Apathy Coveleskie Backroom Machine Deals

What irks me the most in our sport (registered part) is the apathy. It is the cancer of our sport.

We have months of discussions about target presentation. We argue the why's. Which is better. Most of the information is conjecture, assumptions, and subjective information. The denials. Then what follows is History Buff's fantastic corrections.

We hear about the cheating. The mythical cheating. The cheating so many in the forum said never happened.

As if by magic the cheating was noted in the ATA minutes. The soft caresses of punishment was then documented.

Then what I thought was the big post. Someone from inside the industry dropping the bomb that maybe the target presentation we see is influenced by the backroom deal on the trap machine purchases. Then silence from Roger.

Where is the outrage? Where is Roger?

 

Roger , is back.
I have received some tid bits about some of the not so transparent doings of the ATA officials. Some are out right surprises some are not. I'm a little curious as to where some of the more vocal backers of degrading of our sport are. Were they suddenly struck dumb. Or are they afraid to comment on the subjects in question.
Some have come forth with a little info, putting it all together it is getting more interesting all the time. Little by little we will get the whole story it is just a mater of time.
On the subject of degrading the sport. Who overode the OSTA and certified the Pat's that were installed at Jaqua's in Ohio?
Why was the bidding process stopped? Who made that decision and did they have the authority to do so.
The biggest question is why are the ATA members so quiet on this subject? The back room dealings are a slap in the face for every dues paying member of this organization. It shows the contempt that the powers had for the members. Do you members enjoy being treated like the unwashed masses.
Keep in mine, Evil will prevail when honorable men do nothing. There should be some nervous people out there some where.

 

Seems to me Roger, you have to basically come out and say what you keep hinting about. Hard to tell what you are insinuating, but it sounds like you are stating someone directly stole tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment from the ATA. Or possibly, that ATA officials received said equipment as a kickback in return for guaranteeing a contract? We are so quiet on it because nobody knows anything about it or whether it even happened. Maybe I have it all wrong, just what are you talking about?

 

Looks like it is written in English.

 

Bat, I wouldn't think the ATA would have anything to do with a State Organizations decision making.

It looks to me like it's more the OSTA members (who are still ATA members) instead of the ATA organization itself.

 

Leonidas,
You may have missed this:

He is asking who went over Ohio's head?

And I ask Roger Coveleskie about what time/era that was?

 

If they throw targets within the guide lines of the rule book why would any trap machine anywhere need to be certified by the ATA? I agree with some back room dealing but it's quesionable it would be the ATA organization itself without any concrete proof. Within the OSTA or Jaqua's is a lot more believable.

 

Could it be they did not meet the guidlelines then? Who would it have hurt if the traps were not certifiable by the OSTA?

 

Why were the ~~~ "No. 2 Hole"~~~ bars missing on the Tucson Traps, and for how long ????~~~Roger ????

 

Did not someone(s) have a tantrum on this site when that stuff was said to have been happening. How many grandslams were impacted?

The ATA going over the OSTA is interesting.

 

I am also looking for answers. Who benefited from the no bid contract? Who has the 8 extra machines? Who benefited from all the changes that had to be made to be able to throw legal ATA targets? Did the machines and the voice calls land in the same place? These are some of the questions that every member should want the answers to.
I do not know why the no 2 bar was missing at Tucson. Why are there no bench marks for setting the height of the targets at Tucson?
Leonidas,
The machines need to be certified to be sure that they meet the standards set by the ATA. If they do not they should not be used for registered targets. If they do not measure up I guess some one can change the target setting parameters to fit the machine. Does this sound like what happened? I do not think any sane person would go to the trouble of making all of those changes without an ulterior motive. What was that motive? Was it money, or was it just a power play one their part. Lets find the answers and get them fixed.
Bat,
What I am trying to say is something smells and all members should be wanting to get it all out in the open so it can never happen again. I am not using the word stolen, but misdirected has come to mind.

 

Leonidas asked a great question: Why would any trap need to be certified? The answer is in the ATA rule book and I have copied it below.


It is the responsibility of the State ATA Delegate to certify the traps. The OSTA does not certify traps. I do not know who the Ohio ATA Delegate was at the time Jaqua's made the switch to Pat traps.


From the ATA rule book:

SECTION XIII
STANDARDS FOR TRAPHOUSES, TARGETS, TARGET SETTING, GUNS AND AMMUNITION

A trap machine, which throws targets at an unknown angle, shall be used. All trap machines used to throw ATA registered targets shall be so manufactured, modified, or equipped as to interrupt irregularly the oscillation of the trap or otherwise assure the unpredictability of the flight of substantially all targets thrown.

