The IDFPA is dead to me

Hanley

Read http://www.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?action=read&id=1290646337&user=idfpa

Discuss.

Zamboni

Hanley wrote: »

Read http://www.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?action=read&id=1290646337&user=idfpa

Discuss.

Not something I'm really interested in but whilst they should be applauded on setting standards, it seems a bit short sighted to exclude people because of competitions/organisations they attended in the past.
I.e draw a line and move on from there. Don't judge whats been and gone.

g'em

holy MOLY :eek:

Hanley am I reading that right, does that mean that from January onwards the IDFPA can refuse your membership if it's shown that you were a member af another lifting group who don't have the same anti-drug policy as IDFPA regardless of your own testing history??

Where the fup has all this come from??

Hanley

g'em wrote: »

holy MOLY :eek:

Hanley am I reading that right, does that mean that from January onwards the IDFPA can refuse your membership if it's shown that you were a member af another lifting group who don't have the same anti-drug policy as IDFPA regardless of your own testing history??

Where the fup has all this come from??

Nail. Head.

Thomas Coyle is the federation's President, he posted it, but I'm not sure who it was coming from. I know there's a couple of members behind the scenes reputed to be pulling the strings.

The decision seems to have been made at an executive level, the commitee was not consulted, nor were the members. It's the stupidest decision I've ever encountered.

The majority of the equipment, spotters AND loaders that ran the world champs this year were borrowed from, or helped out by, people who they are now talking about banning if we return the favour in any way (Hercs racks, GPC and IPO equipment and spotters).

Says a lot about the people involved that they're willing to turn around and stab guys in the back who gave up their time and valuable equipment to held them run a competition no more than two weeks ago...

Edwardius

Wow, was from the WDFPF or just the IDFPA?

Hanley

Dead Ed wrote: »

Wow, was from the WDFPF or just the IDFPA?

IDFPA national level decision. Secretary's already resigned over it, and the previous President tendered his resignation too today.

g'em

I imagine that this will greatly reduce the IDFPA lifter numbers to a teeny tiny amount and for all intents and purposed the organisation will lose a lot (most?) of its credibility. I've just been having a read around on fb to see what people are saying and the loss of Anita is an absolutely massive shame, but GPC's gain. She's the rock that held it all together (from an outsider's pov anyway) and her hard work was legendary in putting the events together. I can't help but be incredibly cynical about the motivation of whoever is behind this. Absolute crying shame tbh.

Edwardius

Hanley wrote: »

The majority of the equipment, spotters AND loaders that ran the world champs this year were borrowed from, or helped out by, people who they are now talking about banning if we return the favour in any way (Hercs racks, GPC and IPO equipment and spotters).

So it's properly unequipped now :P?

kevpants

I only really compete once or twice a year and the IDFPA has been my fed of choice up to now so I'm not eligible for the ban, but I'm walking.

I'm just flabbergasted at that.

Can't help but think it's to do with WDFPF and the recent IPF wiping of their records.

Is there a race on for Olympic accreditation?

squod

I'm thinking they're aiming themselves as some kind of ''junior lifting'' organisation. Where experienced lifters might not get entered, their membership numbers will suffer and they'll be more isolated and therefore less ''important''.

Is that what will happen?

The Guvnor

Politics and Egos.

BB'ing in this country one could argue is ruined by the above and it seems powerlifting is going the same way.

It's a small pond they are dregging for members to start with so to get picky and subjective makes little sense.

The net result here is people will lift elsewhere. The issue arises when you want to compete internationally and you could find they control who can lift internationally for Ireland.

Basically this can kaibosh any chance of international progression.

Hanley

kevpants wrote: »

I only really compete once or twice a year and the IDFPA has been my fed of choice up to now so I'm not eligible for the ban, but I'm walking.

I'm just flabbergasted at that.

Can't help but think it's to do with WDFPF and the recent IPF wiping of their records.

