PDGA Board of Director Elections

[gingerandhoney]

@BionicRib, I was not on the Board when the initial Medical Committee was created.
I looked up this in the meeting minutes (you could have as well, they are in the public domain).

2015 IOC Policy (MS/EK): MS began the conversation by stating the intent is to implement the 2015 IOC policy for the PDGA beginning in 2019. The first piece was to ensure personal information is handled appropriately and ultimately only managed by the proposed Medical Committee. He discussed how sensitive medical data needs to be handled by the staff in the meantime. He discussed how the staff should answer inquiries from individuals asking about the eligibility of someone playing in a certain division. The basic premise is the staff will not have the details to answers this type of question in the future and will only know if a member is eligible or not to play in a particular division. EK then provided an update on establishing a Medical Committee. Said a call for volunteers is needed on the PDGA's website to serve on this committee.

She proposed the following motion:
MOTION (EK/MS)
Approve the formation of a PDGA Medical Committee and to post a call for volunteers on the PDGA
website.
Yes: JM, DF, BD, NH, EK, MS, TH
Motion passes 7-0-0

Medical Committee (EK): EK advised that the progress on establishing this new committee is going very well. She and MS have interviewed potential candidates and have identified a well-rounded group of committee members. She also mentioned there were a number of very passionate and experienced candidates who weren't selected that would be willing to serve on working groups as needed.

Medical Committee Update (EK): EK provided an update from the Medical Committee on their plan to create two subcommittees.
One subcommittee will provide recommendations, based on scientific analysis, on the application of the recently released IOC Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Sex Variations. Qualified candidates include medical professionals - such as doctors, clinicians, scientists and practitioners - specializing in endocrinology, kinesiology, sports medicine and similar fields.
The other subcommittee will provide recommendations, based on scientific analysis, on the application of the WADA List of Prohibited Substances and Methods. Qualified candidates include medical professionals - such as doctors, clinicians, scientists and practitioners - specializing in endocrinology, pharmacology, physiology, psychiatry, sports medicine and similar fields.
The Medical Committee will post an article on PDGA.com asking our members to volunteer for a subcommittee if they are interested and have appropriate qualifications.

Medical Committee Subcommittee Update (EK): EK provided an update on the selection of highly qualified members to serve of the subcommittees for Gender-based Divisions as well as Prohibited Substances. She provided an update on the current progress of the subcommittees, followed by additional discussion by the group.

-----

As for the bureacracy of the process (which is the same for each committee), it's been explained by Steve, myself and I believe John Biscoe in fairly fine detail.

This process is not all of a sudden going to be different for the Medical Committee because the (non)members-at-large feel heavily torn on the subject matter of (dis)allowing transgender women in gender-based divisions.

The PDGA operates like any larger organisation, and has built-in checks and balances, and where it concenrs the Board members, they have signed conflict of interest forms, and are held to non-disclosure and non-compete clauses.

Assuming that the Board (and I can understand you or anyone from thinking so, I after all am transgender myself, and have been accused of running a transgender agenda) is going to force any vote that would go against the Medical Committee's recommendation.
Said recommendation is completely unknown at this point in time.

Assuming the Board would go against the Medical Committee's recommendation regardless, is tantamount to saying the Board operates in bad faith.

 

[gingerandhoney]

Here's two hypothetical situations for (any of) you to answer.

And keep in mind, there are two candidates who openly run on a "make women's divisions fair again" platform.

1.) Medical Committee recommends no/minor change, which would then (mostly) continue to allow transgender women from competing in gender-based divisions?
How would you expect and/or want the Board to vote? Go with the recommendation? Disregard the recommendation?

2.) Medical Committee recommends major change, which would then (mostly) disallow transgender women from competing in gender-based divisions?
How would you expect and/or want the Board to vote? Go with the recommendation? Disregard the recommendation?

Please, explicitly answer both hypotheticals.

Bonus hypothetical, how would the two earlier-mentioned candidates - assuming they'd make it on the Board - vote? With or against the recommendation, or would that be heavily/exclusively dependent on whether orrnot the recommendation is to (mostly) allow or (mostly) disallow transgender women from competing?