Each gun club that throws ATA registered targets must have on file in the ATA main offices a signed Affidavit that the trap machines used to throw registered targets meet the requirements of this rule. The State/Provincial ATA Delegate is responsible for the enforcement of this Rule.

 

Don,
And yet when the ATA said that all traps had to be certified. They were told that many did not meet the rules. Some delegates knew this to be true . How did the machines get certified? Did the state delegates do their jobs and comply with the rules? No, many did not, and that is why we have the mess that THE GAME IS NOW MIRED IN. This was caused by people with no integrity and they know who they are. They want to remain in the shadows. That is a good place for them, as they do not fit in with the men of integrity that built and loved this sport. I would like to ask this question again. How did the sport of trap shooting benefit from all of the changes that were made to justify a no bid contract for machines??????? and who was responsible for the no bid deal????

 

Roger,
Your questions and concerns are valid. I hope that at some point a person serving as ATA Delegate during that time steps forward with some answers. I wanted to point out to Leonidas that since ATA rules mandated that their own Delegates are responsible for enforcement of the rule, the OSTA as well as all the other State associations had no part or say in the matter. If Delegates were informing the ATA that traps did not comply with ATA rules, there is really only one organization that could have overrode the Delegates.

 

I just am not a fan of the veiled hints. Leads to people possibly thinking you are saying something when it isn't what you were really talking about. Take the pats, I'll guess that many here think you are saying they couldn't throw legal angles, which is of course not true. You are hinting at something else, just say it - position in house etc?

 

Bat,
I am not stupid enough to make a statement that I can not Prove. When I name names I will have what I need to prove what went down. If you can not wait for the proper time for this info, I suggest not opening any of the posts. I am not a fan of veiled threats either , and I have no control over what other people are thinking and I have no desire to do so. I have not mentioned angles as a problem of the Pat's. I did say that on the original machines, if you tried to throw 48 yd. doubles you would drive them wider than recommended. In order to get the proper spread on the doubles, the targets must be touching one another and must be touching the stop finger. If this is not the case you will not throw good doubles.
The position in the house is very important. I do not want to get into that as of right now. There are more important things that need discussed and angles is not one of them.
Let me ask you a direct question. What good has come to our sport because of all the changes made to the target flight criteria? I have ask this many times, but have not received one answer yet.

 

Thanks for clearing up the Pat issue you were talking about involved Doubles. I missed that in earlier posts, and would guess others as well. So, is that the issue that supposedly should have kept them from being certified?

Regarding your direct question, it seems to me you have tended to post this question in some reference to Pat traps , so I'm not really sure where you are going here. If you are talking about time periods preceding this, back to the 2 v 3 issue, I've posted before that I think the rule wording of not less than 2 hole was the one that was a big mistake. They needed to be more specific about what they were talking about.

 

Bat,
I am talking about all of the changes made to accomadate the Pat traps. When added together they have changed the sport of trap shooting.
I have also stated before, that we shooters and the ATA can not understand the reason for our lost membership. I have ask if they think maybe the new members get discouraged when they shoot pretty good at their home club so they go to a neighboring club and run into different differing target presentation, and they go in the tank, so they go to another club and run into the same thing. Maybe the target setting rules should be enforced instead of making rules that encourage non compliance.
Look at the new rule pertaining to the position of the machine in the trap house. The old accepted but unwriten rule is stated there, the new rule is not even close to the way it was accepted for over 40+ yrs of shooting. Do you think this rule is good for our sport. I do not think there was any thought given to what this could do to the target flight path..

 

Transparency, Integrity, compliance, just a few of the things that have been avoided or stepped over, over the course of time and it shows ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

All this fussing and we dummied down the sport for bad trap machines.

 

What did we do to dummy down the sport for bad trap machines?

 

Roger,

Can you specifically list the rules that were changed to accommodate PAT traps and what about PAT traps required this rule change?

I am having trouble understanding this quote. First you state the old, accepted, but unwritten rule is stated there. I assume you mean that old unwritten rule is now the written rule. But then you state the new rule is not the way it was accepted for over 40 years. Can you clarify the following:

1. what is the new rule and when was it changed? I have a 2005 rule book and that section seems to read exactly as it does today.
2. what was the old, accepted but unwritten rule?

I'm with BAT on this one. You want us to get all worked up about these rule changes yet you don't specifically state what changed and when.

Your other concerns about 'no bid contracts' and missing equipment are certainly worthy of discussion. But I'll have to reserve my outrage until more information is presented. Right now all we have is you stating there is missing equipment.

