VS Vike Coach, Thanks for the clarification on what is done with a wrestler who has less than 7% body fat at test time. As I thought, he wrestles the weight class that he qualifes for at THATt time--there is no weight loss allowed for himb.

Agreed! But, by taking the slow approach and not jumping on a bandwagon hopefully you can limit the number of times a change has to be implemented.

Mr. Mann

From what I can gather, not much to be honest, is that you really have to push in order to get a listing of the minutes. Since you have some pull, are you able to get those for us?

The National Board, through spam, said they probably won't respond due to volume (then why give the e-mail address?) and KSHSAA only prints the rule changes, not the minutes.

I think it's important for us to know where we stand in relation to others states. As Vikes has pointed out, it's a pain, but one that is easily done.

Gibby,

I have no next to no pull, especially in regards to the national federation. Alos, I am unsure of the governance structure and how votes take place; I serioulsy doubt that each state casts a ballot--much the same as not every school votes on KSHSAA rule changes; note the following from the press release:

". . . rules approved by the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Wrestling Rules Committee . . . subsequently were approved by the NFHS Board of Directors."

Nothing in there about individual states voting.

Mann

Mr. Gibson:

I am curious as to your change of position regarding rules and the need to follow them.

As you will recall, you were not in favor of the rules when a wrestler from your District was allowed to weigh-in late after weigh-ins were closed, at a USAW Kansas Kids qualifying tournament several years ago.

Does it really matter if Kansas is the only State to not have voting privileges with the NFHS?

I believe KSHSAA will make every effort to implement a weigh-in plan, with imput from member schools, which is best for Kansas high school athletes, and quite frankly, I, nor do I believe KSHSAA, are concerned which weigh-in procedure is more suitable for high school athletes in California or New York.

Lastly, I have difficulty with your statement regarding anonymous telephone calls from any school district BOE elected officials to you regarding your position with the school district. School boards meet in Executive Session to discuss personnel issues, and the context of these discussions are not open to the public.

Do you really expect anyone to believe an elected BOE member telephoned you anonymously and offered to reinstate your coaching/teaching position?

As to the first question, if I remember correctly, the wrestler weigh-in in question was due to bad weather, though I may be mistaken. Regardless, even if it was wrong, it did not cause USA Wrestling Kansas to lose it's stance with USA Wrestling.

As to the second question, believe what you want. We had 4 BOE member's sons on our team so there was a concern as to what was going on. They did not call during executive session.

As for minutes to the meeting, I don't disagree that probably there were some states that didn't vote, as there are districts that don't vote at KSHSAA elections. This could be a point of emphasis for the naysayers on the rule. However, they had to have had a quorum, which would mean a majority was present of available electors in order to pass this through.

This is different from our non-eligible status. Somewhere out there are the records. Why it's so difficult to gather is troublesome.

We should be concerned at any time our tax dollars are not used to our fullest advantage. KSHSAA's goal, as I see it, is two-fold. Their first mission is to protect all athletes/activities. The second is to act as an activist in the best interest of Kansas athletic participant. I don't see how this is possible by not being able to vote. If your state legislator decided to abstain from voting because it was in the best interest of his constituents, or better yet, been barred from voting, I'm guessing you would lead a campain that removed the individual.

Wrong again!
From the KSHSAA website:

Our Mission

"The Kansas State High School Activities Association advocates principles and sponsors services which assure that the state's middle level and high school students gain a balanced preparation for life, work, and post-secondary education.

Principles advocated by the association are promotion of scholastic achievement as a fundamental basis for a well-balanced activity program, and development of effective citizenship through the practice of good sportsmanship."

Services to Accomplish the Mission

"Sponsorship of educational workshops, seminars, conferences and publications designed to inform and positively influence students, parents, educators, and community members in accordance with organizational principles;
Administration of a program of interscholastic activities, festivals, clinics and contests among member schools;
Protection of member schools from exploitation by special interest groups;
Communication with policy-making bodies to influence decisions consistant with association principles and operational standards"

Whether we want to admit it or not I think all of the readers of this board could be characterized as "special interest groups".

