USBC and Storm Products have agreed on a national tournament exclusion rule and ball exchange program for six Storm Products manufactured ball models. The agreement comes after USBC identified the models having a percentage of balls produced below USBC minimum 73D hardness specification. Read more: https://bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622337509

USBC's investigation showed a percentage of these ball models measured below the USBC-required hardness level of the approval samples submitted by Storm. Storm collaborated with USBC after being notified of this testing.

The affected models include: Storm Phaze 4, Storm Electrify Solid, Storm Trend 2, 900 Global Altered Reality, 900 Global Wolverine, Roto Grip UFO Alert

Effective March 30, 2022, these balls models are prohibited from use in USBC national tournaments, including but not limited to, the USBC Masters, U.S. Open, USBC Open Championships, USBC Women's Championships, all PWBA Tour events, USBC Junior Gold and Youth Open Championships, USBC Intercollegiate Championships, USBC Team USA Trials, USBC Senior Masters and USBC Senior Queens.

These ball models remain USBC approved. Each USBC competition, whether tournament or league, has the option to adopt USBC's national tournament rule prohibiting use of these balls or to continue to allow their use.

USBC has shared this national tournament rule with Storm and has Storm's support. Storm will offer owners of the affected balls the option to exchange their balls for a new product. Information about the exchange program will be published later this week on StormBowling.com.

Quote from: acread on April 10, 2022, 01:10:25 PM

Quote from: psycaz on April 10, 2022, 12:38:36 PM

Quote from: acread on April 10, 2022, 12:25:25 PM

Quote from: Journey82 on April 10, 2022, 11:20:44 AM

But it was a compromise to try not to screw over a bunch of people.

That's EXACTLY what it was.  The USBC would have banned the six balls, but they realized that if they did that on top of the Spectre being banned, they would financially cripple one of the two biggest suppliers in the industry (and a really good sponsor as well).  They also knew that Storm guys would throw up a massive stink no matter what since people these days only believe what they want to believe.  So, the USBC and Storm worked out a compromise together to try and minimize the impact of the announcement while simultaneously admitting the problem.  The net result was a ton of confusion, but it was all done to try and help Storm, not hurt them.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that none of this would be happening if Storm didn't release illegal balls into the marketplace.  That is Storm's fault, nobody else's.  Everything else is just an offshoot of the massive problem they created.

Compromise? They did what they had to to make sure the company survived

The Spectre was full ban. If they full banned these 6 p,yes kept going? They could have put Storm out of business. Storm could fight it in the courts, but that can, and most probably would, take years.

Is it much of a compromise to accept a finding that lets you stay in business?

Yes, there are affected Storm balls in my household. Haven’t hidden that fact. Doesn’t actually change my opinion on the timing of the exclusion and transparency. Add my issue with consistency on the procedures for testing in regards to banning.

Both of those are on the USBC.

As I've said before (and most folks here probably agree), the timing of the announcement was terrible.  No question about that.  I don't have a problem with the USBC spot-checking at OOB finish, as that's the condition most balls will be used at in competition.  In a perfect world, balls would be tested at both OOB finish and 500 grit for accuracy and consistency.

None of this changes the fact that Storm did this to themselves.  If the USBC didn't call them out on the problem, it would be negligence on the USBC's part.  Also, I have one of the balls affected.  It sucks, but I'm not blaming the USBC because in the long run they did the right thing.  They did the right thing in the wrong way, especially as it pertains to the timing of the announcement, but they wouldn't have had to do it at all if Storm didn't make a massive mistake.

Spot check at OOB, fine. To determine if excluded/banned, testing should be performed identical to what was done to approve the ball in the first place.

What would be so horrible about doing a spot check. Finding that the balls are doing out soft at OOB.

THEN

Taking those same balls. Transport them to USBC testing lab. Contact Storm, make them aware of a possible issue, and have them come and view the testing to determine ban/exclusion.
Sand said balls to 500 as they are for initial approval.
Test balls. Record testing for all.
Make determination of pass/fail.

Do that and what least they can say: here is everything we did.

Out in the open.

The balls are approved without polish. I’m saying use the same procedure to determine pass/fail once in production as you did to approve in the first place.

