Thoughtful response with many good points, but inaccurate in a few ways.

* Not all independent experts believe that the USBC was off-base.  Opinions are split, much like the bowling world as a whole, with many different viewpoints.  Much of the disagreement is regarding how much impact a small difference in hardness has and what the "true" durometer readings are.  There does not seem to be any significant pushback that the excluded balls were softer than other balls in the marketplace, just whether or not they were out of spec.

* As you said, the USBC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit.  The PBA is not.  They are a for-profit venture and it is very much in their best interests to protect one of their most important sponsors.  The decisions they make must inherently balance their ability to make money with the appearance of legitimate and fair competition.  They had to protect both Storm and the validity of their competitions or risk viewers' and competitors' faith in their product.  Just look at how they handled the Purple Hammer situation.  They tried to quietly sweep it under the rug even though they knew there were balls providing an illegal competitive advantage, but Sean Rash (publicly) and others (semi-privately) wouldn't let them.  They tried to sweep this under the rug too because the health of the PBA is directly and inextricably connected to the health of SPI.

* My comments about lack of consumer trust were directed at Storm, not the USBC.  Your points are good ones, but not at all what I was referring to.  The point isn't whether the durometer video makes good arguments or not.  By prolonging the discussion in a need to be "right", it creates more opportunity for consumers who have mixed feelings on the subject to question Storm's judgment and willingness to make products that are hassle-free to use in competition.  Consumers want to hear "We fixed the problem, we can assure you that it won't happen again, and we're moving forward with the solution in place," not "There isn't a problem even though you're being affected by the problem, therefore we didn't fix anything."

* Also, there's absolutely no way that the durometer video set up anything from a legal standpoint.  As many others have pointed out, there are so many easily provable problems and irregularities with the way Storm conducted the testing shown on the video that any attempt to use it as a basis for legal action would dismissed within hours.  The only forum it's trying to win in is the court of public opinion.

* None of this is meant to absolve the USBC of many of the issues it has, especially in terms of transparency.  Personally, I would love to know if and/or how they attempted to limit the financial damage to SPI.  I would also love to know what discussions they had with SPI prior to the initial press release.  It is highly probable that the USBC and Storm had a lot more communication prior to the press release than many people here are giving them credit for.  However, Storm assuredly doesn't want the public to know the substance of those discussions any more than the USBC does as it would make them look even worse.

Itsallaboutme-

I have a question concerning the 1 yr probation part.

Considering the Spectre ban, is the 6 partial banned considered a violation on probation as is?

If not, if the 6 partial-banned balls were fully banned, would that have been a violation while on probation?

If either answer is yes, what happens when you are on probation and have another violation?

3835, this is what is in the spec manual-

1. During the probation period the manufacturer must submit 20 sample balls for each new release.
2. Failure to remit payment in a reasonable amount of time will results in revocation of approval status and cessation of approval testing on new products.
3. Late fee charge of 1.5% per month will apply for all outstanding invoices not paid within 30 days.
4. Ball manufacturers will be responsible for all shipping costs, including the return of additional test balls when required.

I have no idea from past experiences.  At BP we were fined for selling a ball before release date, I do not remember how much the fine was, but it was enough to get Nick's attention, and we once had to submit additional samples as one ball tested close to the COR spec.  Those were the only times we had anything beside submit samples and get the test results and approval letter.

Thanks!

I have my Doctorate degree and wrote a dissertation, so I am used to stimulating reading....

Quote

Amazing how those people upset about Storm and this issue don't say a single thing about the FDA when it comes to that box of Cocoa Puffs, Cheerios, and Kix are recalled due to those errors in production, and they are the governing body over food, let alone the USDA.

You're absolutely right, bradl ... because I don't eat bowling balls.

No, you don't eat bowling balls. But the issue here is how well you and other bowlers easily just comply with what the FDA says in regards to General Mills' "miniscule errors " (your words, not mine), yet are completely up in arms in Storm's "miniscule errors" (again, your words, not mine).

You're having it one way with one entity, and a complete different other way with the other entity, even though according to you, the same "miniscule errors" happened.

The logic being portrayed is off; if you're complicit and compliant with one, you should be equally as complicit and compliant with the other, yet you aren't.

Furthermore, the USDA is a government agency with specific legal powers. The USBC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, and not a very well-run one at that.

yet for the terms of this issue in this country, the USBC IS THE GOVERNING BODY, with the ability to do something about the issue. For the conditions of this incident, especially in how they are written in their bylaws, they are the "legal" authority.