While it is fairly clear to understand how they would vote (they made it very clear on social media), do not attempt to make the mistake to assume how I and the other Board members would vote.

 

[CPAPhil]

Here's two hypothetical situations for (any of) you to answer.

And keep in mind, there are two candidates who openly run on a "make women's divisions fair again" platform.

1.) Medical Committee recommends no/minor change, which would then (mostly) continue to allow transgender women from competing in gender-based divisions?
How would you expect and/or want the Board to vote? Go with the recommendation? Disregard the recommendation?

2.) Medical Committee recommends major change, which would then (mostly) disallow transgender women from competing in gender-based divisions?
How would you expect and/or want the Board to vote? Go with the recommendation? Disregard the recommendation?

Please, explicitly answer both hypotheticals.

Bonus hypothetical, how would the two earlier-mentioned candidates - assuming they'd make it on the Board - vote? With or against the recommendation, or would that be heavily/exclusively dependent on whether orrnot the recommendation is to (mostly) allow or (mostly) disallow transgender women from competing?

While it is fairly clear to understand how they would vote (they made it very clear on social media), do not attempt to make the mistake to assume how I and the other Board members would vote.

Would be nice if more people understood the process. Some will just vote for those specific candidates and think they can go in and magically wave their wand to make their predetermined agenda happen ASAP. What if the committee recommends no changes, now what are they going to do? Fight the committee and discredit all of their research and time? Exercising professional skepticism is warranted, but not to immediately discredit.

 

[roblee]

Q1 & Q2. I couldn't expect or want the BOD to vote a certain way because I can't imagine what the Medical Committee will propose; can't imagine what criteria the BOD will use to evaluate; can't imagine their biases. I expect the decision to be important. I expect the vote will be the most discussed (internally & externally) decision of the PDGA BOD, ever. I expect many will vote this month based solely on this issue. I expect many will vote next year based solely on this issue & how the BOD votes.

 

[robdeforge]

The problem with these papers is that these papers are heavily focused on comparing the average woman to a woman post-transition. The average male has a strength comparable, depending on the study, to a female in the top 7.5% to 5% of all females. The comparison should be between the strength of women post-transition and women born with female external sexual characteristics in the top 7.5% to 5%. This is not problematic unless your perspective is that these women are inherently immoral cheaters looking for advantages. This is because, the fact is, that all women are not born equal in terms of their athletic potential. The advantages of genetic expression that occur as a result of various influences are very real within the population of women before we even consider women post-transition. This is just another example of that. It is a totally unfair standard to apply to them, given the BROAD differences we already see in the population of women before we consider transitioned people at all.

are you aware of any papers or other scientific literature that arrive at an opposite or different conclusion than these?

 

[ChrisWoj]

are you aware of any papers or other scientific literature that arrive at an opposite or different conclusion than these?

Did you read my post, to comprehend that I consider the conclusions of these papers to be irrelevant considering the lack of basis for equitable comparison? How about we see some studies that compare cis-women with as many expressions of what are considered "male" characteristics as women who have transitioned, and identify which group has the athletic advantage?

 

[robdeforge]

Did you read my post, to comprehend that I consider the conclusions of these papers to be irrelevant considering the lack of basis for equitable comparison? How about we see some studies that compare cis-women with as many expressions of what are considered "male" characteristics as women who have transitioned, and identify which group has the athletic advantage?

I have been told by other people that such studies exist so I was wondering if you knew of any. based on your response, I am going to assume that you don't

 

[dmoore1998]

Did you read my post, to comprehend that I consider the conclusions of these papers to be irrelevant considering the lack of basis for equitable comparison? How about we see some studies that compare cis-women with as many expressions of what are considered "male" characteristics as women who have transitioned, and identify which group has the athletic advantage?

I'm curious your rationale for why this matters. Are you suggesting that the appropriate comparison between 2 groups should be the average of one with the more extreme outliers of the other in order to determine whether there's an advantage (specifically, whether the average member of group B has an inherent advantage over the outliers of Group A, and if not, then combining should be ok as Group B would function merely at the same advantage of folks already in Group A)?