Is there a race on for Olympic accreditation?

No this was voted down by WDFPF, they want nothing to do with it as an international directive.

Not a hope it's got anything to do with the olympics, the quality and depth in the whole federation is less than that of one single mid table country at IPF level.

It's b*ll****. I'll be doign everything I can to urge lifters to move away to one of the federations that actually works FOR the lifter.

kevpants

Any other fed's reading this who want to put their case forward to attract disenfranchised former IDFPA lifters?

I actually know nothing about the other feds.

Want to give a brief bio of what's out there Hanley?

kevpants

Also, a freaky coincidence.

Have Tom Martin's training log open in the background in work and am browsing it. It's compellingreading, the bloke has no idea how he's so strong but he's basically superhuman.

anyway the page I linked to above is discussing this exact same issue but in the GBPF, which is the British wing of the IPF. So the IPF have this same "competing with drug users = being a drug user" rule?

the drifter

I cant believe they actually went through with this...

COH

Sounds like something the Green Party would do!

Hanley

squod wrote: »

I'm thinking they're aiming themselves as some kind of ''junior lifting'' organisation. Where experienced lifters might not get entered, their membership numbers will suffer and they'll be more isolated and therefore less ''important''.

Is that what will happen?

Pretty much. It's what's happened over the last few years anyway. The top junior lifters in the IPO and GPC both left the IDFPA for reasons like that. So did their top senior lifter at the time. And now I'm off as well...

kevpants wrote: »

Any other fed's reading this who want to put their case forward to attract disenfranchised former IDFPA lifters?

I actually know nothing about the other feds.

Want to give a brief bio of what's out there Hanley?

IPO:
-Non-tested
-Monolift (so you don't have to walk squats out unless you choose to)
-Lift raw or in single ply equipment, but there's no seperate classification on the results sheet

GPC:
-Non-tested
-Monolift
-Equipped and Raw sections (equipped is up to multi ply tho)

I'll probably lift with the IPO because it's where everyone from Hercs lifts and I've been to a few of their comps as a lifter and handler and really like the attitude of the officials and lifters.

The GPC has some great lifters in it, and the guys that run it are top notch. I've done a bench comp with them before and it all went swimmingly. Going to IPO comps will just be better for me as a lifter cos of the people I'll be surrounded by. GPC is gonna get bigger and bigger over the next few years as people leave the IDFPA for it and its raw section.

kevpants wrote: »

Also, a freaky coincidence.

Have Tom Martin's training log open in the background in work and am browsing it. It's compellingreading, the bloke has no idea how he's so strong but he's basically superhuman.

anyway the page I linked to above is discussing this exact same issue but in the GBPF, which is the British wing of the IPF. So the IPF have this same "competing with drug users = being a drug user" rule?

The IPF as an international fed have banned lifters for that reason. I'm not sure if GBPF are following suit on the IPF directive or what.

Interestingly, the BDFPA, the british version of the IDFPA, have implemented similar rules recently. It's all just getting outta hand.

Hanley

The plot thickens. Apparently dual membership was voted on and passed a couple of years ago (possibly 2006).

Looks like the federation's President is quoting an out of date part of the constitution. Serious egg on his face if that's the case.

podge57

kevpants wrote: »

I only really compete once or twice a year and the IDFPA has been my fed of choice up to now so I'm not eligible for the ban, but I'm walking.

I'm just flabbergasted at that.

Same here, I've only ever competed in the IDFPA, but I will still start lifting with one of the other feds. Its a really stupid move, there was loads of equipment supplied by other feds for the WDFPF worlds, and lots of the lifters gave their time to spot/load and support the competition.

I know the IPF have implemented something similar, but I'm fairly sure its only enforced at international level, and they are a strong enough federation to be able have a rule like this anyway, but the IDFPA will probably die out if they go through with this.

Didn't the Irish IPF affiliate fall apart because of something similar?

Sangre

Sounds like they'll need another AGM/EGM to effect these changes then.

