"the USOC is a quasi-federal extension of the national government, less arms-length from the government than government-sponsored for-pofit companies like fannie mae. it's been granted federal statutory standing as the single entity of its kind, charged with federal governance, federally protected from competition."

I'm not sure I understand why this aspect means so much to you. I'm a Naval Officer, and I could absolutely be reprimanded, fired, etc for conduct in my private life that might be completely legal. I have punished Sailors for things like that myself. Many career fields have morality clauses or codes of conduct integrated into their hirng/firing systems, and yes, those codes are somewhat subjectvie. When you sign up and agree to the code, you do so with an understanding that you are subject to the moral views of the people who hired you.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I think the difference is that you are a Naval guy for a living. Swimming is just a sport, where many just sign up for recreation. Sure, some like Phelps will earn a living off of the sport, but for many it is just a hobby. I don't private citizens in a free country want a quasi government body interfering with what conduct is or is not acceptable to the guys at the quasi govt body when it comes to conduct outside the sport. If I want to be seen with a bong in my mouth (whether I inhale or not...) or protest for pro choice or against abortion, it really should not be the swim federation's business. I should still have the right to swim in the swim meet. Keep in mind that USA swimming has a so called monopoly on swim meets. It should just stick to swimming and let the legal authorities decide what behavior, is and is not acceptable to society.

The point is that these national federations have a monopoly over their sport. You can't compete in the sport even if they don't like your behaviour outside the sport ? This is where some of us don't want the hand of quasi govt monopoly stepping outside the sport to our behaviour outside the sport and using their "monopoly fuelled stick" to prevent us from competing.

What if someone protests "pro Taliban". Does USAT/USOC have the right to yank his license and prevent him from racing Kona or World Championships?

I agree that the USOC took the easy way out on this one. I don't agree with those who say they respect Phelps more because he smokes dope or thinks it is cool to be seen sucking on a bong. I understand wanting to relax and have fun, but there are other ways.

I wish I was doing a long run today with my training buddies because I'd be interested in how they might explain their opposition to USOC's decision to their kids. It's easy to explain to kids why you shouldn't smoke dope or get your photo taken so it looks like you might be smoking dope, but it seems it would be a bit harder to explain to a child why USOC should have stayed out of this.

Maybe it's one of those where a parent says, you'll understand when you get older.

"Christian evangelicals = religious intolerance? You're not an 'ignorant slut,' but you are a bigot. And ignorant."

you've decided to remake what i've said into something you wish i said, so that you can feign righteous indignation at it. this is typical of you, and i would expect no less.

"Having visited the AFA, I can't imagine a more religiously tolerant environment."

let me educate you. if you google "air force academy religious intolerance" you won't have time to read all the citations, all in the media, mainstream and otherwise. the air force had to investigate itself in 2005 after dozens or hundreds of allegations of intolerance became widely known in 2004 and 2005. as a result in 2005 the air force instituted new guidelines that applied not only to the AFA but to the entire branch. the new guidelines specifically reference freedom of religious expression, separation of church and state, that is, it reminded military leaders of the first amendment.

reports of intolerance, of unfettered access to cadets by evangelicals groups (to the exclusion of other religious groups), of specifically targeting jews, mandatory prayers in the name of jesus, caused even one christian chaplain at the academy to resign in protest.

this intolerance, and a pervasive air of "stridently evangelical themes," were confirmed by a pastoral care team from yale divinity school, which was commissioned at the behest of the air force. this is in part what caused the air force to institute sweeping changes in its policy toward religious tolerance at the AFA and throughout the corps.

and finally, the commandant of the AFA himself admitted pervasive religious intolerance throughout his organization. and this was months before the yale divinity school came out with its report.

now, it is my guess things currently are a lot better. but they only got a lot better after they got pretty bad, and congress, and the secdef, and the air force chief, got involved. it was noted quite often during the news stories of the time that the AFA's location in colorado springs was an aggravator, and ted haggard and other prominent evangelicals based in the springs were frequently interviewed, standing on the side of cadets and officers and faculty who chose to pursue evangelizing on campus.

