Im not sure if anyone subscribes to the Sportex Dynamics magazine, but I was disgusted with the disparaging article written by its editor Bob Bramah(who has been on and off the SMA board more times that Peter Mandleson has been in and out of government!)
"The sports, health and leisure industries have an alphabet soup of organisations claiming to represent all or part of the profession. Three of these, the FHT, ISRM and STO are members of the GCMT who claim to represent the massage industry. There is another organisation, the CNHC which apparently also has a foot in the camp. They have joined forces to form yet another acronym, the SRTC. The trouble is that forming a new organisation just confuses the public and dilutes any influence the industry may have with those in government or sporting bodies who call the shots. If you dont like what your organisation does, get active and change it."
I just want to put some facts right here.
GCMT does represent the massage industry...it doesnt need to claim to. It is the recognised governing body. It works with government, sector skills agencies, educators and regulator.
SRTC (looking after sport & remedial therapies) is made up of 4 professional associations, not 3. FHT, ISRM, STO and CThA. This council was set up to do exactly the opposite of what Bob Bramah states. The industry is diluted because there has been LOTS of associations all fighting each other to gain elitist status. SRTC has tried to get ALL the industry on board, so it presents a unified face....and you know what....this is working....as now all the agencies mentioned above are going to SRTC to work with them.
Just a few facts on some of the PAs (and im going to include SMA as BB has/is part of them, he was listed as being on their board just two weeks ago but has now disappeared again).
FHT - 40 years old.
STO - 11 years old.
ISRM - around 5 years old.
CThA - around 5 years old.
SMA - 8 years old (on and off, as you can see from reading these forums).
So you can see that at SRTC there is a vast wealth of industry experience, which is just what we need to move forward.
The fact that the SRTC represents thousands, not hundreds of therapists is the reason why ALL agencies correspond with them, because most of them need to speak to an organisation that represents the MAJORITY of the profession, and not the minority.
The article in SportEx is, I feel, going to be one of many trying to discredit the very organisations that are trying to move the profession forward....and the only reason they will try to be discredited is so that those NOT involved can try to protect their own elitism, and the membership fees that they take every year.
Yes, if you are a member of an organisation that CLAIMS to be working on your behalf, ask them what they are doing for the fees, ask them why they are not working as a UNIFIED industry, and ask them why they dont want to be part of RECOGNISED governing bodies?
On a final note, CNHC is not just 'another organisation', they are the only government recognised regulator of complementary and natural healthcare.....i.e US!
As a quick note, CThA was formed from the ITEC Professionals register and the Guild of Complementary Practitioners, therefore is a lot older than 5 years. 
"The fact that the SRTC represents thousands, not hundreds of therapists is the reason why ALL agencies correspond with them, because most of them need to speak to an organisation that represents the MAJORITY of the profession, and not the minority."
I keep reading about the SRTC on these pages, How do I find the website and is there a register of the thousands represented for open view by the public?
Sorry but getting ever so cynical of this whole carry on roll on retirement.
I keep reading about the SRTC on these pages, How do I find the website and is there a register of the thousands represented for open view by the public?
Sorry but getting ever so cynical of this whole carry on roll on retirement.
The SRTC website will be live next week, as soon as it is, I will put a link on here.
There wont be any register on there as SRTC is lead body, not a Professional Association.
I can understand your cynicism, but I do think the whole profession will calm down now. Whether some PAs like it or not, we have a lead body in both massage and sports therapies, we also have a regulator that is not only being backed by the government, but is being used by not only the goverment, but many different agencies such as NHS etc. Im not sure how much I can say on here, but I do meet with CNHC, and I have been told of the many things that they are achieving for the therapists registered, and I for one am really happy that I supported them from the start.
Onto the topic of this thread, im sorry to see Bob Bramah writing that in his magazine, especially when he accepted an invite to the first SRTC meeting, and seemed to be very positive about SRTC and the work it intends to do. There is no wonder the profession is in such a mess, when on one hand these people are supporting you, but on the other they are giving out misleading information about you.
Anyway, after a very dogged few years, I am very positive about where this industry is, and where its going, and the hard work of some of us will pay off for those in the industry that want to get involved.
I was at the meeting you mention with Bob Bramah, he was very amiable, jovial and spoke of his current role for VTCT outlining standards and developing courses for their intended increased level 4 and 5.( Level 5 is currently being advertised all over the VTCT website, but still not formally approved) I was personally shocked to read the editorial which was completely opposite to what he was saying whilst sitting at the table.
