Pages: « Previous |  1 |  2 |  3 »

Date: Dec 22, 2009 9:41:07 AM PST
Author: Chandy

Thanks Pow, for your response.

I guess what I was trying to ask is:

If the slope was homologated for GS, would that quell your concerns?

Assume NO CHANGES are made to the slope, but it is homologated for GS by an appropriate official (whoever you feel is best), would that change your opinion of the race venue? Must a slope be homologated to be safe/ fair in your mind? What of the other venues during the "regular season". Are they all homologated? Im pretty sure they are not, but I could be wrong.

I have been able to pick out some of your specific concerns about the vertical/ length of the GS course, but Im not sure what your specific saftey concerns are. I have never been there (it's 6 hours away)... is there a turn that is too close to a tree-line/ lift tower? Is there a saftey concern from crossing public or something?

' Again, please do not take this as a personal attack. Im just curious. I feel this is a worthwhile discussion. '


Date: Dec 22, 2009 10:36:45 AM PST
Author: PowMow

Chandy, no offense taken. Indeed all of your comments have been appropriate and constructive.

Regarding safety, a USSA homologation for GS is clearly in order. I've only looked at the hill from the base but the previous MPA safety concerns coupled with descriptions of the slope having narrow sections with islands and trees are obvious causes for concern.

Certainly other hills hosting alpine events have not been homologated or have been only for one discipline or another, however all have long histories and have been in use during the “acceleration” of GS from a technical to a speed event in the past few years. This new slope is both unsurveyed and almost completely untested.

Fairness is and should be a distant second to safety but it's worth mentioning. It's unfair that MPA has completely disregarded their own fair travel schedule when it should have been a bid spec. Also certain body types enjoy a tremendous advantage on a gentle short GS; the fact that no other venue in the state of similar size attempts even a regular season GS is very telling...
Last modified by PowMow on Dec 22 2009 10:38AM


Fort Kent States
Date: Dec 23, 2009 12:55:02 PM PST
Author: SkiParent

It’s interesting that the “sewing circle” know as ski coaches still exist after all these years. Glad to see some things don’t change. Fear of the unknown can be a powerful emotion. Using fear of the unknown to influence others is just plain wrong, wither they’re trying to scare someone intentionally or not. So a TD goes to Lonesome Pines to squeal the feeling of concern and fear that is being generated by a few coaches concerned about Safety. The TD reports back that the slope is acceptable. Now the TD is not acceptable because of recent history of questionable decisions. I’m not sure what to say. When people have it in their minds that something is wrong, it’s impossible to change that mind. Would hiring a certified FIS official to do Homologation be enough? Got a budget for this? Not sure this would help at this point. If this is required for LP, it needs to be required to all venues, even if they have LONG histories with the GS transformation. LP has a LONG history of holding events including GS during the past 40 + years including the past 5 years. Just because YOU can’t find results anywhere doesn’t mean that these races haven’t taken place. AS I mentioned in a previous post if safety at LP was an issue in the past I would suspect these have been addressed by the coaches in Aroostook County or else they would not have raced at LP, period. Maybe these issues weren’t addressed to those on this forum, but addressed. Has anyone on this forum called a coach from Northern Maine to address your concerns? I wonder aloud again if there is an issue among coaches in Southern Maine that the coaches in Northern Maine don’t have the same regard for safety they do. Or that the coaches in Northern Maine don’t understand the “acceleration” of GS from a technical to a “speed” event in the past few years thus their disregard for their kids safety. That wouldn’t hold true looking at the results the past few years. I guess I just don’t get it. Just because coaches on this board haven’t been to LP or know anyone who has been to LP doesn’t mean that it’s unsuitable to hold a GS race. Looking at the results on Live_Timing, no less, it appears that the races that they are running are about 15 – 20 sec longer then any other GS course that is used in High School racing in Maine. Not as short as some might have thought or maybe now it’s too long of a course. Shows how uninformed individuals on this forum seems to be. Very Telling. Again no information causes concern, but the need to spread fear to others because of no information is wrong. I wonder how the parents and athletes of C teams are feeling right now about the rumors and 3rd hand information that is being past down to them. How will this fear translate into performance on the slopes or their enjoyment of the State Meet experience? Nothing like setting your table for success. I can only imagine what everyone who hasn’t been to LP is thinking. Shameful! This is an opportunity for many people to visit a part of the State of Maine that few get to see. The people are wonderful and friendly and the area is beautiful. For some people this maybe the only chance for them to experience Northern Maine.