I would say you are right regarding the KSHSAA's responsibilities. Unfortunately the two responsibilities in this instance are counterproductive to eachother. In order to remain a voting member, the KSHSAA would have to adopt rules that in their opinion (and mine) would be detrimental to our athletes and the sport of wrestling in general in Kansas. They had to make a choice, and they chose our athletes here in Kansas over the ability to cast a vote against something they do not want. The mere act of voting in this instance, while important, pales in comparison to the importance of doing what is right for Kansas wrestling, which is what the KSHSAA is attempting to do.

Mr. Gibson:

Your memory lapse regarding the rule breaking issue is convenient. Allow me to refresh your memory. A wrestler from a Topeka club did not make weight during weigh-ins by the prescribed time. Approximately one hour after weigh-in was closed the mother of the youth approached one of the District I officials and arranged for a private weigh-in and the youth made weight. As I recall, you attended the tournament as a coach with one of, if not the same Topeka club as the youth. The weather had nothing to do with the incident, and there was much concern with the rule breaking issue in District I. As you will recall, several parents from the Topeka area and Parsons were very upset with the circumstances surrounding the incident.

Elected BOE officials DO NOT make anonymous telephone calls, whether they have wrestlers on the team or not. If there was a concern over misconduct by the Athletic Director, I am confident the BOE would have authorized and demanded an investigation into the matter. Your facts regarding the contract renewal issue are questionable.

For your information, a coaches contract renewal is generally decided by the Superintendent of schools with recommendations from the high school administration. After the decision is made regarding renewal, it is submitted to the BOE for approval. It is possible that you did not have the support of the administration, not just the athletic director.

The KSHSAA is not the villain you would like us all to believe. The KSHSAA has shown they are willing to look out for the best interest of Kansas high school students, as per their stated mission.

Your comparison of my ELECTED representative failing to vote with that of KSHSAA and the NFSHAA is like comparing apples to oranges. I expect my elected representative to make difficult and sometimes controversial decisions (votes) much like KSHSAA did.

Hey look, it's sports fan. Good job in posting something I've already done. Congrats. What I attempted to do is paraphrase - a elementary concept. I think most would agree that the paraphrase does cover the basics of KSHSAA's responsibilities.

As for being a special interest group, I understand your point. Am I a special interest? Not in the least. A more appropriate title would be concerned citizen.

Coach twink, I respectfully disagree. I read the rules as an attempt to stop the hazardous weight drops on Friday and the day before weigh-ins. What is more detrimintal? An athlete sucking weight the day before or the day of? The newest weight rules further promote the issue of responsibile weight loss and In my opinion,, anything less than full implementation of the rules would be a detriment of the sport.

I have yet to hear of a decline of athletes from states like Iowa based upon the rules they have instituted. The rules are in place as a protection measure, protecting us from Litigation, Mr. Mann's words, not mine. We are so concerned about someting not working, but we don't have any evidence to back it up. In fact, I believe the evidence points towards it does work.

What it boils down to is, are the coaches wanting to do it? Granted, they have a big pull in what is done. Heck, I don't want to handle urine either, but in the case of litigation, a prosecuting attourney could have a heyday with any lawsuit - and that's how it's presented to the coaches, protection from lawsuit.

A prosecuting attourney would eat the Kansas version alive, it's real simple.

Attourney - Kansas does not follow the National rules, is that correct?

Coach - That is correct sir.

Attourney - And who made that determination?

Coach - The coaches that met with focus groups told KSHSAA we did not want to follow it.

Atourney - And KSHSAA allowed the coaches the opportunity to follow/not follow the national guidelines? Guidelines put in place by all 49 other states, created by exercise physiologists, nutrition experts, and a host of other knowledgible people. Is this correct?