 

"A. TRAP MACHINE
A trap machine, which throws targets at an unknown angle, shall be
used. All trap machines used to throw ATA registered targets shall be
so manufactured, modified, or equipped as to interrupt irregularly the
oscillation of the trap or otherwise assure the unpredictability of the flight
of substantially all targets thrown.
Each gun club that throws ATA registered targets must have on file in the
ATA main offices a signed Affidavit that the trap machines used to throw
registered targets meet the requirements of this rule. The State/Provincial
ATA Delegate is responsible for the enforcement of this Rule."

Note that the affidavit and Delegate enforcement referenced here applies ONLY to assuring "the unpredictability of the flight of substantially all targets thrown".

 

Roger you say you will not name names until you have proof BUT you continue to make statements stating all the errors, cheating, undercover deals, bad directors and numerous other charges of impropriety. You do this repetitively. You seem content to continue to fire up certain shooters and convicting the ATA with naming certain proof. I would ask that until you are willing to get specific you should be quiet. You are convicting past and current directors without a fair hearing. You are fanning the fire of all the ATA haters but maybe that's what you want to do.

Lefty

 

I am interested. Leftout I think you doth protests too much.

 

Lefty,
I'm not stupid enough to name people if I do not have positive proof of wrong doing. If I am wrong I do not want to damage any ones name with accusations that are false. There are people out there that know the answers to my questions I am hoping they have the courage to come forward.
The truth will come out when the time is right and the shooters that have been used realize what has been done to our sport.

 

Iowa Guy,
Go to the minutes of the April 09 2003 meeting of the EC. go to pg. 32-33 Read Mr Aklin's report on the placement of the machine in the trap house. Then read the rule as written now. This was accepted for over 40 yrs. but it rule does not even resemble what was accepted for a long time. This spread of placement is why we see so many differing target presentations.

 

OK, thanks that is what I thought the whole thing was about. The placement of the trap in the house issue makes sense if referencing Pat's. Honestly I have no problem with it. Pat's were installed all over the country. GMV's were popular also, and the 1524's days were numbered. We had varying presentations in the days of the handsets and we have them today. I appreciate the rule update that acknowledged that trap placement in houses had always been an issue, and stressed that the most important thing to do was to be as consistent as possible from house to house at your club. I'm not sure that it would have been a good idea to rule that a majority of existing trap houses had to be reconfigured to accommodate the new traps going in everywhere. I may be wrong but IIRC they were pretty popular before the rules were addressed.

 

Roger, I've read the minutes. They establish a rule on trap placement. They reference point B and trap height. It was stated that all traps currently on the market would conform to the previously defined point B and the height. But point B was never actually established by rule. It was established by the trap manufacturers.

Interestingly when the point B definition was first put in the book it was stated as 1.5' or 2.5'. It has since been changed to 1.5'. But it also gives clubs the flexibility to deviate on new houses so that all traps at a club can be the same.

I don't think this rule has been detrimental to the sport. Sure there are going to be some differences from club to club. But that has always happened regardless of how point B is defined or even not defined.

So I guess to answer your question it has helped the game in that it encourages and allows a club to have all their traps with a similar target presentation.

I suspect by the time this was addressed there were too many new traps in use and prohibiting a particular brand or two would have put undue strain on many clubs. Remember, prior to 2003 point B was defined by Winchester and Remington, not the ATA. The ATA simply crafted their rule to the benefit of the clubs and shooters.

I think you're in search of a conspiracy that never happened, at least with respect to trap placement.

 

Honestly, I never really understood why 1.5 OR 2.5. Prior to that, my recollection was Point B was defined as the intersection of the centerline of the trap field (picture vertical line) and the baseline (centerline of trap machine - picture horizontal line). This was supposed to be 16 yards from post 3.

 

Bat, Exactly. Point B in the rule book is a basis for measurement of the field and target flight. It doesn't specifically reference anything about the position of the target when on the cocked arm.

Kenny Ray made a comment over on TS.com I thought was interesting. This is copied from that forum:

"In 1956, 17 inches was the distance from the front inside wall of the trap house to the Manufacturer's center-line (C/L) of the trap. A distance was given to the front (outside) of the trap house wall of 21 inches, thus showing the use of 4-inch block or concrete. This distance still remained in the 1972 diagrams. But the distance to the front inside wall was merely noted as it was the necessary area needed to prevent any situation of the target arm ever striking the trap house door. I'm certain they wanted the trap positioned as close to the front of the house as possible so that would be an important consideration in the construction of today's trap houses."

Sounds like to me Winchester provided the set back requirements so clubs could get the door shut with the trap in the 'sprung' position.