Very bizarre rule. Anyone have an idea the reasoning behind this besides ego?

Armedocr

It was an IPF decision. From what I gather from the 2010 agm minutes the IPF are pushing hard to join the IOC who seem to be fairly strict on anti-doping.

_JOE_

Hanley wrote: »

The plot thickens. Apparently dual membership was voted on and passed a couple of years ago (possibly 2006).

Looks like the federation's President is quoting an out of date part of the constitution. Serious egg on his face if that's the case.

I spotted this today in work before lunch! I can't believe the powers that be didn't take the time to actually consider whether they had in fact the authority to make such a change.

It'll be interesting to see how this issue is tackled and what (if any involvement) the subscribers are given...

Parsley

well hanley, at least if the IDFPA dies out you won't have people making that IDFPF/WDFPA typo any more...

Hanley

Armedocr wrote: »

It was an IPF decision. From what I gather from the 2010 agm minutes the IPF are pushing hard to join the IOC who seem to be fairly strict on anti-doping.

What? No. It wasn't. The IDFPA have nothing to do with the IPF. I clearly explained earlier that it was a national level decision made by the IDFPA president.

nice_guy80

its like the ban on GAA members playing or watching other sports until the 1970s!

Pavel66

Just saw all this now :eek:

This is the craziest thing I ever heard, it makes no sense???

I lifted twice with the IDFPA and in September 2010 lifted in an IPO comp - does this mean I am banned from the IDFPA?

the drifter

Pavel66 wrote: »

Just saw all this now :eek:

This is the craziest thing I ever heard, it makes no sense???

I lifted twice with the IDFPA and in September 2010 lifted in an IPO comp - does this mean I am banned from the IDFPA?

From what i gather...and I'm open to correction...they can refuse your membership now...

I really don't understand this...If a lifter is a member of the IDFPA they are subject to out of competition drug testing...once they willingly agree to this I dont understand why they cant lift wherever they want...I understand they cant set IDFPA records lifting in the GPC and vise versa GPC records cannot be set in the IDFPA...thats common sense..If they are not happy that the out of competition urine test is good enough maybe stricter testing needs to be looked at...

Hanley

Pavel66 wrote: »

Just saw all this now :eek:

This is the craziest thing I ever heard, it makes no sense???

I lifted twice with the IDFPA and in September 2010 lifted in an IPO comp - does this mean I am banned from the IDFPA?

If you did it last year it's cool, but if you do it after 1st Jan 2011, they can choose to ban you for that.\

Here's a whole other kettle o' fish to consider.... Hercs has a gym membership to the IPO. So everyone who's a member can lift with the federation. Does that mean EVERYONE who is a member of Hercs will not be allowed lift with the IDFPA?!

Pavel66

Hanley wrote: »

If you did it last year it's cool, but if you do it after 1st Jan 2011, they can choose to ban you for that.\

Here's a whole other kettle o' fish to consider.... Hercs has a gym membership to the IPO. So everyone who's a member can lift with the federation. Does that mean EVERYONE who is a member of Hercs will not be allowed lift with the IDFPA?!

That seems to be correct James, because when I went to enter on the day of the IPO Leinsters I was told that I didn't need to pay a membership fee to the IPO as I was a member of the Hercules club, therefore I was automatically a member of the IPO.

If this is the case, then you are right, it means that anyone who joins the Hercs is ineligible for membership of the IDFPA.

Since my previous post I have read the posts over at the IDFPA forum and it seems that their main concern is that if you associate with non tested federations then you may be bringing the IDFPA into disrepute.

TBH I find all this quite simply ridiculous. Once you are willing to submit to the IDFPA testing procedures, you should be allowed to lift with them...

If the powers that be decide otherwise, then I don't see much of a future for the organisation.

Hanley

#6YEARSOFHURT

whippet

hanley .. have you any background to this dispute? I've just read the same over on the powerliftingireland.com facebook page.