OK, say the USBC does all of what you're suggesting.  What do you do if a company finds a way to make their OOB hardness readings way below legal due to their polishing process (maybe they use a specific chemical during polishing that causes it, for example)?  Say at 500 grit their balls measure at about 74D, yet at OOB they're consistently 69D or so?  If you only use the 500 grit measurement as the definitive one, then highly illegal balls will be used in competitive situations with no recourse.  That's certainly not acceptable, yet what you're proposing doesn't account in any way for that possibility.

Also, who's to say that the USBC didn't contact Storm, make them aware that there was a potential issue, and let them view the testing as more balls were tested?  I agree that would be good protocol, and that might be exactly what happened.

Your point about transparency is a good one, as it is always preferable to put consumers' minds at ease and develop trust.  However, just because we all wish they were more transparent with us as consumers doesn't mean they weren't transparent with Storm as the testing was happening.  I can't prove anything either way, but I have a hard time believing that the USBC didn't loop Storm in on the potential issue months ago.

It’s simple. Storm would have said that they were made aware awhile ago. They would have said they saw the testing. You know damn well the USBC would have yelled to the moon if they had.

You really think if they’d had Storm there for the testing, they wouldn’t have given themselves that shelter of just saying, Storm viewed the testing we did?

Meanwhile no spoilers, but these balls are definitely in play on today's PBA show.

Of course; because when you think about it, the PBA is actually using a LOWER STANDARD than the USBC. So thinking about it more, what does that say about the Professional Bowlers Association, in comparison to, say, the PWBA or Collegiates?

You would think they should be the higher standard, if not the peak, but if they are allowing these, let alone (from what I hear), allowing balls as low as 70D, what does that say about the PBA?

BL.

The PBA is a business and Storm is heavily involved in that business.

Quote from: itsallaboutme on April 10, 2022, 03:57:52 PM

The PBA is a business and Storm is heavily involved in that business.

Oh, I get that, and get that the PBA is a private organization.

I guess what I am saying is that if the PBA is using a lower standard than the USBC, it would be safe to question their status as the echelon and pinnacle of the sport of bowling, just based on their standards alone. If something like Collegiates and the PWBA are held to higher standards, can people still call the PBA the best? Until they get their standards in order regarding ball specifications, a black cloud will linger over the PBA's proverbial head, in fealty to a single ball company.

BL.

This why I highly doubt you’ll see bowling in the Olympics. It’s a clown show.

Quote from: bradl on April 10, 2022, 03:43:15 PM

Quote from: bowling4burgers on April 10, 2022, 12:29:48 PM

Meanwhile no spoilers, but these balls are definitely in play on today's PBA show.

Of course; because when you think about it, the PBA is actually using a LOWER STANDARD than the USBC. So thinking about it more, what does that say about the Professional Bowlers Association, in comparison to, say, the PWBA or Collegiates?

You would think they should be the higher standard, if not the peak, but if they are allowing these, let alone (from what I hear), allowing balls as low as 70D, what does that say about the PBA?

BL.

What it says to me is the PBA understands what's important and what's not, better than the USBC does. And that doesn't just go for hardness specs.

So kowtowing to a company and having softer equipment out there for people to take advantage of and a 2-year rolling ban on urethane because a certain bowler can't handle it symbolizes the epitome of integrity. Got it. 

Quote

This why I highly doubt you’ll see bowling in the Olympics. It’s a clown show.

While it's a joke that bowling isn't in the Olympics when other "sports" are, we've spent enough time and money on that futile pursuit as it is. I joined the USBC in 1990 and we were talking about it 32 years ago. It's not going to be a sport because (a) bowling probably doesn't have enough $$$ to wine and dine the IOC and (b) it's a sport likely to be dominated by Americans, and the IOC doesn't want to add anymore of those than is absolutely necessary. The excuse that bowling doesn't have "one governing body" has been addressed for years. As a USBC member I'm tired to seeing my sanctioning fees get spent on that pursuit.

