Beat the Streets
- Thread starter rmg78
- Start date
It's going to be held at the South Street Seaport instead of Time Square this year, I'm not sure precisely where but it should be picturesque. South Street Seaport is near the southern tip of Manhattan but on the east side, so the Brooklyn Bridge should be visible as well as all the old ships. Nailing down credentials for myself right now, I expect to be there.
This Cedar Rapids company has known for years how to beat the streets. Look at their motto (and, yes, this is a real company).
http://www.hookertowing.com/
http://www.hookertowing.com/
Soooooooooo......? How'd you make out? Get the credentials?
Expecting a full report, haha. The Burroughs/Chamizo bout is intriguing, as are others...but this is the one I really want to see. Weigh-ins are today as I understand (EDIT: weigh-ins today [Wednesday] for everyone EXCEPT Burroughs and Chamizo...requested by the Chamizo camp to keep the size difference to a minimum...they weigh-in tomorrow, same day as wrestling).
Last edited:
Thanks Roar, I did get my credentials, though I had to jump through some brand new hoops, specifically an FBI background check and "SafeSport" training (re sexual abuse, assault, bullying etc.), as newly required for all media. I get why they'd want to put coaches and trainers through all that, given the access to and positions of power they hold with respect to wrestlers, but I'm less clear why the media needs to be put through the same clearances. But yes, I made it through and will be there tomorrow.
It's been raining for the last 24 hours but it's supposed to at least not be raining by tomorrow night so it should be good. Still not clear exactly where on Pier 17 it's going to be but I think that it may be on the roof. A few years ago they tore down what was there and only recently finished putting a modern glass thing (below) in its place. If it is on the roof that's going to be really good for photographers. That's the Brooklyn Bridge just behind it.
Tikk - I think we can all rest easy now knowing you've been officially trained not to abuse, bully or assault Snyder, Cox, Gwiz, and the fellas. They seem like they'd be easy prey for a journalist without the SafeSport training.
Well, I am in their weight class. (I've bumped up from my high school weight of 158.)Tikk - I think we can all rest easy now knowing you've been officially trained not to abuse, bully or assault Snyder, Cox, Gwiz, and the fellas. They seem like they'd be easy prey for a journalist without the SafeSport training.
Oh, I thought they were training them how to "assault, bully, and abuse".Tikk - I think we can all rest easy now knowing you've been officially trained not to abuse, bully or assault Snyder, Cox, Gwiz, and the fellas. They seem like they'd be easy prey for a journalist without the SafeSport training.
The way I understood it, USAW may have to have EVERYONE do SafeSport training... Like, even table workers. I don't know how things work where you all are from, but even finding enough table workers for our state tournament can be kind of a pain. Now, creating another barrier will only make things difficult. Yuck.
The new Sandusky rules have been going into effect in PA for several years, requiring anyone involved in youth athletics to go through three separate background checks, at a cost of ~$50.
In grand political style, they went from having nothing, 180 degrees to something that is cumbersome and ends up a barrier.
So, two years ago, we got a letter from my son's high school AD, saying, "If you want to volunteer to help run track meets (high jump, long jump, etc.) you will need to have your background checks." I sent him an email and said, "Hey, no problem, I have mine because of my involvement in Boy Scouts (don't get me started), but what if mrspawrestlers wants to volunteer in the concession stand?"
Sure enough, at the time, if you wanted to stand on one side of the concessions stand counter to sell a Snickers bar to Johnny, on the other side of the concession stand counter, you had to spend $50 to get your background checks.
Fortunately, cooler (smarter) heads have prevailed, and they've back off some, but for a while, it was looking like even the minutest involvement in youth organizations was going to cost law-abiding people money, to make lawmakers feel like they were doing something that wouldn't prevent law-breakers from breaking laws. Duh.
In grand political style, they went from having nothing, 180 degrees to something that is cumbersome and ends up a barrier.