i do not think its inappropriate, therefore, to wonder whether this also occurs at the USOC. were organizations such as these located in, say, california's humboldt county, i think it's fair to say we might have more pot smoking in the ranks. were they located in sandpointe, idaho, it's fair to wonder whether non-white cadets would feel at home. were they in san francisco, it's fair to wonder whether there might have been consistent violations of don't-ask, don't-tell.

but leave it to you to turn this question into something ugly.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"I'm not sure I understand why this aspect means so much to you. I'm not sure I understand why this aspect means so much to you. I'm a Naval Officer, and I could absolutely be reprimanded, fired, etc for conduct in my private life that might be completely legal. Many career fields have morality clauses or codes of conduct integrated into their hirng/firing systems, and yes, those codes are somewhat subjectvie."

i think this is a fair point. at the same time, branches of the federal govt (specifically yours) place a higher priority on the protecting and preserving the elements of freedom embedded in the constitution, and that includes (most constitutional scholars agree) on an inherent right to privacy. yes, there are legal behaviors that your branch enjoins, but these are fewer and fewer. dont-ask, dont-tell will not be with us for much longer. racial integration, religious tolerance, are themes that the armed forces are often slow to wrestle with because of tradition, yet these same armed forces eventually become models for the rest of society once wrestled with.

i think this is one of those times of "wrestling." jacob wrestled all night with the angel of god, saying, "i will not let you go until you give me your blessing." maybe i'm wrestling with the angels at the USOC, and i don't even ask for their blessing: just that they give us a code of conduct a little more meaty than: don't disappoint.

i'll bet sailors and naval officers understand their code of conduct with greater specificity than do athletes. i'm asking for a bit more specificity. i want to make sure this code is designed to protect the sport, and the athletes, not the jobs and careers of those who work in governance.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

  
Slowman

You should read the report USA Track and Field put out last week analyzing the team's performance at last summer's Olympics. UST&F put together an independent group of folks to look at in general why the team medal count was lower than expected and specifically why both sprint relay teams dropped batons in the prelims.

While it has nothing to do with embarassing off track misconduct if you read the report it does hit on two specific big picture themes that are at play in the Phelps issue: the need for some centralized control to put together a successful team and the need for athletes exibit personnal internal discipline to acheive success. The centralized control in this instance is USAT&F's inability to impose an effective mechanism for picking, managing and training its relays. The report also cites some examples where the panel members felt that indiviual athletes had poor performances because they lacked the ability to handle the stess of just living in the Olympic village without their personnal coaches. Basically, the report suggests that being too easy on the athletes has led to some getting soft enough that it is affecting performance. More responsibilty is called for.

Imposing centeralized control and individual discipline is an anathma to many people when dealing with the government or society as a whole and I am highly sympathetic to that view. I take your comments here to be coming from that perspective. I also sense you have actaully had some bad experiences with one of the organizations involved her or at least seen the "sausage being made" up close such that you lack faith in that organization. I've had direct experience with USA Swimming (although not at the executive level) and I have faith in their performance and ability to apply their rules fairly.

But, the general premise that for an organization to marshal its resources and its members to acheive success requires discipline and common purpose is unassailable.

I do want to be free from my government telling me what to do. However, as an athlete, I not only fully expect to give up some individual freedom for the good of the group/team, I expect and demand my fellow teammates and competitors do the same.

I understand the track dilema, but how does that relate to the olympic swim team, where they won more medals than expected, and most of the relays?? And of course the guy that did the majority of that, is the one being questioned here. You do not really think that the picture was of his very first bong hit do you? I came through the entire AG up to college swimming culture, and I can tell you that firing up a joint starts at a very young age... And as our swimming dominance since the late 60's has been pretty consistant, I would surmise that smoking pot has not affected it, perhaps in some weird way, it is a performance enhancer. A way to deal with all the boredom of following the black line for 3 to 5 hours a day.....

"You should read the report USA Track and Field put out last week analyzing the team's performance at last summer's Olympics."

i'm following that story.