 

Iowa Guy,
Trap mfg'r supplied all of that info for years and it worked. When the ATA got involved every thing went in the Can.
The game has not benefited from what was done to the flights and heights rules of trap shooting. But what do we know/ We are just a part of the unwashed masses that provide the finances for the elite of our sport.
It was not a conspiracy it was dumb thinking. They tried to make the rules fit a machine when the machine should have fit the rules. That would have been the proper way to go.

 

due dil·i·gence
noun: due diligence

• a comprehensive appraisal of a business undertaken by a prospective buyer, especially to establish its assets and liabilities and evaluate its commercial potential.

Flyersarebest

 

Roger, based on the state of the sport at the time (2003) what should the ATA have done?

Remember by 2003 there were a lot of new traps already in use.

And, I'll ask again since you didn't answer the first time. What changed with target presentation due to the new traps and placement rules?

 

I would like to know as well.

You say for years trap manufactures supplied the info and it worked. But ATA got involved and tried to fit rules to a machine. But wouldn't that state that the company manufacturing the machine stated requirements needed to utilize it? Thus they are following the trap manufactures rules? Seems your commending and then condemning the ATA for the same scenario.

 

I ordered 1,000 pair of "Rose Colored " glasses for all of those who think nothing is amiss and all is well within the ATA ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

wpt, not saying that. Just saying that the change to the rule that is being discussed here does not seem to me to be such a big deal, certainly didn't have any huge impact on the game that I have noticed.

 

I started shooting back in 1974 , started registering targets in 1975 (joined the ATA then 2 weeks or month later upped it to a Life Membership) because I really enjoyed the people, the game and felt like I was a part of something that I would find enjoyable for many years to come ... The game has changed, been altered or modified since I started ... The people are still the major attraction for me as I have made many friends over the years and still associate with some of them some 40 plus years later ... The ATA has changed and become just another association for the most part that depends on the membership to exist, yet the members are not given a say in anything ... The days of the big money shoots, cars etc are all a thing of the past with few exceptions, one being the Vernal Club in Utah and thats because of the members, not the ATA ... Those days are gone and it will never be as it once was which is truly a shame for those who knew it back then ... Its kind of like watching your own child die a slow and miserable death that could of been avoided ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

1972 here. All I'll say is that I don't think the change in the description of Point B had any impact whatsoever on the issues you point out.

 

Bill, Like Bat I'm not saying all is perfect. But the ATA and the decisions they've made over the years are not the sole cause of declined ATA membership and participation. I'm not convinced it's the biggest cause.

As far as Roger's comments, he just needs to man up and clearly state what he believes to be true regarding the trap placement rule addition. Currently all he's stated is that rule was added to accommodate different traps. And that change was detrimental to the sport. If he could do that maybe some of use would actually agree with him.

 

Iowa Guy,
Just what was wrong with the guidelines supplied by the majority of machine manufacturers including me. They worked until the Pat Traps came on the market. All trap layouts were the same over the country. All target presentations were the same for all registered targets. The machine should have been required to comply with what was an industry standard.
Move the machine up or down 12 inches in the trap house, then move it back and forth 12 inches then try and set target to the rules.
Maybe this is why it is so hard to get the same target at two different clubs. Then add in unexperienced setters and you have a mess.
I have been maned up for a long time, maybe its time for you and and a lot of other members to man up and stop the liberalization of a tried and proven mans sport. Every shooter can not be perfect, no rule changes can make it so.

 

I do seem to recall there being a lot of hoop-la going on back about the time of the changes ... There were many posts on the other site about there being a problem and there being a need to modify the traphouses to accomidate the Pats (be it raise the roofs, alter the mounting platform or what ever, I in all honesty cannot recall ) , I didn't pay much attention to it at the time ... I do remember some of the then vendors taking exception to being told not to bid because there was a done deal ... I personally know Roger and will say that I know him to be an Honest and Loyal person of Character ... I have no doubt when he gets what he is looking for he will post it but will not open himself up to legal ramifications of not being able to back up what he says when he makes the declarations ... Patients, all things come to pass ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Roger, It's a simple question but yet one you will not answer. What changed in the target presentation due to Pat Traps and their position in the house? At least you've finally named the trap you have an issue with.

Given the rule, as it reads today, not in 2003, does the target:
1. sit higher or lower in the house when on the target plate/arm compared to the Win1524?
2. sit more forward or back in the house when on the target plate/arm compared to the Win1524?

Maybe if you would just give me that I could at least draw my own conclusion on how the target presentation might have changed.

I understand being upset because you were shut out of the bidding process for Sparta. You have a right to be. And you're correct not to speak about that topic and all that goes with it until you have the information necessary.

I promise this is the last time I will ask this question.