Thankfully I heeded advice last year and steered clear of the IDFPA.

Hanley

whippet wrote: »

hanley .. have you any background to this dispute? I've just read the same over on the powerliftingireland.com facebook page.

Thankfully I heeded advice last year and steered clear of the IDFPA.

The latest one?

All I've seen is whisperings.

Something about the WDFPF putting an onerous commitment on the venue the comp was to be held in. The IDFPA brass not liking it. Then a load of sniping back and forth.

...and now a blackmail accusation.

It's all great craic.

Keep in mind, this thread is 6 years old and if you read everytihng that happened in the past, I was stunningly close to seeing where it would end.

whippet

i'm new to all this and am only getting to see the politics of the sport in Ireland and hopefully my choice of the IPF will prove to be the correct one.

I have been involved with sport my whole life and a few years back I had to walk away from my football club due to the politics of it all. I had been a member from the age of 8 and for 10 years sat on committees and held officer posts but eventually rot and personalities become contagion and the reason for being gets forgotten. I battled with it for a couple of years but eventually for my own sanity I had to walk away from the club I loved.

I still cant comprehend why in such small community of powerlifting we have so may Feds - I can get the reason for tested and non-tested but surely two strong co-operating feds working together would give all competitors (from the hams to the elite) the best comps, standards, atmosphere and coaching ? it seems at the moment any available sponsorship and support is diluted across the feds with too many fish feeding from the same scraps.

Hanley

whippet wrote: »

i'm new to all this and am only getting to see the politics of the sport in Ireland and hopefully my choice of the IPF will prove to be the correct one.

I have been involved with sport my whole life and a few years back I had to walk away from my football club due to the politics of it all. I had been a member from the age of 8 and for 10 years sat on committees and held officer posts but eventually rot and personalities become contagion and the reason for being gets forgotten. I battled with it for a couple of years but eventually for my own sanity I had to walk away from the club I loved.

I still cant comprehend why in such small community of powerlifting we have so may Feds - I can get the reason for tested and non-tested but surely two strong co-operating feds working together would give all competitors (from the hams to the elite) the best comps, standards, atmosphere and coaching ? it seems at the moment any available sponsorship and support is diluted across the feds with too many fish feeding from the same scraps.

No one's in it for the sport.

Everyone's in it for their own personal glory.

Obviously I have to say the IPF is different (I'm technical director) but knowing the lads on the committee as I do, the senior branch is made up of elite lifters (actual elite) and long standing members of the PL Community that aren't dickbags.

...so I'm VERY hopeful for what we're doing.

Sugar Free

Shame to see the demise of the organisation over the years but if they reflect on the various changes they made over that time, it can hardly come as a surprise. I'll be interested to see what this condition(s) on the venue was.

I also had a mild lol that the link in the first post of this page brings you to a drug tested federation's message board whose forum is full of spammers for Balkan Pharma, Alpha Pharma and various other UGLs!

Hanley

Update:

From president of the WDFPF

Schoten 15 June 2016

Regarding all IDFPA members

The current IDFPA committee who was in charge of running the WC Powerlifting 2016 in Killarney has failed to succeed in organising this event. The championship was given to the IDFPA 2 years ago when at time Peter Lucey was President.

The committee at that time came forward with a venue in Killarney (which was visited by the WDFPF President).

I was informed the venue had an expense of €10.000, for which I told Peter Lucey this would be way too expensive for hosting the WC Powerlifting. Nevertheless they went through with this venue. Being a part of it, current IDFPA President, Andrew Scully and James O’Connell were aware of these expenses. The organisers claim that this was a part of their legacy, when in fact, this is just another excuse to cover things up and not taking their responsibility.

They had knowledge of everything starting day one.

The IDFPA made a promise that time to make the entry fee an average from previous years in WC Powerlifting which is 70€. In the meantime the baton had passed to the reigning President of the IDFPA, Andrew Scully, and with that a new committee.