Fort Kent States Part 2
Date: Dec 23, 2009 12:56:06 PM PST
Author: SkiParent

As far as the MPA screwing up, what’s new? Do you think that skiing is lucky enough to be the only recipient of MPA’s wisdom? Everyone has issues with MPA but everyone is doing the best they can with the resources provided to them. Most other sports are working out their issues with the MPA and I’m sure skiing will do the same. The fairness agenda mentioned here is reasonable but this works both ways. The skiing universe doesn’t revolve around Southern Maine. Athletes in Northern Maine need to have home State Meets. This is only fair not because of numbers but because of geography. Why is it a High School Skier in Northern Maine goes a whole career without skiing in a Home State Meet? Is that fair to them? However you want to twist this response a couple of things are clear. C is going to Fort Kent. The GS is long and won’t be a “speed” event. It will be cold. The bus ride, for those lucky enough to take a bus, is long. And the best skiers and Teams will win. I hope that it’s a safe State just like all other State Meets that preceded them.
Stay Safe and Ski Fast safety!



Does an angry name-calling rant really help the kids?
Date: Dec 24, 2009 12:03:05 PM PST
Author: PowMow

More accusations, name calling and an endless angry diatribe from SkiParent. While it's certainly no surprise it is disappointing that he or she continues either not to read or to ignore facts stated in this forum. In an effort to underscore these facts I'll respond to several points:

1) Would hiring a certified FIS official to do Homologation be enough? Got a budget for this?

USSA homologation at least is probably in order. Perhaps the funds from this event could be used to defray the costs.

2) LP has a LONG history of holding events including GS during the past 40 + years including the past 5 years. Just because YOU can’t find results anywhere doesn’t mean that these races haven’t taken place.

No, there's not 40 years, 40 months or even 40 GS races of history. We're told the trail is all new. I don't find results because 1 GS race has been held in history, likely for the purpose of justifying the bid.

3) Has anyone on this forum called a coach from Northern Maine to address your concerns?

Coaches, TD's, course setters etc. don't do homologations. It's a professional process that a phone call or 2 lifties with a surveyor's tape can't complete.

4) It appears that the races that they are running are about 15 – 20 sec longer then any other GS course that is used in High School racing in Maine.

Remember, LP has 400' of vertical despite their claims of more (source: Google Maps). If the GS is set from the top lift shack roof to the parking lot it's still 400 vert. Any idea why the race was long? GS races without pitch will be that way. Flat GS courses lend tremendous advantage to heavier competitors. A championship race is no place to tilt the scales to anyone's advantage.

5) Athletes in Northern Maine need to have home State Meets.

That's why MPA set a fair travel schedule based upon numbers of southern vs. northern schools. This year's northern trip brings class C north 2 years earlier than scheduled. This year's seniors will have had to travel twice in their careers despite the greater numbers of southern skiers and the "fair travel schedule." This year's ill-begotten plan also occurs with no notice so school budgets will not permit less well-heeled schools to attend. Isn't the ability to actually go to your state meet important too?

6) And the best skiers and Teams will win.

While that's certainly the hope unfortunately the distinct advantage will be to bigger racers.

Really now SkiParent, won't you please stop ignoring the facts, adding unattractive labels to concerned posters and attempting to ridicule?
Last modified by PowMow on Dec 25 2009 5:38PM


