of experience from former USPF promoters and state chairman as well as referees. We need to gain that back and build the USPF back into a dominant organization and I need lifters, promoters and new state chairman to come aboard and come back to the USPF.
So the next step is we need more meet directors and more active state chairman. If you are interested in promoting or possibly being a state chairman in a state that is inactive please e-mail me or go thru my website to contact me.
Steve Denison
note: Steve Denison is a member of the USAPL where he also serves as a National Referee. He is very active in the powerlifting community both nationally and in California where he has been a co-meet director for USAPL meets.
Denison's message appears twice at GoHeavy. It was first posted during a discussion that was started by Kieran Kidder as he made an effort to cushion possible negative impacts that may occur as a result of comments made in an article that is to appear in an upcoming issue of Powerlifting USA by APF State Chairman, Jon Grove. Kidder, in a somewhat diplomatic manner, rebukes Grove for how he portrays the current status of the APF and at the same time, he attempts to allay concerns that may develop as a result of both the rebuke and the soon to be published article that frictions between the WPO/APF leader and his state chair from Georgia will cause a further divide in the federation. Kidder insists that Grove has "given back" to the sport in a number of ways and despite their differences in opinion, is well regarded by all in the federation. Kidder is emphatic when he claims that he does not run the APF as a "dictatorship" and that there is a democratic process, though most don't participate.
The discussion that ensued included a number of comments surrounding the positive and negative effects that the APF has had on powerlifting which included laxed judging, lack of democratic process, no testing and opportunities found in having an alternative federation which allows gear not allowed in the traditional single ply federations.
Also during this thread, an historical account which describes the circumstances in which the NPA, the ADFPA (now the USAPL) and the APF came into existence was provided by John Sanchez and Bob G which ended with Denison's post:
John Sanchez:
Right after "too many" lifters bombed at the USPF Chicago Seniors in '85, Ernie Frantz and Larry Pacifico got "fed up" with the powerlifting politics of the USPF/IPF and created the THIRD breakaway federation (the first was the NPA, the second was the ADFPA) and the rest is history. He was a great lifter but damn...
Larry has already admitted what a bad mistake they made way back when...
Political pussification comes with a price, especially in strength sports.
Bob G:
Larry P played a major role in the orginal split. The apf started 1982/83. You can reference the Jan 83 P/L USA. They make the annoucement on pg 58. The problems go back to 79/80 and the are 2 sides, as there are to every story
John Sanchez:
The original intent for the APF was to give masters a lifting venue with the USPF's blessings. Of course, nobody really gave a shit yet because the sport didn't have that many masters and the rules were still consistent with the USPF/IPF guidelines.
Ernie then decided to go full bore federation after the Chicago "fiasco". That was in 85. He also decided that the APF would sanction his own double ply suits which until then had been illegal. Another can of worms opened...
Bob G:
John, there was a period of time when many lifters supported or rode both sides of the fence. In Late 1983 Ernie was advertising the ability to set open world records, without testing. Selling his equipment I am sure was a factor, but so was testing. In my opinion powerlifting has made very little progress in the last 25 years and this was the begining. What do you
think?
John Sanchez:
Larry Pacifico summed it up very nicely in his
autobiography...
In retrospect, he believed the best course of action for the sport was to have had ONLY a tested fed and an untested federation; he was very upset that the ADFPA saw the need to break off on its own and felt the USPF should have been more rigorous with its own drug-testing stance.
Kinda ironic, coming from Larry, especially since he was one of the big time suppliers of that era, but that was his opinion when he wrote the book.
It's not too hard to figure out that Ernie and the APF were on the flip-side of the drug-testing equation since the '85 Seniors inaugurated the IPF drug-testing protocol in this country.
Poor old Larry now concedes that the direction the APF took in later years has been an abomination to the sport.
Paul Kelso:
So the APF was formed in '85???,,, ...and the WPC in '86? Is that correct?
Denison's original message was posted between John Sanchez's last message and Paul Kelso's inquiry.
When the USPF lost it's affiliation with the IPF, for those of us here in Maryland who had been members of the USPF, it was a matter of mandate that we switched to the newly formed USAPL. Our by-laws, in which the Maryland State Powerlifting Association was founded, required that we sanction and conduct our meets in accordance with IPF rules and through the IPF affiliate. For the membership, it was a matter of following that which they worked hard to achieve. And that was an opportunity to compete in IPF championships. The IPF had become known as the standard bearer for excellence in powerlifting due to their efforts to test for banned substances, standard in judging performance of lifts, maintaining standards in which allowed only certain pieces of equipment to be used and maintaining a democratic process which included checks and balances when making rule and policy changes. While no one process is perfect, that which could be found in the IPF was desired by most here in Maryland over that which could be found in following or joining any of the alternate federations or remaining with the USPF which now had no world body affiliation.
Considering the upheaval in the WPO/APF, the formation of yet another federation in the United Powerlifting Association (UPA) and the obvious desire by most lifters to have a alternative federation where testing is not performed, but the standards/rules/democratic process are equal to that found in the IPF, is Denison's rally call one which will cause lifters to give consideration to joining the USPF? Now that the USPF is an affiliate of a world organization (WPF), is it enough to grow membership and increase representation in more states in the form of chairmen and meet promoters?
While there are only questions that will be answered with time, there are choices to be made. Would Maryland lifters support an alternative federation like the USPF? Is there enough appeal for lifters that they would welcome being able to compete under similar conditions as that found in the USAPL/IPF and not be subject to drug screening? For some, drug testing procedures currently followed by most federations, are ambiguous in that there doesn't seem to be an established policy that all can review prior to entering a meet. Simply being told that if you win or have an unusually strong lift, you are likely to be tested is not a policy which they can accept. The general feeling for those who view testing in this manner is that the process is very selective in who is chosen for testing. For others, it is a matter of questioning ones credibility. It is an offense to them when asked to submit to screening. The general feeling is that if your going to test, test all.
For more discussion and to participate in a survey (I don't like surveys!), go to the message board and let everyone hear about it.
News from the World Around Us:
Powerlifting Watch for news, comments and opinions.
note; opinions expressed in articles written by others and posted here on Maryland Powerlifting does not necessarily reflect those of Maryland Powerlifting.
posted by Maryland Powerlifting | 5:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home