 

Iowa Guy. You seem a bit defensive. I keep thinking someone is going to type that it was on their server but it was wiped clean.

If there was a quid quo pro or if this did impact our decisions, shouldn't we let the narrative continue?

 

So far we've been told Pat Traps could not throw 3 hole targets (not by Roger), and that Pat Traps should never have been certified according to ATA rules. First issue was discussed and determined to be in error, and I'm just not sure what the remaining "certification" issue was with the Pats? Roger has stated they throw targets wider than recommended when thrown 48 yds, and I'll buy that. But I don't think that has anything to do with being "certified".

What issue should have kept the Pat's from being "certified"? Sounds like it comes down to just one thing, trap position in the house, and I'm not clear on what the big problem was?

 

FG, not a all. I have nothing to be defensive about. I don't sell traps, don't make ATA rules, just shoot at the targets that are thrown. But if you read asking for answers as defensive so be it. I'm not a blind supporter of the ATA, nor am I going to join the bashing crowd on this site. I'll be critical of the ATA when I feel it's warranted. Nothing Roger has posted about trap placement and target flight rises to that level.

 

Iowa Guy,
My beef is not with any one change that was made to our game. It is still with the underhanded way that the deal was made to install the Pat Traps as the choice of the ATA. I would like to know about the 8 extra traps that were paid for by ATA finances. Where they went and who authorized the deal. Who made the deal and locked out all of the other dealers? I think our sport was set on a downward spiral by the same people that made the trap arrangement. That was an awful lot of money to spend with no competive bidding process. I use the name ATA in my discussions in a broad way, it is not to paint the entire group of people with the same brush. I have personally known many of the officers of the organization and they are honorable individuals.
I have stated before that I have no problem with any one change but if you up add all the tweeks that have been made. It is hard to recognize as the same game. Are sport is contracting at an alarming rate with no remedies in sight.
More classes, more trinkets,AA points,easier targets, this does not seem to be the answer. Time to try another approach.

 

Roger you have some valid questions regarding the trap deal. There may be a really simple answer to all of them. maybe not. I sincerely hope it was a case of easy answer and an arrogant attitude of not feeling the need for full disclosure. As bad as that sounds it's better than the alternative.

I do agree that recent addition of more classes was a terrible idea. I think the idea was to encourage some classes of people to continue to shoot. But the added trophy costs hurt the member clubs. Then clubs raise prices and hurt all shooters. Possibly even causing them to shoot less.

 

Anyone remember Frank Rively?

 

The clubs should be given the option to not have all of the additional catagory's other than on paper ... These clubs get beat to death on providing trophy's for a multitude of classe's that are just utterly rediculous ... The ATA got along reasonably well for many years without having to provide a trophy for everyone who shows up ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Gee, the Southern Grand was loaded with Junior Gold participants-all 7 of 'em. Some days there were only 3/event. The most useless category ever!

 

I honestly believe that the additional trophies (High Lady I, High Lady II, High Junior Gold, High Sub-Veteran) were ill thought out. One trophy for High Lady only. These additional trophies only created an additional expense for the clubs and created trophies in some cases for just showing up and participating. In a lot of cases the trophies could not be awarded due to non participation in these classes. I think it is time to have and award trophies in competition where it meant something to be a trophy winner not to make everyone feel good and create a trophy for those that donot like to be left out.

I also don't believe that these additional trophies created additional shooters or made anybody stay in the sport.

 

Iowa Guy,
I believe as the rule is now written, clubs have the option of either complying with the rule or making all fields equal. that just negated the machine placement rule all together. It is not just the Pat's that do not have to comply any machine that is put in a house can be the same as other fields at the club if they are in compliance or not. Doesn't sound like much of a rule to me. Does it to you?
If you change the placement of the machine in the house it affects the flight path of the target aspecially if they are set with a height poll. One of the most popular clubs out west had their pat's setting out in front of the trap house. I wonder how the state delegate handled that? Most people shooting there did not even know that. It was in the shoot off traps in front of the club house.

 

I am much more interested in hearing where all the machines went. Capital like that is expensive and influencing.

Roger it is time for an update.

 

He is at a shoot, no doubt ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

In my opinion it will be a few years longer before anything materializes about thes traps (if ever) as people will keep a thing like this quiet for a long time. Something big will have to happen (in my opinion) before the information is released, which at that time it will be very difficult for any action to be taken.

 

I would think the statute of limitations would of run its course by now so the only thing that would be proved is that the members got screwed again ... There is someone or a bunch of people who know about it and they were not about to say anything then or even at this point in time ... Its just good to know what and who you are dealing with ... WPT ... (YAC) ...