Date: Dec 28, 2009 11:39:01 AM PST
Author: SkiParent

Angry name-calling? You interpret my post as anger? Funny I’m pretty sure I’m not angry. Actually more amused by the lack of knowledge and open mindedness shown on this forum by some. The ridicule part is pretty easy given the dialogue about this topic.
What facts am I ignoring?
New trail safety concerns. Check.
The need to homologate all race venues. Check.
2 Lifties and a tape measure can’t do homologations. Check.
LP’s ability or inability to hold races. Check.
LP’s lack of history recorded on the Internet to make a coach happy. Check.
(If tree falls in the woods and a ski coach wasn’t there to hear it fall did that tree indeed fall?)
Traveling up to Northern Maine again when it’s not my turn. Check.
Now a need to have heavier kids to have success on FLAT hills! Check?
What the heck! Give me a break. (Ridicule warning) Don’t skinny kids know how to ride a flat ski or do you have to be heavy to be a glider? Doesn’t the heavier skier have more difficulty with the lift shack roof starts? Does either have an advantage with making round turns or have a better feel for the snow? Do lighter skier ski faster at night and does heavier skiers ski fastest during the day.
One thing is for sure the best skiers do win, period! Check! AS a ski coach there should be no other message to your skiers.
Did I miss any facts? If so please let me know.
The majority of coaches seemed to have moved on and started to prepare for their seasons and the States. Others still seem to be worried about the States and dwell with the perceived unknown. The concern posters that were mentioned started with a post back in July when the States schedule was posted. I believe the original title was “Class C finals 2009- small schools SCREWED!!” I’m sure this helped people feel at ease and reduce their concern. And when the questioning the schedule wasn’t enough SOMEONE decided to throw an unknown safely issue to make everyone feel at ease and safe. (Ridicule warning).
Time to move on.
Ski Fast


Date: Dec 28, 2009 5:26:33 PM PST
Author: PowMow

Again, Skiparent, I'm missing your message if it was meant as anything other than an attack.

And again, Skiparent, your perception that the safety questions posed are somehow a ruse for an evil agenda is the oddest turnabout of the facts. This year's finals plans did nothing but get worse as we got more information about them and my long standing concerns about GS safety only became primary as that information was slowly and carefully doled out to us.

And again and for at least the 3rd time, Skiparent, nobody, nobody, nobody nobody gives a rat's behind how results are posted, be it the internet or a bathroom wall. No matter how you choose to twist this fact, the 1 high school GS held on this new trail and a cursory look by an official are inadequate to confirm it's safety. Did I mention nobody?

About one thing, you're right on the money. I never tried to set anyone's mind at ease; quite the opposite. It escapes me why anyone would want to use this forum for that purpose. I am and will always be an advocate for racer's interests, not a yes man for decisions that harm them; especially when they are now told, due to budgetary constraints, that their finals are not funded this year.

Lastly I'm left to wonder since you disagree with the fact that a tremendous advantage goes to larger racers on flat GS courses if your interest in these finals is indeed even on the alpine side.
Last modified by PowMow on Dec 30 2009 7:19PM


Ski Fan
Date: Dec 31, 2009 4:13:02 PM PST
Author: Ski Fan

Word to Ski Parent:

This is about ALPINE.

Lonesome Pines is not an appropriate venue for a States meet, especially GS.

Class C was not scheduled to travel this year.

The course, at Lonesome Pines, when inspected,was found to have deficiencies. Thankfully they are being corrected. (Would they be if this inspection did not happen? Would this have happened if this inspection had not occurred? Would the inspection have happened if questions were not raised?)
Appropriate alternative venues were identified by concerned coaches and agreed to by alpine and nordic venues.

Delays and a lack of interest in rectifying their mistake and lack of commitment to following the published travel schedule is the reason MPA is sending Class C Alpine States to Lonesome Pines this year. Coaches are now in their season and are doing what they should: Focusing on the athletes. (This is what MPA is supposed to do year round, but have not.)

By the way, I have a big kid who definitely had an advantage in GS. Look at your recent past state champions, he's on the list (hint: look at a northern venue; modest pitch is the theme)
Last modified by Ski Fan on Dec 31 2009 5:13PM


Fort Kent sates alpine
Date: Feb 15, 2010 5:29:32 AM PST
Author: skilikeamainer

Pow mow is a whinner and no amount of justification will suffice. If you don't like the hill, then do more USSA races! Just think of what happened to kids in Madawaska - they couldn't even host events at their home hill 5 miles away in Edmunston because of the passport situation.


Fort Kent alpine
Date: Feb 17, 2010 7:42:30 PM PST
Author: skitheweekends

Dear skilikeamainer,
I believe you need a lesson in geography. The last time I checked....and I have lived in Maine my entire life, Madawaska in in Maine...and Edmunston in CANADA! Home mountain should reside in the country in which you LIVE. I don't care if five miles away is a mountain. It still needs to be in in the SAME COUNTRY. That's great if you want to claim it as your home mountain however, you should not be able to host a "county" or "state" meet on a mountain that is not in this country.

  Search Web
  Search Forum
  Forum Tags

There are no tags at this time.