This is going to end up being the basis of any decisions anyways. Anyone on both sides of any issue can typically find "science" that backs them. The science just spits out data regarding test subjects...it doesn't define whether you're testing something relevant, or groups that are relevant.

The relevant questions will inevitably be "which data sets make for a relevant comparison" (to your point) and "what are we measuring?".

 

[prokebyt]

@CPAPhil, I am directing this question to you as your platform focuses on governance and accountability, but would appreciate to hear from Laura as well if she wants to weigh in.

Do you think it was appropriate for the PDGA to take a 10% ownership stake in the DGPT as part of the "official pro tour agreement"? https://www.pdga.com/news/announcing-official-pro-tour-pdga

I am not a lawyer and might be out to lunch, but the decision for the PDGA to accept a minority (10%) ownership stake in the DGPT doesn't make any sense to me at all. I don't see any upside to that particular part of the deal beyond the potential financial benefits, but the potential antitrust issues it creates are limitless as the sport continues to grow.

The PDGA controls the entire amateur pipeline/infrastructure and the rules of the sport itself. Why take an ownership stake in one of the professional organizations? Not only is that an obvious signal of anti competitiveness in itself, you open the PDGA organization up to future liability based on decisions made solely within the DGPT organization.

What if the DGPT decides to revoke tour cards for players who play for a startup professional tour competing with the DGPT? It doesn't seemed far fetched to make the case the PDGA is party to the restraint of trade and unreasonable limiting of competition. Did the PDGA do a legal review of The Sherman Antitrust Act, The Clayton Act, or The National Labor Relations Act before taking 10% ownership of the DGPT?

 

[roblee]

Dang good question prokebyt. I read the announcement last year but never thought about it. I didn't see the 10% share, only that it was minority (<51%) position. The PDGA is a BIG part of DGPT PR presence. Member benefits are mostly access to timely event videos. Did PDGA pay for this? If so that is just our (members) money collected by PDGA & going out to DGPT.. If that is so then it's kind of like the PDGA works for DGPT, no? I hope this partnership is good for the sport & not just a way to pad Pro payouts. Good topic relating to elections. Will be interested in other's takes.

 

[CPAPhil]

@CPAPhil, I am directing this question to you as your platform focuses on governance and accountability, but would appreciate to hear from Laura as well if she wants to weigh in.

Do you think it was appropriate for the PDGA to take a 10% ownership stake in the DGPT as part of the "official pro tour agreement"? https://www.pdga.com/news/announcing-official-pro-tour-pdga

I am not a lawyer and might be out to lunch, but the decision for the PDGA to accept a minority (10%) ownership stake in the DGPT doesn't make any sense to me at all. I don't see any upside to that particular part of the deal beyond the potential financial benefits, but the potential antitrust issues it creates are limitless as the sport continues to grow.

The PDGA controls the entire amateur pipeline/infrastructure and the rules of the sport itself. Why take an ownership stake in one of the professional organizations? Not only is that an obvious signal of anti competitiveness in itself, you open the PDGA organization up to future liability based on decisions made solely within the DGPT organization.

What if the DGPT decides to revoke tour cards for players who play for a startup professional tour competing with the DGPT? It doesn't seemed far fetched to make the case the PDGA is party to the restraint of trade and unreasonable limiting of competition. Did the PDGA do a legal review of The Sherman Antitrust Act, The Clayton Act, or The National Labor Relations Act before taking 10% ownership of the DGPT?

Hey,

I really wish the 2021 audited financial statements were available by this point because it could help provide some additional context (although maybe not much). I understand your concern and think it's valid. I do think both organizations (at this current moment) need each other to thrive. I have no idea what conversations were being had behind the scenes, but those two organizations have a symbiotic relationship. It's no secret the national tour was not living up to the standards set by the DGPT, and quite honestly, the PDGA is so much more than pro disc golf. I'm torn on this just being an outsider. I understand your antitrust concerns, I really do, but at such an early moment in disc golf's life cycle, I find it hard to find too many faults for this arrangement at this moment in disc golf. I truly believe both entities working together (whether ownership interest is involved or not), is better for the game right now. I do also believe the PDGA might have feared a little on the "what ifs" relating to the DGPT potentially being more than what they are and competing against the PDGA (which comes back to one of your concerns).