So, two years ago, we got a letter from my son's high school AD, saying, "If you want to volunteer to help run track meets (high jump, long jump, etc.) you will need to have your background checks." I sent him an email and said, "Hey, no problem, I have mine because of my involvement in Boy Scouts (don't get me started), but what if mrspawrestlers wants to volunteer in the concession stand?"
Sure enough, at the time, if you wanted to stand on one side of the concessions stand counter to sell a Snickers bar to Johnny, on the other side of the concession stand counter, you had to spend $50 to get your background checks.
Fortunately, cooler (smarter) heads have prevailed, and they've back off some, but for a while, it was looking like even the minutest involvement in youth organizations was going to cost law-abiding people money, to make lawmakers feel like they were doing something that wouldn't prevent law-breakers from breaking laws. Duh.
Yeah, whereas I see, especially as a lawyer, why organizations would hit the panic button and over-correct to reduce liability to zero, a one-size-fits-all solution is self-defeating. I mean, sure, anything can happen, but the vast majority of abuse perpetrators will be those with the greatest degree of access and institutional trust. And in a sport with a marginal fan base like wrestling, alienating people on the fringes is especially self-defeating.
I'd just like to know who had to administer Safe Sport training to Ric Flair.
Yeah, I'm all for protecting children, but it's worth noting ol' Gerald woulda easily passed all of these checks up until 11/2011
The only thing that passing a commercial background check like USAW (and most organizations use) is that the molester in the bunch hasn't been caught yet. (Tikk, not speaking of you here ).
).
Anything that has a shot of protecting even one child is worth it. Lot's of reasons to complain, I get that, but there needs to be at least one comment here that supports the other side...as doing nothing isn't acceptable in my book. Tweak the processes, make the process more effective, etc., but dagnabbit, gotta protect our kids.
The background check process is frustrating and comes with a lot of unnecessary expense. I am volunteer coaching for the local high school track team and a private track club for middle schools kids. I paid for two different background checks within weeks of each other. Not sure why they can't have one universal background check that is good for X period of time. I have no problem having the background check performed.
I don't get how requiring a photographer to go through this process before allowing him access in crowded public places to adult athletes is going to protect any children.
All of the arguments I've heard in favor of this policy have been platitudes.
Here's hoping that everyone is in favor of protecting children. This doesn't seem to do that in any way. And it could end up harming children if it provides just enough PR cover to let organizations avoid taking more meaningful steps.
Love your posting Roar, but I am never going to agree with the statement:
"Anything that has a shot of protecting even one child is worth it"
While I philosophically agree with that (and change child to person for that matter), would you advocate:
1. Requiring all to wear safety helmets in cars and govern top speed to be 25MPH max? 2000 kids, under the age 16 die every year in auto accidents (37,000 people in 2016). I bet we could prevent 1900 child deaths yearly with these restrictions, and also 35,000 adult deaths. These are certainly ways at protecting our kids.
2. Ban all fast foods, and require all kids to be on a Vegan diet until the age 18? Start protecting them from childhood obesity which is a huge killer. Very easy way to help protect more than 1 kid.
3. Require any prospective parent to obtain a government license before they have kids. This involves monthly inspections of the house, toys, finances. Obviously no alcohol or cigarettes or drugs or guns or pets. Lots of child deaths from poverty, lead paint, falling hazards, bad parents, etc.
Now, I know these are far out examples, but when I hear the arguments for EVERYTHING MUST BE DONE, nobody really means that at all. Anything that has a shot of protecting even 1 child? Really? Sounds great in theory, but certainly must be balanced with the cost/benefit decision. It's brutal to say that, but at some point, you just can't protect everyone (and, we as a society, pat ourselves on the back all the time a new law is passed, but ignore 98% of the real causes, as they would inconvenience themselves).