That's before you even get to my original point in that comparison, which is the size of General Mills or Kelloggs compared to what amounts to a niche plastics company making product for a recreational activity. No, it's not even remotely on par. The ball companies should get a lot more leeway than something my body has to ingest.

See the above about complicity and compliance.

Quote

Yet by contrast, Ron Hickland, who not only interviewed the person that did all of the durometer testing at EBI, but is himself is experienced in the manufacturing and testing of balls from an engineering standpoint (hell, he created the gas mask core), said effectively the opposite and that the USBC was indeed correct in their decision to sin bin the balls that they binned. But Riggs is right and Hickland is wrong?

Oh wait; Riggs himself is a Storm Staffer, so there obviously isn't any bias there. 

And before saying the same about Hickland, he left EBI in 2015, well before the the Purple Hammer was created, let alone the BoB buyout.

Richgels isn't making these statements, the experts are. If you read the article, you'll notice all three had bowling ball experience -- one each from Storm, one from Columbia 300 and another who had worked with Mo Pinel. The latter two also worked previously with the USBC in its testing department.

On top of that, Richgels' arrangement with his primary employer stipulates he observes the same level of journalistic standards for his work on 11thframe that he does for the newspaper that is his daily job. So if you're going to throw shade on him for being a Storm staffer (due to his ability, if you know anything about his actual bowling career), I'd say you need to have proof of it before you slander him with the charge of bias.

I have not nor will question his ability. He has done for the sport everything he has done with his ability and deservedly so. However, optics are everything in this incident, and while Riggs is more than well known, the semblance of bias is given simply by being directly involved with the manufacturer directly partially responsible for this issue. That can not be denied, as it does bring about the semblance of bias.

As a journalism major myself in college, the first thing I had to learn with any type of reporting is to eliminate all types of indications of bias. If a story I was working on affected me directly due to my involvement in the topic of the story or my personal business with a company that I am reporting, I would have to either recuse myself from that story or remove myself completely from all business with that company for the sake pf journalistic integrity. Riggs has not done that in this instance, and because of that, a sense of bias towards Storm can be seen.

That has nothing to do with his ability; that has to do with the business he has with Storm; if that were gone, I would have no problem with what he posted; but he hasn't, so it hasn't. That isn't slander; that is the question of journalistic integrity that hasn't been resolved.

Quote

Not sure what Hickland has to do with any of that but if you're going to shade Riggs and not Hickland due to the companies the two of them worked with, I'd call that more than a bit hypocritical.

See the above about integrity.

Quote

Umm... yet they get replaced with similar because of how great the ball works for the bowler that they want either the same ball again or similar. But the issue isn't what the balls do over time; the issue is what they are doing when they are at their best, and fresh out of the box. That's what they got pinged on. Going 34 weeks and 200 games down the road is irrelevant at that point.

But then again, we have a PBA bowler who complained about the same with urethane, which for all intents and purposes was 5-6 years outside of people's bags, and got it banned. Further than that, with the PBA, he got 40 years of balls banned.

Again, can't have it both ways, where urethane gets banned for being its best over the journey, while saying resin takes itself out of the bag after a couple hundred games. Hell, I went 6 years with using a Scandal, Scandal Pearl, Mission Unknown, and Maverick in my bag, and none of them lost anything in performance: no resurfacing, sock to get oil out, or anything major; the only thing used was PowerHouse finish, or Clean'n'Dull.

I don't think old urethane should have been thrown out, either, but at least there is evidence that old urethane gets softer, while old resin goes the other direction and continues to cure.

[/quote]

I'd love to see the original durometer numbers on a Sumo, Thunderbolt, U2, Gyro, and the like. Oh wait, we have:

• AMF Sumo, OOB: 77.7
• 1993/1994 Faball Burgundy Hammer, OOB: 79
• 1983 Faball Black Hammer, OOB: 78.9

None of those, if they have become softer or not, have come anywhere near the hardness limit specified in the USBC manual. But by your own wording, a Rhino Pro, Turbo X, XCalibur, Crush/R, or Nitro/R should not have any changes in hardness at all. It would be interesting to get the numbers for those OOB and compare them to now.

If you're sore at Sean Rash, just say so. Because that's what this is now beginning to sound like. I doubt Rash triggered this; he says a lot of dumb stuff when he's struggling on TV.