Once again, all outside perspective and I have no idea what is said behind the scenes. The DGPT also has had its ups and downs over the years and benefits from PDGA resources and support. I believe they have a close relationship and I'm going to guess, Laura or someone else correct me if needed, they do have some level of influence on the PDGA (whether it's publicized, or even would ever admit). I honestly would be surprised if there wasn't some level of influence/conversation the DGPT will have on the fairness of division conversations and prohibited substances as it affects them. Then you get into the whole conversation of the DGPT having their own set of rules, but that's a different conversation and gets more complex.

Is it anti-consumer? I'm not certain yet as it's still so new. Could it be? Maybe. Could it also be beneficial and make our experiences much better? Possibly. As of now, it seems to be working out well and doesn't appear to have any negative public consequences yet.

I feel like all major sports fall into the trend of one primary league/tour with some developmental entities also in the scene. This is sort of what we have now. Could it get to the point of what is happening in golf with LIV? We will see. Maybe we will have a big player come into disc golf with a significant amount of cash to incentive players.

Without being on the inside and truly understanding the relationship and what was going on before this arrangement, it's a little difficult to develop a hard stance opinion on the matter. I'm sure this was discussed significantly internally with a variety of topics coming up. This could certainly fall under PDGA's NDAs as well.

 

[roblee]

Nice Disc Golf Community candidate videos: I read the 7 on their fb page. I don't know who NDGC is but they made the effort to reach out. They have few followers but it is an opportunity to give candidates a podium. So, the statements had little difference from the PDGA statements. Other than Laura there was little substance. Quite a bit of "I love DG vote for me". Paint circles & subsidize touring pro housing? Really? If NDGC has responses from the other 6 they should get them out fast to be fair. Please, someone tell me how you will govern!

 

[gingerandhoney]

I had remained in touch with the people behind NDGC, particularly after @CPAPHil pointed out they had not been contacted yet.
Between incorrect contact details and the NDGC people dealing with real-life topics, there was a bit more delay in releasing interviews than planned.
I am sure that all efforts will be made to keep further delays to a minimum.

 

[BionicRib]

Q1 & Q2. I couldn't expect or want the BOD to vote a certain way because I can't imagine what the Medical Committee will propose; can't imagine what criteria the BOD will use to evaluate; can't imagine their biases. I expect the decision to be important. I expect the vote will be the most discussed (internally & externally) decision of the PDGA BOD, ever. I expect many will vote this month based solely on this issue. I expect many will vote next year based solely on this issue & how the BOD votes.

This pretty much sums up my answer of those 2 questions. I think a lot of people are voting this year because of this issue. My hope is that the board members vote on what is presented to them and that both sides are heard and considered equally. I think most of the candidates are pretty transparent about how they view things, but personal bias is a hard thing to overlook. At the very least the groundwork will be set to get better in the future. I truly believe that the only thing that will "resolve" this debate is time

 

[prokebyt]

I do think both organizations (at this current moment) need each other to thrive.

Hey, thanks for the quick response! I just want to be clear I 100% agree with the above. I know the PDGA & DGPT will need to have a close working relationship, and I think most of the announcement I linked was good for disc golf and something to celebrate. It was very specifically the 10% ownership part of the deal that raised my eyebrows.

To elaborate a bit further on this:

I feel like all major sports fall into the trend of one primary league/tour

My understanding of the history of the big 4 sports leagues in North America (NFL/MLB/NBA/NHL) is that the path to one primary league is littered with brutal competition and numerous lawsuits. Even when it is down to just one league, as long as the league is popular and financially productive it will be sued constantly by stakeholders with legitimate financial interests that are affected by the decisions made by that league.

Disc golf is young and there are a lot of unknowns, but I think it's safe to assume if disc golf continues to grow and attract further investment, there will be lawsuits in the professional arm of the game, where the money is.