Spoken like someone who hasn't seen any bowling outside of the US, and I'm not just talking about bowlers you see on the PBA. If you'd seen the bowlers in the JPBA, KPBA, the WTBA (which is the world governing body, despite what people in the USA think), the European leagues, Singapore, and others, you'd see how competitive bowling is.

Do this: go romp through BowlTV's Youtube page for any of the QubicaAMF World Cup tournaments. You'll see how competitive it is, even to where some of those bowlers from the PBA don't win, despite thinking that the USA would simply "dominate" the sport.

BL.

So kowtowing to a company and having softer equipment out there for people to take advantage of and a 2-year rolling ban on urethane because a certain bowler can't handle it symbolizes the epitome of integrity. Got it. 

Whose position do you want me to argue, exactly? The professional league's summation that 70 is just as fine as 72? I personally don't care if the standard is 40. Or 20. What I do care about here is that I trust the PBA far more than the USBC to determine what's an appropriate standard, what's fair, and how to adjudicate it.

Do I think Sean Rash has anything to do with this? Not something this big -- and if so, given its his company that is suffering the most, I reject any notion that the USBC is "kowtowing" to Rash or anybody else. If anything, it would suggest the USBC is kowtowing to someone from the B7 family out of revenge.

Yet, not even that makes sense. The Purple Hammer problem has been a known issue for awhile now. And yet, it affected just two production years. There is a shelf life of usability for all bowling balls, a fact that by itself makes it even more ridiculous for the USBC to piecemeal the Storm ban in this way. I'll give my solution at the end, but I want to address the other comment first:

Spoken like someone who hasn't seen any bowling outside of the US, and I'm not just talking about bowlers you see on the PBA. If you'd seen the bowlers in the JPBA, KPBA, the WTBA (which is the world governing body, despite what people in the USA think), the European leagues, Singapore, and others, you'd see how competitive bowling is.

I know it's competitive outside the US but I also know the PBA is still the gold standard for competitiveness and prestige across the sport. It's the sport equivalent of "going to Nashville" for a country music singer. We can argue about whether economics or the lack of desire to be away from one's family for four months keeps more foreign bowlers off the PBA tour, or maybe it's the depth of the field, I don't know. The two best bowlers at the moment are international guys -- Belmonte and Barrett -- so it's not like there's some magical prohibition against international talent in the PBA.

But that's not the only thing the IOC is looking at. Take a look at baseball, a sport played worldwide, and very well in numerous countries, especially those in Latin America. It was first added in 1992 and then eliminated from the Olympics in 2005 before returning in 2020. The IOC said it was because the best players weren't playing, which was not entirely true. MLB players didn't play during that period, but minor leaguers did, and the prohibition of MLB players from playing affected all countries. I had a friend on the first team, a guy who still holds the strikeout record for Olympic baseball (B.J. Wallace) and if anyone doesn't remember the IOC politics and "concerns" about USA having an inherent edge in the sport, I'll be happy to remind you. Despite not having "access to the best talent," 16 of the 20 U.S. players in '92 made the bigs including Jason Varitek, Nomar Garciaparra and Jason Giambi. Anyone who has been around bowling can tell you that getting it through the IOC has been like pushing a rope. And that's even with the ABC/WIBC/YABA merger to USBC basically calling the IOC's bluff about a single governing agency. The WTBA thing is non sequitur; again, baseball has the MLB in America and the NPB in Japan, etc.

Now, briefly back to the balls:

The *right* way to have fixed the Jackal issue for Motiv, the Purple Hammer issue for B7 and the seven Storm balls would have been for the USBC to notify the companies quietly, audit their current production, make the changes to all future balls and move on. We simply are not a big enough sport to justify endangering the livelihood of companies (especially Motiv) with multi-million-dollar "fixes" unless the companies were found to have purposefully deceived the USBC. Given that ball performance degrades relatively quickly, within a year or two anything you'd be able to buy off the shelf would have outperformed any of these pieces. As for Nationals, the USBC's decision was especially egregious and should have gone into effect only at the conclusion of the tournament. It wouldn't have been a perfect solution, but it would at least have not come across as the USBC trying to swing its (stick) around just because it could.

If Sean Rash was able to set all of this into motion with one comment, I feel sorry for the state of our sport and its leaders.