It is now obvious that my initial concerns over his changing loyalties and the is he/ isnt he SMA were well founded.
It is good to see the formation of the SRTC, which I am hoping the SMA will join, however I would not be surprised if they were to join the GCMT now they have no resistance and have a recent conversion back to the SMA now on the GCMT board. This would then have the SMA claiming they represent sports massage therapists (changing their tact and recognising the GCMT) while the SRTC represents sports therapists and remedial massage therapists.
This will create further confusion, as far as I can see, there is very little between a sports massage therapist and a remedial massage therapist (ISRM qualification for both) anyway (sports therapist slightly different).
Q.) Why are the FHT and CThA no longer on the GCMT website as both these bodies represent holistic / swedish massage therapists amongst others?
Q.) Will the GCMT and SRTC be working closely together and supporting each other?
It is good to see the formation of the SRTC, which I am hoping the SMA will join, however I would not be surprised if they were to join the GCMT now they have no resistance and have a recent conversion back to the SMA now on the GCMT board. This would then have the SMA claiming they represent sports massage therapists (changing their tact and recognising the GCMT) while the SRTC represents sports therapists and remedial massage therapists.
This will create further confusion, as far as I can see, there is very little between a sports massage therapist and a remedial massage therapist (ISRM qualification for both) anyway (sports therapist slightly different).Q.) Why are the FHT and CThA no longer on the GCMT website as both these bodies represent holistic / swedish massage therapists amongst others?
Q.) Will the GCMT and SRTC be working closely together and supporting each other?
Hi Southosteo,
if you look at the NOS in Sports Therapy, SMA work to D520 and D522, which if you check are the basic strokes of effleurage, petrissage etc, and there is a huge difference between remedial, which is D523.
SMA can apply to join GCMT, however, their standards would be mapped to GCMT ones, and if they dont meet them, then they cant join. Last time we looked, they didnt meet, and looking at some of the schools running the new VTCT level 4, this is still dubious in my opinion.
Regarding GCMT and SRTC working together, I think GCTM would be foolish not to, as SRTC has all the sports experts now, with the exception of myself and BGFL who sit on both councils. I am still Chair of sport & remedial massage working group at GCMT, and sit on the Education Working Group, so have a big involvment in two of the biggest areas.
The question of why FHT and CThA are no longer part of GCMT is not for me to answer, as I feel there has been too much politiking (and it was not FHT/CThA decision to leave) though I will say this....thank goodness they are on SRTC!
On a final note, since its inception, SRTC has had so much support from pretty much everyone, from elite sports bods, to sector skills. All of us who sit round the SRTC table are working flat out on industry issues, and things are getting done immediately, instead of long winded meetings, communications and general apathy!
try this link it should be live now
BGFL
Thanks for your reply Sports therapy.
Sorry for sounding stupid D523 seems to be more Taping and Strapping along with D524 and D525, rather than remedial soft tissue techniques or am I missing something?
I also agree that the level 4 SMA / VTCT qualification is well short of what many schools currently teach and misses key soft tissue / massage techniques. Any thoughts on their new level 5, as not seen this.
Hi Southosteo,
my bad! I meant SMA work to D520 and 521. Remedial is D522. As the NOS arent levels, I still dont think the new level 4 is anything other than D520 and 521, as there is still no advanced soft tissue techniques, which are covered in D521, and that is where the difference lays.
I know I keep banging on about SRTC, but its only because SRTC have been approached by all the main awarding bodies, as it seems they want to make sure their quals meet SRTC standards, which is great, because it means that we may finally get standardisation in the industry.
Going off thread a bit here. I just looked at the SRTC website for the first time. I noted that on the home page it states
'Work towards statutory regulation for protection of title and safety of the public'
Does this mean that the SRTC will be working with the Society of Sports Therapists in gaining statutory regulation as they are the only organisation who have made a formal application to the health professions council......this is all getting very confusing!
aspireST,
see my other reply to your posts.
in short, the SRTC supports the move towards STAT REGS however recognises that it is at least a decade away and to move the industry forwards has adopted a policy of voluntary regulation to ensure we are seen as a professional and united industry. The SST are currently the only large PA representing STs not involved in the process.
I have been advised today that the article in SportEx was written before the SRTC meeting, and that Bob was highly complimentary about SRTC.
In hindsight, he should have contacted us to pre-warn us that the article was about to be published.....but hindsight is unfortunately something that not many of us are born with.