Sorry for the rant but that statement sets me off
Way, way off in your interpretation of my comment. Read the posts prior to mine...all were about the systems implemented to stop, or have a shot at stopping predators, molesters, and the like...none of the stuff you're talking about. I stand by my comments...Love your posting Roar, but I am never going to agree with the statement:
"Anything that has a shot of protecting even one child is worth it"
While I philosophically agree with that (and change child to person for that matter), would you advocate:
1. Requiring all to wear safety helmets in cars and govern top speed to be 25MPH max? 2000 kids, under the age 16 die every year in auto accidents (37,000 people in 2016). I bet we could prevent 1900 child deaths yearly with these restrictions, and also 35,000 adult deaths. These are certainly ways at protecting our kids.
2. Ban all fast foods, and require all kids to be on a Vegan diet until the age 18? Start protecting them from childhood obesity which is a huge killer. Very easy way to help protect more than 1 kid.
3. Require any prospective parent to obtain a government license before they have kids. This involves monthly inspections of the house, toys, finances. Obviously no alcohol or cigarettes or drugs or guns or pets. Lots of child deaths from poverty, lead paint, falling hazards, bad parents, etc.
Now, I know these are far out examples, but when I hear the arguments for EVERYTHING MUST BE DONE, nobody really means that at all. Anything that has a shot of protecting even 1 child? Really? Sounds great in theory, but certainly must be balanced with the cost/benefit decision. It's brutal to say that, but at some point, you just can't protect everyone (and, we as a society, pat ourselves on the back all the time a new law is passed, but ignore 98% of the real causes, as they would inconvenience themselves).
Sorry for the rant but that statement sets me off
Now, if you want to discuss safety and health matters, it's been my life's work, and those subjects are worth discussing too.
Last edited:
I respectfully disagree Roar. Solving a problem that isn't actually a problem by adding meaningless regulations isn't helping anyone. There's been no evidence offered that media has any greater access to athletes other than in otherwise public settings. In theory, having all attending fans go through background checks also makes children safer, but the cost (in the broad economic sense) is obviously too great, as fans would stop attending. Similarly here USA Wrestling may be overreaching. All laws and regulations should be supported by some rational basis but if there's one present here it's not obvious to me. Additionally, there's a potentially dangerous precedent set where press freedom is arbitrarily limited because it can later serve as a pretext to deny access against disliked publications. USA Wrestling can certainly set its own rules but I'm troubled by where things are going.
When the new background checks/training was announced for media, it immediately made sense to me, but I can understand why some don't understand it when viewed through the lense of Senior level events. When I covered Fargo last year, if I wanted to interview a kid, I'd catch them coming off the mat, clear it with a coach, then we'd go back in a tunnel and do the interview. Sometimes the coach would come along, sometimes they wouldn't if they had another kid coming up. It would have been easy to catch a kid without their coach around or take them somewhere quieter than the tunnel if someone had nefarious intentions.
Obviously, that is a different event, but I can understand a bureaucracy not wanting to have to make a judgement call as to where to draw the line. Juniors are still high school kids so do you include them? Do you treat men and women differently (no chance)? I understand the concern about barriers being put up, but part of the training is the ability to spot when this sort of thing is happening. Every member of the media sees things that the general public does not. That part has value without question. There is no cost here so I can't see much of anything to object to.
Obviously, that is a different event, but I can understand a bureaucracy not wanting to have to make a judgement call as to where to draw the line. Juniors are still high school kids so do you include them? Do you treat men and women differently (no chance)? I understand the concern about barriers being put up, but part of the training is the ability to spot when this sort of thing is happening. Every member of the media sees things that the general public does not. That part has value without question. There is no cost here so I can't see much of anything to object to.
Unfortunately, a background check isn't failproof, only a step in prevention or an obstacle to get the 'pass'.
Not arguing that, Roar. I have 3 checks done annually-USAW, state activities association for officiating, and local youth football org. I have no problem with them doing the checks, just wish that somehow the organizations could communicate.