I'm not sore at Rash; I'm sore at the lack of integrity. I'm sore at the overaction of pulling the trigger too hard for one thing, which is fine as everyone is complicit and compliant in it, but when it happens to another product from another company, it is a huge overreaction, and everyone thinks that it is a line too far. If it is fine for it to happen to BoB, but too much of an overreaction for Storm, that's a problem because people should be okay with both or every side having this happen should their products fall out of compliance. Motiv copped it and came out on the other side better. EBI came out better on the other side after the Gamebreaker. EBI came out better again when they recalled the Turbo/X due to the core separating.

But Storm skates the line and gets pinged for it over 7 balls, and everyone is up in arms because Storm can do no wrong, or is too big to fail? Again, there does seem to be a decent amount of bias here with calling for transparency with the USBC (side note: I get it with the Belmo incident), but don't call for as equal transparency with EBI/BoB.

Either call for them both, or call for none at all; either way, integrity on the part of the bowler is held.

Quote

Finally, the PBA has very visibly sided with Storm on this, anyway, keeping the balls in play and noting that their testing does not produce the same results as the USBC's. That may have been the most damaging development to the USBC in all this, when the PBA basically said they didn't see what the fuss was over.

Hardly. The PBA needs Storm, as they are the most dominant ball company used on tour. They need the money, which comes from the ad revenue they can easily get from bowlers using their equipment on TV, which fuels their bottom line. Besides: a private organization doesn't see a fuss over it (and it's their prerogative whether to fuss about it or not), but a governing body does. As I asked before, if any other governing body has a problem with it, does that mean that they are all wrong and the PBA is right? See the aforementioned "too big to fail" issue.

If the KPBA has a problem, or the JPBA, or the governing bodies of S. Korea, Singapore, Japan, and any other body up to and including the WTBA, then what? a private organization like the PBA is still right? That would be some rather backwards and fuzzy logic there.

Quote

Then you would agree that the Purple Hammer shouldn't have been banned, nor a 2-year rolling urethane ban in the PBA, the Jackal should be back in, the Gamebreaker should be back in ...

Absolutely should be back in. So should my Visionary AMB Gold Centaur with a .700 diff. By now its cover is too weak to perform on anything but the driest burn, anyway. Jackal should never have been out in the first place.

We actually agree on something.

But it's amazing how no-one had a problem with it before, until someone who can't handle those products got their proverbial panties in a bunch about it. But as you said, said person always has an unchecked motor mouth when they are struggling. But that isn't my problem; they should look at their own game and learn how to adapt.

Quote

... everyone's robot arm gear should be back in, soakers should be back in, and everyone should not have any problem with it whatsoever, despite their complaining about it.

Wrist braces aren't illegal in the USBC. That's a PBA national rule and I'm not a PBA member, so if they want to ban those, I don't carry one of their cards like I do a USBC card and that's not my acre.

Soaker, let's be serious for a moment. The act of soaking is to take a legal piece of equipment and knowingly make it illegal to gain an advantage. There is specific intent on the part of the bowler, not the company. That's not apples and oranges, that's apples and Volkswagens.

If everyone's Purple Hammer, Spectre, Gem, Trend 2, etc. is a Tesla Model 3, while a St. Louis poured Faball Blue Hammer is a 1983 Pontiac Trans Am, both are cars with the same abilities. The difference there is creating a fab car straight off the factory assembly line versus keeping one in pristine condition after buying it and not touching it at all for 35+ years. No modification required or needed there, but according to the PBA, that gets the same treatment as someone who soaked their ball for 40 years and never took it out of the bath.

Quote

Then also consider this; if the KPBA, JPBA, and the WTBA come up with the same results as the USBC, then what is Storm's recourse? Bully them into submission because Storm is too big to fail? We see where that got us with Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, MCI/Worldcom, Arthur Andersen, Enron, and Tyco.

I guess we'll see. The only other accredited sanctioning body to test the stuff besides the USBC so far, that we know of, is the PBA, and the PBA deemed them legal. So the USBC is 0-for-1 already. As for the other companies you list, again we are talking about unlike things. Each of those companies you mention were either so tied to the general economy and dependent on credit markets that they couldn't survive nadirs in the global financial world, and/or they were brought down internally (i.e., Tyco) by incredible amounts of greed, theft and other malfeasance. None of that is comparable to one of the 5-10 companies holding up the bowling industry putting out a bowling ball that failed a durometer punch by 0.3.

I think you've proven my point, especially with not knowing anything about the international competitions, and only thinking that the USBC and the PBA are the be all/end all of bowling. It would do you better to look at events outside the USA and the Japan Open to know what happens in the world of bowling, and not constrict yourself to only the USA.

BL.