It appears the ball issue between Storm and USBC is far from over

Storm put out a video, demonstrating how you can get different readings from different durometers, even when they are both “in calibration”.

 Also how you get different reading with different surface finishes. And temperatures.

 And anything else they could think of.

https://youtu.be/sKCtQ63FRQo

Notice how there's no mention of how the banned Storm balls compared to other balls that tested within spec in the Storm brand(s) or brands of other companies?  Let's just say that the banned balls tested at 73D, yet every other ball was 75D or higher.  That would still be a massive red flag.  Even if the durometer wasn't calibrated exactly "correctly", context still matters.  This video does nothing to address that in any way.

It appears the ball issue between Storm and USBC is far from over

As it appears that your participation in this forum is far from over...

.. or is this just more of your contributions of nonsense to this forum? I can't tell.

BL.

Quote from: acread on April 21, 2022, 09:40:05 PM

Notice how there's no mention of how the banned Storm balls compared to other balls that tested within spec in the Storm brand(s) or brands of other companies?  Let's just say that the banned balls tested at 73D, yet every other ball was 75D or higher.  That would still be a massive red flag.  Even if the durometer wasn't calibrated exactly "correctly", context still matters.  This video does nothing to address that in any way.

What the video addresses for me is we're making multi-million-dollar decisions and imperiling ball companies based on arcane ball specs that give no real advantage to bad bowlers and do nothing but drive away bowlers and companies, both, in addition to being beyond the level of competency of either the testers or the rule-writers to come up with something that can't be screwed up. That is *crystal* clear to me. And it needs to stop.

I agree. This is now becoming a proverbial and financial tit-for-tat between Storm and the USBC, and is dragging the PBA into it. Now granted, you're having the face of both Storm and the PBA whinging about this, and the USBC responding to them in likewise manner, which isn't helping either of their stances. Again, what they should do is one company take the higher road, and do something similar to a potential banned substance being used by an athlete.

Let's hypothetically say that caffeine is a banned substance when measured at more than 750mg in a person's body. An athlete with prior and well documented diagnoses of migraines takes 2 250mg of Excedrine + Migraine overnight, then the following morning, while thinking they ordered decaffeinated coffee, they were served caffeinated coffee with about 300mg of caffeine going into their body. They come in to test, and find out that they have too much of a banned substance in their body and are banned.

If this were in the USA, that athlete could appeal the banning to USADA to get their judgment. USADA overturns that banning. The powers that be then appeal to WADA, and get the ban reinstated. The athlete then appeals to the CAS, who is the final authority.

Wash/rinse/repeat for this issue. Either Storm or the USBC appeals this to the WTBA, let them conduct their investigation, ask the questions, and be the final authority to adjudicate over this. What their decision is will be final, and sticks for every other bowling governing body.

Tons better than going war of words all over Facebook.

BL.

And in case the USBC isn't petty enough: Jason Belmonte questioned the testing process -- simply QUESTIONED it -- and got fined:

https://twitter.com/JeffRichgels/status/1517338687880708096

It seems pretty obvious Storm was pushing the limit manufacturing balls so close to the spec and got caught.  When they submit a ball for approval they are agreeing to the USBC rules and specifications.  There is only one durometer you have to satisfy and that's the one sitting in the room in Texas.  If you want to argue about a +/- 1 on the readings you should be manufacturing factoring in that variance.  Unlike avabob, they must believe that hardness makes a difference in performance, even in reactive equipment.

They could always manufacture whatever they want and convince all their customers to bowl non USBC sanctioned leagues and tournaments. 

I really don't have an issue with the Storm balls being removed from the market, yet still be acceptable for use in leagues and local/state tournaments.  It is really no different than a ball simply being discontinued.  Bowlers will continue to use discontinued balls for years after they are discontinued.

Let's not give the USBC any ammunition to implement an "expiration date" for bowling balls.  I can see it now.  "USBC studies show that balls get softer with age and fall dramatically below the minimum hardness requirement over time.  As a result, the USBC approval for bowling balls is automatically revoked as soon as any bowling ball reaches six(6) years from the date of manufacture."  I wouldn't put it past them at this point.

The USBC currently has two hardness standards in play.  Balls used to be required to meet a minimum hardness of 72D.  Then in 2020 that was revised to 73D.  As of 7/31/22 all new equipment that is manufactured must be 73D.  Balls previously approved at the 72D standard that are still being manufactured can no longer be manufactured at 72D as of that date later this year.  The USBC claims 3 of these SPI balls were not only testing below 73D, but were also testing below 72D which made them illegal under both minimums.  That still doesn't mean there weren't errors in testing.

The UFO Alert, Trend 2, and Electrify Solid samples were 72.3 to 72.7.  That is close enough to 73D that I think the test could easily be within some sort of margin of error and shouldn't have been excluded at all.

As far as Belmonte being fined by the USBC...what right does the USBC [a 501c3 non-profit organization] have to levy monetary fines against any bowler?  I get there is a provision in the rules for the Masters that fines of $250/$500/$1000 can be assessed for violations of the Code of Conduct.  They also specifically state that social media cannot be used to question the integrity of the USBC.  Yes, Belmonte did violate that rule.  However, assessing a monetary fine is just ridiculous.  If they are going to stoop to that level then they need to scrub Facebook for all posts complaining about the lane conditions, scheduling issues, comments about tournament staff, etc. that any person that bowled the Masters made and fine them as well.  A non-profit assessing monetary fines...sheesh.  What's next...monetary fines at the local/state level and in leagues?

The USBC needs to find new leadership that can come in and get it back on the right course.  It is a hot mess.