The WDFPF RULES state that the info of the bid must be given out 1 year prior to the competition.

So at the congress of November 2015, nor Andrew Scully nor the organiser nor the IDFPA committee could give any.

In June 2016 there has been another request for the bid info and there still was no info available.

Meanwhile the IDFPA committee started to send invites to a massive amount of Irish lifters for their participation in the WC. This can all be done without BID INFORMATION??
The reply from Assumpta Feeney (in name of the committee) was that it would be given after the AGM.

I did not accept that. A first unofficial and incomplete info was sent to me. The entry fee was €85 for a first entry. A few days later followed the official info, again INCOMPLETE bid information AND the entry went up €100.

We as the WDFPF could not accept such a high entry as the bid was given to Ireland on a basis of €70 entry.

There has been told to them that the absurd cost for the venue could not be charged to the athletes’ entry fee.

That was the only thing where the WDFPF didn’t want to compromise. It’s never the athletes’ decision in choosing a €10.000 venue!

I am sure that no one, or very few of the Irish members/athletes know that the venue is this expensive. Therefore, it is the duty of the WDFPF to protect all of its members and potential organisers, who did not get the bid in 2016 from violating agreements .

We gave the IDFPA committee a chance to agree with a proposal from the WDFPF to keep the competition going in Killarney. The deadline was 14th of June 2016 20:00h.

They did not reply.

The current members of the IDFPA executive committee will be invited to the WDFPF Disciplinary committee for failing to organise the event, and damaging the WDFPF image.

whippet

10k for the venue ..that can't be right ?

Hanley

whippet wrote: »

10k for the venue ..that can't be right ?

Seems to be the main crux of the issue.

You can do about 60 lifters per platform per day.

2 platforms and a 2 day event means up to 240 lifters.

240*70 = €16,800

240*100 = €24,000

Even with a 10k venue bill, and testing 10% of lifters at approx €100 per head (2.5k total) that leaves a decent amount to run the comp in theory.

whippet

i'm sure the hotel wouldn't be charging too much for the room considering the number of bedrooms / meals / drinks will be sold over the weekend

something does not stack up

Hanley

whippet wrote: »

i'm sure the hotel wouldn't be charging too much for the room considering the number of bedrooms / meals / drinks will be sold over the weekend

something does not stack up

The 10k fee keeps coming up, so I believe it's possibly true. BUT I don't see the need for that expense. I know for a fact you can get a perfectly suitable comp venue for a day, for 1/20th that price.

It's a shame it's in meltdown mode.

whippet

The cost of the venue should be covered by sponsorship and retail partners at the event if done properly

juke

whippet wrote: »

The cost of the venue should be covered by sponsorship and retail partners at the event if done properly

Agreed. Difficult when WDFPF is imposing restrictions - prior approval of any sponsor, and total exclusivity of their equipment/clothing sponsor.

Hanley

#6YearsofHurt #Justice

allym

Hanley wrote: »

#6YearsofHurt #Justice

I am still so confused by what's going on. Cowboys Ted

Hanley

allym wrote: »

I am still so confused by what's going on. Cowboys Ted

Give it 24hrs.

allym

Hanley wrote: »

Give it 24hrs.

The suspense

Steve

Hanley wrote: »

Give it 24hrs.

And what?

No more drug free power lifting? how is that good?

Nervous Wreck

Steve wrote: »

And what?

No more drug free power lifting? how is that good?

"Drug free" and "tested" are as different as "drug free" and "untested".

Blacktie.

Steve wrote: »

And what?

No more drug free power lifting? how is that good?

Also the IPF still exists.

Steve

Blacktie. wrote: »

Also the IPF still exists.

And how many people have the Irish IPF had tested since it's inception?

Steve

Steve wrote: »

And how many people have the Irish IPF had tested since it's inception?

Seriously? no answer?


Would it happen to be three?