If there is a certainty of lawsuits coming, why would the PDGA voluntarily add themselves to be potentially liable in every single one that involves the DGPT? Becoming a 10% owner risks that. The 10% ownership stake is not a necessary element of a productive working relationship between the two organizations, so that's why it's really hard for me to understand the value and reasoning of that being part of the arrangement.

 

[CPAPhil]

Hey, thanks for the quick response! I just want to be clear I 100% agree with the above. I know the PDGA & DGPT will need to have a close working relationship, and I think most of the announcement I linked was good for disc golf and something to celebrate. It was very specifically the 10% ownership part of the deal that raised my eyebrows.

To elaborate a bit further on this:



My understanding of the history of the big 4 sports leagues in North America (NFL/MLB/NBA/NHL) is that the path to one primary league is littered with brutal competition and numerous lawsuits. Even when it is down to just one league, as long as the league is popular and financially productive it will be sued constantly by stakeholders with legitimate financial interests that are affected by the decisions made by that league.

Disc golf is young and there are a lot of unknowns, but I think it's safe to assume if disc golf continues to grow and attract further investment, there will be lawsuits in the professional arm of the game, where the money is.

If there is a certainty of lawsuits coming, why would the PDGA voluntarily add themselves to be potentially liable in every single one that involves the DGPT? Becoming a 10% owner risks that. The 10% ownership stake is not a necessary element of a productive working relationship between the two organizations, so that's why it's really hard for me to understand the value and reasoning of that being part of the arrangement.

Being on the outside it's tough to see all the angles. There are always other ways to arrange a partnership, but it appears they elected the minority ownership route. In theory, they can probably get bought out in the future if they so desire, but I don't know the specifics of the arrangement. Regardless if they have an ownership in DGPT, I'm sure they will be dealing with more lawsuits as the sport grows. With how passionate people are regarding the trans athlete conversation, it wouldn't surprise me to see legal matters regarding that topic in the future regardless of which way the policy goes. With the right relationships, legal teams can tend to be cheaper with potential probono work. They could always develop in house legal counsel in the future too if it's gets to that point. No idea if they have that now. I do know they do have people inside the organization with legal backgrounds though. As you can see, governance of an organization doesn't reside at one agenda topic (not saying you think that, it's just what's happening for a good amount of folks) and is much more then that, we will see how this election plays out.

 

[ChrisWoj]

I was using Al Schack in an example earlier (how most of us would like to see the sport's historical statistics and they're hidden from everybody if the player in question has been out of the game for a long time). Just learned at league, as a side note here, that Al "Sugar" Schack is also an exceptional ping pong player. Kicks everyone's ass from what I hear, and puts a ton of spin on the ball. A guy standing around the league tent told us he has three different paddles based on how good he thinks you are (each having a different gradient of the amount of spin you can put on the ball).

I'm not surprised at all by that. The guy took runner-up to you-know-who for the first two USDGC's. (and to bring this back to the topic at hand...) Imagine if you could just type in his name in the PDGA player directory and see those results easily...

That's a good idea to send to Competition Director & the Board. We know that they seldom visit this site & rarer still do they interact.

This travesty is, sadly, not shocking. The entire PDGA is predicated on shaking us down a for few dozen dollars in membership fee every year. So it's unsurprising that individual stats are held hostage until one ponies up the cash.

It's the same as the Board election structure. You have to pay to be an Active Member of the organization in order to vote for the Board. Then you get to see who makes it onto the Board, and what they do with the organization... that you've already paid to be a member of.

The cart is squarely ahead of the horse.

Was trying to respond to some random person on reddit that claimed Kyle Klein is already the best player to ever come out of Michigan and came across this...

https://statmando.com/player/alan-schack/profile

Enjoy.

 

[gingerandhoney]

Last day of voting is upon us.

Who here still has an unused ballot in their hand?
What will you need to go and vote?

 

[CPAPhil]

Last day of voting is upon us.

Who here still has an unused ballot in their hand?
What will you need to go and vote?

A electronic device probably

 

[gingerandhoney]

Most definitely.
But aside from that...

Anyone need any more input on any election related topic in order to be convinced of whom to vote for?