Coach - yes sir.

Attourney - and what is your background? What subjects do you teach?

Coach - Social Studies.

Attourney - I'm through questioning.

Again, this probably won't happen, but it has been packaged as protection from litigation and as it stands, you cannot be protected when a better plan has been initiated and the state chose not to follow said plan.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but pointing out the huge holes that exist. My perception of the on-site weigh-in in the beginning was that legal loopholes aren't prevalent. As long as I stayed out of cheating on weigh-ins, nothing could be done. With this added test, we are in a situation that is not similar to the rule that got us out of non-voting status. This new ruling does/could hurt us if something happens to an athlete.

Richard, e-mail me the kid's name and I'll let you know.

So you got an elementary paraphrase wrong? Figures!

In all fairness to the KSHSAA Pilot Plan--the plan as it is currently was developed PRIOR, by about two weeks, to the NF releasing their final plan for implementation in 2006-07. The three components (hydration, fat and descent) had been part of their recommended plan up until just a week ago. There was some thought (hope) that the descent plan would not be part of the final NF "for real" plan. Whether or not the KSHSAA will adopt the descent component will be discussed in the fall.

I really don't see what a problem descent is going to be. If you take all of the new rules into account, that 180-pound kid would have to be at 15 percent body fat to be able to (without a waiver) to go to 160 anyway. A kid at 10 percent would only come in at a 7 percent body fat (minus 3 percent of body weight) at 169.

The only problem that people seem to be having with descent is that it's new. What it prevents is kids cutting from 180 at the end of football to 160 in time for the first meet and I fail to see what is wrong with that.

Gibby, my major concern with the descent plan is: (1) it will be cumbersome and burdensome for coaches to track and maintain; and (2) I think it will also unfairly penalize athlets if they lose too much OR too little weight in any given week. I have stated these two concerns on more than one occasion in this thread and will not do so again. Your distaste for anything KSHSAA is starting to get in the way of common sense.

Mann

Mr. Mann,

I have to respectfully disagree with you on the common sense remark. Common sense would tell us that if there was a better plan out there to protect us from litigation, your words, not mine, then we should adopt that plan. As I showed in my ficticious example, the legal system, the one KSHSAA is supposedly protecting us from, will eat our lunch if anything happens.

Granted, I've pointed out that nothing has happened and some were quick to point out that something is better than nothing. Yet at the same time, when pressed to say, okay we'll adopt the best plan, they quickly point out that it's not in the best interest of the kids. You can't have it both ways. It cannot be an interest of "do it for the kids" and at the same time "don't overburden our coaches."

Having been on a coaching staff that has witnessed and been drug through the mud after a death in football, I know and empathize a little bit more than the average coach when litigation protection is spouted. I have seen first hand what it does to the individual, his family, his life. When you come out and claim protection of litigation and there's a better plan that has been submitted to the states but we opt to not follow that plan, we are giving little more than lip service. It's a little bit cumbersome for coaches. So what!

The decent plan is EASY to do. A kid comes in and weighs under the 1.5%. Big deal! Give him the appropriate amount of water to help him get to where he needs to be. There's nothing in the rules that say that you have to use the first weigh-in! If his weight bounces too much, that's exactly what the rule is designed to prohibit!

This is not rocket scientry people! Don't make it sound harder than it is. With a simple calculator and a designated date for checks, the decent plan can be easily done. Heck, from what I've read the checks don't even have to be done during official weigh ins. Am I correct in this? Please clarify.

As far as difficult and cumbersome to coaches - don't they keep grades for their classes? I've got 150 kids for English and able to keep up. Keeping tabs on weights for 50 kids for one weigh-in a week takes all of multiplying their weight last week and multiplying it by 98.5. The kids can't go below that weight. Heck, typing this paragraph took me longer than the process.

