[Nuts]

I was thinking about how the first A in ATA is for Amateur, and how some shooters receive sponsorship, ammo, guns, equipment etc. My questions are:

1) Does the ATA put any controls on sponsorship; I couldn’t find anything in the rule book?

2) Would any such controls be enforceable?

3) Should there be a separate All-American Team for sponsored shooters? Or alternatively leave the open team as it is, and then have an Amateur Team? My thought is that Amateurs would remain eligible for the Open team, but sponsored shooters not for the Amateur team.

From a philosophical point of view, I would think at the very least some controls should be in place and possibly a separate team.

Please contribute to this discussion or debate philosophically, and leave any emotional tirades or personnel vendettas for a different thread.

 

[W.P.T.]

Do you have first hand knowledge of those who are sponsored, to what degree, and a list of who they are ..? WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

[870]

1)No, 2)No, 3)I don't think so. All shooters are amateurs under the rules.

 

[goatskin]

Most here accept (as a matter of faith) that certain shooters get: guns, ammo, equipment, travel & entry-fees, ...

That WAS the case a generation or two ago, but how factual is that assumption, really?

Longshot repeatedly asserts that he has direct, personal knowledge of free ammo being given to certain fair-haired children, but has never backed it up ...

Nuts, have you data?

Bob

 

[Rich219]

Does this forum ever go one day without someone wanting to change the rules of the ATA?

 

[timb99]

Oh quit complaining and shoot.

If Harlan Campbell whips your butt, its because he's a better shooter than you are, not because Remington gives him free shells (_IF_INDEED_ they do.)

 

[Nuts]

I have only heard in part of some sponsorship, or steep discounts. I would bet large sums of money that sponsorship goes on in some manner, not sure if it could be proved without volunatary information sharing. And I don't really have a problem with that, although by allowing it, its seems to change the meaning of amatuer.

I'm not advocating a change in rules...just a discussion, or simply enlightenment for myself.

 

[Nuts]

timb99 thanks for leaving the emotion out...gee whiz, you seem a little sensitive.

 

[goatskin]

Gary, I think we all accept that Rem gives shells (and probably some money) to the AA Captains, and I'm guessing that people accept that Kreighoff gives a few folks guns ... Steph Sandler comes to mind, and Blaser sponsors a few SC shooters, etc.

I get the idea that some folks think it is very pervasive, and mostly hidden.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen - and *EYE* am not one bit bothered, either way - but I'd just like some facts and data.

I don't see many shooters dressed like NASCAR drivers, and if *EYE* was paying them to promote my product ... they would be, and every 9th phrase out of their mouth would be: 'If it wasn't for that Pro-Rib and K-80 and those AA-Silvers ... there's no way I would be here in the winner's circle today.'

Bob

 

[BIGDON]

Look up the difference between endorsements and sponsorship.

One of you unfortunates brings this up every 3 months. Save yourself some time and look it up. This is old BS.

Don

 

[870]

Nuts:

Read the last sentence of my reply above and it will save you all kinds of time trying to figure out if some perceived "amateur" rule is being violated by anyone.

 

[goatskin]

870 ... Unloader ... precisely!

 

[Nuts]

870...my first question was are there controls.

I don't have a problem with sponsorship or endorements...in fact would agrue they are important to the sport. However, even in the most basic sense there should be some controls...like for example, and this only an example, no sponsored shooters should sit on the EC, or serve as an offical refree or on a tournament rule committe, AND I'M NOT SAYIMG THERE IS THAT TYPE OF PROBLEM NOW, just so there is no PRECEPTION of a conflict of interest etc.

Again for the over sensitive types this is a philosphical discussion. SO leave your EMO at home. If you elect to participate then do so with rational explanations, rather that simple personal attacks. Personal attacks create the preception that there are some unsaid things going on, which you are trying to protect--that is taught if debate 101 by the way.

Also since this as been discuused before, and if you are tired of the subject that please ignore this thread, as you know the story already.

 

[870]

Nuts:

I wasn't trying to be short with you, just pointing out that by definition ALL ATA shooters are amateurs under the rules. Since that is the case, why would there be any need for controls etc. related to the AA Teams, or separate AA Teams as your initial post seemd to be discussing? Seems a moot point to me.

 

[Jerry944t]

There used to be what was called an "Industry" class. These were reps for ammo makers, guns, etc. It was before my trap shooting days but one of my present shooting friends was a Remington rep.

As such I believe he was fully paid and supplied to attend shoots and represent Remington. I don't think he was eligible for any trophies, added money or options. He's a little vague about it so maybe someone would take the time to educate me.

I don't know why the Industry class was eliminated, perhaps there were too few reps but I do know that there are quite a few sponsored shooters at present.

 

[timb99]

Not one bit sensitive about this subject, nuts.

Philosophically speaking, and without even a whit of emotion...quit complaining and shoot.

And...try to have fun while you're at it.

 

[scott calhoun]

Nuts -

Are you saying that the vast majority of sub-junior and junior shooters would be in the pro class? I'm sure most of them never pay any entry fees or buy shells.

How about all of us that took advantage of the Rem/Win/Fed promo to get rebates on our shells?

I've said it before, and I'll state it again . . . The top shooters get free stuff because they are a top shooter, getting the free stuff didn't make them a top shooter. Taking away their free stuff or otherwise putting them in a group of their own won't stop them from being the top shooters.

Scott

 

[Nuts]

timb99...I do not beleive my questions where in the form of a compliant, but rather questions.

Be that as it may...quit reacting and read.

870, ok I understand your point, since everyone is defined as amaturer then there is not need for a rule...although it seems circular to me. I would bet most organizations such as the ATA have controls for sponsors. It simply seems appropriate...it might only mean tell us what your doing, or disclosure.

Scott the promo stuff is simple a sale technique and since its avaiable to everyone then it can not be precieved as sponsorship.

Kid or Junior shooters are probably a seperate subject..if a club pays all of its junior shooters entries then is that sponsorship...if restricted to limited youth shooter then yes, if all youth shooter are affored that same sponsorship then no.

I'm not arguing against sponsorship, like I said I beleive it is important to the sport...however some disclosure would be apropriate..and I would think that an officer or EC member of the ATA should be prohibted from sponsorship, giving or receiving--that is simply common sense. I'm not saying that is going on, or has happened in the past. Just that it would be prudent from a intergrity point-of-view.

Lastly---I suprised no has said this "since we all win money at some point it our shooting careers, (some more than others) none of us are amaturers.

 

[1oldtimer]

Nuts-- This is a poor place to ask simple questions that may be controversial. The subject will be changed numerous times without getting a civil answer. Most answers are from opionated regulars who thrive on getting you irratated. CED

 

[870]

Nuts:

Seems you are on a little different issue now than when you started out, but I believe the ATA does have a Conflict of Interest policy in place with all of the EC.

I'm not sure what problems or conflicts there would be, but you never know.