The checks are more of a deterrent than anything, so they do help protect kids-from those that have been caught previously, and those that know they won't pass. But, who we should most fear are those that have not been caught.
IMO, the better way would be common-sense procedures. I, as a coach, will not allow access to kids unsupervised when I am in charge of practice, nor will I be alone with a kid at the end of practice. If another coach/parent can't be there, we will wait until another time. (Unblocked windows are a wonderful thing to have in a practice room office). I also teach kids that if they are uncomfortable, get somewhere in public, tell another adult, or stay with a group of kids. All of which are part of USAW education, and should be taught by parents everywhere.
long post to agree-with some reservations.
^ This, of your entire post (I did read most of it
). I know this is a wrestling forum, but worth saying again...ANY system in place to protect our children from child abuse, molesters, pedophiles, etc., I'm for...period (and please, no one twist my words into something they're not...just ask here, and I'll respond). Your second sentence is true, they're sneaky bastards (sorry all) and more vigilance is needed.
I have not even seen a full slate posted, though I didn't do much searching. For the "Super Match", I'm going Burroughs over Chamizo by decision.
2:30 p.m. – Beat the Streets Youth Exhibition Matches
4:45 p.m. – New York City Girls Freestyle Dual Meet Championships Finals
6:00 p.m. – World Class Wrestling to include:
57 kg - Helen Maroulis (USA) vs. Odunayo Adekuoroye (Nigeria)
59 kg - Alli Ragan (USA) vs. Adeniyi Aminat (Nigeria)
68 kg - Tamyra Stock (USA) vs. Blessing Oborududu (Nigeria)
57 kg – Josh Rodriguez (USA) vs. Reineri Andreeu Ortega (Cuba)
70 kg – James Green (USA) vs. Franklin Maren Castillo (Cuba)
79 kg – Kyle Dake (USA) vs. Livan Lopez Azcuy (Cuba)
92 kg – J’den Cox (USA) vs. Yurieski Torreblanca Queralta (Cuba)
97 kg – Kyle Snyder (USA) vs. Reineris Salas Perez (Cuba)
125 kg– Nick Gwiazdowski (USA) vs. Yudenny Alapajon Estevez (Cuba)
High School Super Match, Patrick Glory vs. Gavin Teasdale (time TBD)
Super Match 1 – Jordan Burroughs (USA) vs. Frank Chamizo (ITA)
Super Match 2 – Jordan Oliver (USA) vs. Togrul Asgarov (AZE) (time TBD)
4:45 p.m. – New York City Girls Freestyle Dual Meet Championships Finals
6:00 p.m. – World Class Wrestling to include:
57 kg - Helen Maroulis (USA) vs. Odunayo Adekuoroye (Nigeria)
59 kg - Alli Ragan (USA) vs. Adeniyi Aminat (Nigeria)
68 kg - Tamyra Stock (USA) vs. Blessing Oborududu (Nigeria)
57 kg – Josh Rodriguez (USA) vs. Reineri Andreeu Ortega (Cuba)
70 kg – James Green (USA) vs. Franklin Maren Castillo (Cuba)
79 kg – Kyle Dake (USA) vs. Livan Lopez Azcuy (Cuba)
92 kg – J’den Cox (USA) vs. Yurieski Torreblanca Queralta (Cuba)
97 kg – Kyle Snyder (USA) vs. Reineris Salas Perez (Cuba)
125 kg– Nick Gwiazdowski (USA) vs. Yudenny Alapajon Estevez (Cuba)
High School Super Match, Patrick Glory vs. Gavin Teasdale (time TBD)
Super Match 1 – Jordan Burroughs (USA) vs. Frank Chamizo (ITA)
Super Match 2 – Jordan Oliver (USA) vs. Togrul Asgarov (AZE) (time TBD)
Looks so much better than last year, when it was 90.Representing. Weather totally cooperating.