The program as outlined so far seems to basically revolve around extraordinary tests and documentation being involved in regard to weight management by a national governing body. Also as I understnd it, this deal isn't like income tax (yet): if Kansas determines that their present system of self determination as to who wrestles where is ok, then Kansas can do that with no repercussions. The whole thing seems really preposterous to me when you consider all the substances, dietary and otherwise, that are employed in the Football programs nationwide to increase the weight or muscle mass of a prospective star. Can you even begin to imagine the clamor and uproar if some national governing body for Football in this country measured an athlete's height and bone structure, and dictated to the prospective program directors at the schools what that athlete could weigh, and what percent body weight that he would be allowed? That would get laughed away in nothing flat. In wrestling, it seems, we have become so accustomed to accepting whatever is handed down without question that we are willing to abandon procedures that have not been a problem for 70 years to grasp a new procedure in the hopes that those who do not choose to reduce weight for whatever reasons will not be put at a disadvantage to the individual that elects to reduce. Just seems like a big deal over nothing to me.

Totally agree, up to a point.

You're right as far as football is concerned, if someone were to come in and say, "you're not allowed to weigh that much," then they would be laughed off the field.

The key difference between weight loss and weight gain is body deprivation.

As far as disadvantages, I don't get it. It doesn't say you have to lose 1.5% a week. Is that what you meant or am I reading wrong?

what my point is, is that in my view a fit wrestler is going to be dictated to wrestle at 7% body weight. In the past, if a wrestler wanted to reduce to the next lower class and reduce to 2% or 3% body weight, he could do so. now he is stuck in that weight. on the other hand , if he comes in at 15% body wieght and chooses to reduce to 3% body weight to attain optimum strength and endurance, it may be that he would not be able to. say he comes in at 120 with 15% body fat-- he can get to 7%, or lose 8.5 pounds, to 112. if he cuts to 103, he is in violation, losing 17 pounds or about 15% of his body weight. It is not terribly common for a kid to cut from 120 to 103, but it happened quite often in the past, with no reported ill effects. my point is that if the individual determines that his best shot at a title is at 103, it will not matter if he has the discipline to get there, he will be prohibited from doing it. Similarly, if a football player decides to blow out to 260 when he should weigh 215, all the creotine he wants to take, and all the measures that he wants to use short of steriod use is legal, as far as I know. I believe that there are a lot more former high school athletes that are grossly overweight in their twenties due to recklessness at the football training table than ever resulted from excessive weight loss in a wrestling program. I am just saying that the disadvantage that a wrestler under the new rules will keep him from making the team or performing as well, in some cases. I believe that the weight decision should be an individual one, and that losses beyond what is being allowed can be accomplished if done in a responsible manner. the comparison that I mad was to suggest that the wrestler that elect to wiegh less should not be forced into a higher weight. getting down and staying there takes a lot of discipline, and that should reap rewards. the less disciplined wrestler that doesn't want to lose any weight to compete is fine, I just dont think that the guy that decides to drop a weight to better compete shold be prohibited from doing so.

Mike-
I must disagree with you here. I think that a wrestler weighing 120 pounds with 15% body weight should not be allowed to cut to 103, even if they have the disciple to do that. They could safely get to 112 without losing too much muscle mass, but after that point that is where the weight loss will come, from muscle mass. The wrestler would not continue to lose fat after a certain point as the body requires a minimum of 3-4% body fat for life functions. This fat is in cell membranes and around many nerve cells.

When I say muscle mass, I am not just talking about biceps, pecs, etc. I am also talking about cardiac muscle, digestive muscle (the stomach and intestines), and other necessary organs. Even if a parent were in favor of this weight loss, I feel a responsible coach would not be. The system proposed by the KSHSAA backs up a coach in this instance in doing the right, healthy thing for this athlete. It may also prevent a coach from looking the other way, or thinking that if the wrestler can make it that is all that matters. Even if no negative effects are felt now, this type of weight loss can result in long term damage that would not be seen for years to come, and may not be able to be linked back to the weight cutting in particular.