Let's look at the facts of the case:
* USBC is asked to look into the legitimacy of the Jackals
* USBC purchases some Jackals to confirm the differential
* USBC finds some balls exceed 0.060" of differential
* USBC bans Jackals
* Motiv appeals the decision
* Motiv gives customers a chance to redeem the ball for any current release
* Motiv also offers to give an LE ball if the customer waits until the appeal decision is made
* Motiv tells customers the LE should be released in September time frame
* USBC denies the appeal
* Motiv releases details of the LE ball to be delivered, in the exact time frame they stated
At no time did Motiv insinuate or state anything different than what they have done. Yet on these forums many have come up with outlandish statements of what Motiv is doing (though they haven't) or have stated what Motiv should do.
It seems Motiv has done exactly what they said they would do. As a customer, that is all I can ask of a company. Be accountable for your statements and your actions. Now, if you don't like the way things worked out you have the choice to not support Motiv. I am sure many have gone against them because of this and that is their choice.
But to take every single statement provided by Motiv and speculate what each word means is unnecessary. As far as we know, the statement, "reviewing the USBC decision, and is considering their options moving forward" could refer to anything.
Per USBC equipment rules:
d. Differential radius of gyration – for brand new core designs only
i. Eight additional balls must be submitted (specific weight to be determined by
USBC) for balls with a measured differential radius of gyration between 0.050’’
and the 0.061’’.
ii. The average differential radius of gyration of all samples of similar weight must be
no, higher than 0.055’’ for the ball to be approved without participation in the
optional supplemental testing process.
iii. If through the supplemental testing process it can be proven that balls are not
designed above the maximum specification of 0.060’’ and have less than 0.6% rate
of non-conforming balls, the ball will be approved.
Spot Checking
The USBC possesses the right to spot check bowling balls during the course of the year. USBC
approval may be revoked if it is determined that the production balls are significantly different
than the submitted test balls or do not comply with current specifications and requirements
outlined in the USBC Equipment Specifications and Certifications Manual.
PROCESS
As of January 2012, USBC shall select brands at random throughout the year for spot check testing.
The selected model will be tested and those results will be compared to the original sample
balls submitted for testing.
If this initial spot checking testing produces results that fall outside of USBC specifications, or it is
determined that the results are statistically different from the original sample balls, then a secondary
round of testing will be performed from a different batch. If this secondary round of testing
produces similar results, the manufacturer in question will be placed on probationary status for
no less than 1 year accompanied by a fine not to exceed $8000 in addition to any previously
received testing fees.
Since we are analyzing the use of specific words here:
The first quoted section pertains to the original approval process. During this process, Motiv proved the balls were not designed to exceed the 0.060" differential specification and had less than a 0.6% failure rate. This is the normal procedure a manufacturer must go through to release a ball. Both Jackals (along with all Predator cored balls before) have gone through and passed this supplemental process.
The second quoted section discusses the spot check process. In the first statement of "process" for spot checking, "
USBC shall select brands at random throughout the year for spot check testing." As we know, the decision to spot check the Jackals was not random. USBC provides a percentage of bowling balls to be out of spec at 0.6%. The delivery of 4 balls I am willing to bet falls below that range. As a manufacturer I would be upset if the decision to test my equipment was supposedly random when in this case it was not. For all we know, somebody searched high and low to find 4 Jackals that were over the limit.
Now lets look at this second paragraph's statement, "If this initial spot checking testing produces results that fall outside of USBC specifications, or it is determined that the results are statistically different from the original sample balls,
then a secondary round of testing will be performed from a different batch." It appears USBC only did one spot check of equipment by the original purchase of Jackals to test. The above statement suggests USBC must perform a secondary test with a different batch. Nothing shown in any documents state they did this (though they could have).
The next sentence gives a type of punishment if the spot check (if followed properly) deemed the equipment line illegal, "If this secondary round of testing produces similar results, the manufacturer in question
will be placed on probationary status for no less than 1 year accompanied by a fine not to exceed $8000 in addition to any previously received testing fees." As far as we know, this is the first case of illegal balls by Motiv. It seems the actual banning of the balls deviates from what Motiv expected based on this statement. They may feel they should have been put on probation and the balls wouldn't have to be revoked since USBC states explicitly
"may" be revoked and not
"shall" be revoked. Once again, the choice of words is important here.
So in the end, Motiv may think they were targeted and not treated according to the Equipment and Specifications Manual (random?). Perhaps they feel the number of balls tested by USBC didn't provide more than 0.6% failure rate. Perhaps USBC used some type of statistical analysis that led USBC to believe more than 0.6% of all Jackals would fail if all were tested. If Motiv sold 1000 Jackals (completely believable) then USBC would have to fail 60 to justify revoking the approval.
Simply put, Motiv will do what they feel they need to do. They will also do what they feel is best for the customer. I feel they have done a good job of letting the customer know what to expect. They have not misled anyone and have done exactly what they said they would do.
If they decide to sue or anything of the sort, that is up to them. In fact, they don't even have to tell the customer. Many companies go through some level of litigation without the consumer ever knowing. And in my opinion, USBC does not do a good job of explaining the procedures of ball approval. There are too many areas where judgement can be used. And once you introduce judgement, then there is room for preferential treatment for or against a manufacturer.