"the need for some centralized control to put together a successful team and the need for athletes exibit personnal internal discipline to acheive success."

yet that extremely disappointing michael phelps won an unprecedented number of medals, and the swimming relays did not blow their exchanges. here is something you might consider. the reason usa swimming was the organization to ban phelps is that the usoc's power over the athletes begins and ends with the 17 days of the olympics -- the usoc can't ban an athlete in february of 09. it's up to the national federations. usoc's director, however, just grabbed quite a bit of extra power via this phelps incident. his statement: Our focus has been making sure [athletes] understand the obligation of being an Olympian whether it's competing in the Olympic arena or in their post-Olympic lives.

it is my view that you, and others, need to remember the mandate and ownership of these federations. they were set up by, and are owned by, the athletes. these federations are not the usoc's property, to use and leverage for its own purpose. the usoc seems to see its mandate as a function of the metric by which it is (rightly or wrongly) measured: world and olympic medals. but this a fraction of what sport is about, and it's a fraction of what national federations must do.

yes, you're right, i've now fought several battles (going back some years) with folks (no longer at usat) who violated the spirit and letter of its charter and bylaws to gain the power they sought. because of these battles, fought at my private expense and the expense of others who worked with me, we now have a much more functional federation and it's much harder to do mischief. subsequently, i and others have gone to battle with the usoc over what appeared an imminent hazard to usat. so, yes, there is a history there. it's all googleable (is that a word?) and you can find much of it on slowtwitch, or in the archives of our previous web architecture.

but let's consider usatf. what they think they need to fix are relays, and specifically in world and olympic championships. what price would you be willing to pay? national federations serve their members. usatf needs to promote running, and track and field. it needs to bring more big meets to the u.s. it needs to increase the ranks of schoolyard athletes. running trails, safety for runners in training and racing, access to resources, access to knowledge, help for race promoters so that they can put on more events. yes, olympic relays are important, but they're not the crisis. no more indoor track meets in southern california, where there used to be three big ones every year in major arenas, there's a crisis for you.

certainly a code of conduct is part of a governing body's suite of concerns. but let's examine what conduct is acceptable. that's all i'm asking. those in governance at every level can be trusted to try to grab more and more power; and to sacrifice its mandate to keep its own organization and staff employed and prosperous. whether you know it or not, you don't want people like me to stop exercising the sort of vigilance you're now contending against. the usoc wants athletes to know of their obligations, during and after the olympics. i want the usoc to understand its obligation to the athletes, during and after the olympics. this, i am not sure it fully grasps.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

That is a pretty sad comment on the culture of competitive swimming, although I know it's not limited to swimming.

"If I want to be seen with a bong in my mouth (whether I inhale or not...) or protest for pro choice or against abortion, it really should not be the swim federation's business."

Unless you're Michael Phelps, I'm not sure anyone is saying it is.

"It should just stick to swimming and let the legal authorities decide what behavior, is and is not acceptable to society."

I don't think USA Swimming is trying to decide what is acceptable to society. They are trying to decide what behaviors reflect poorly on their organization, and might lose them money.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

That is a pretty sad comment on the culture of competitive swimming,\\\

Why is that, because they smoke a little weed?? I'm kind of like Dan in this regard, I don't smoke pot, but did try it in the old days..And funny enough, it was the guys I swam with that got me to try it.. I was one of the % that gets really paranoid, so I have passed since then, and have stuck to my drug of choice, Wine, Beer, and Tequila..Have to say though, I'm guessing that pot would have been a lot healthier for me than booze. Just because it is still illegal in a sense to most, I'm not going to confuse the reality of these different drugs, tobacco included.. Does anyone here really think that pot will be illegal in the near future??? I either see pot becoming legal, or all drugs becoming illegal, and with the current trends, I think it is the former.. SO I'm not assigning any real big issue with pot smokers, just the same as I do with any drugs, don't drive with them, and don't take them when you are pregnant. Keep your cool, and don't interfere with others and their rights, and that is a code I can live with as to taking recreational drugs..I think the war on them has been pretty much lost, best get on the right side, and tax the hell out of them I say....I think there is a lot of evidence that legal drugs will be a lot less damaging to society, and save us billions of tax payer dollars..

Right now there is a big issue here in CA, that we are going to let out about 50k prisoners because we cannot afford to house them. If the majority of them are drug users who committed no other crime, then I'm all for it. Right there we will save 100's of millions, from the initial arrest, to the court costs, to the lock ups and beyond..I hope we do it, and it goes national, good time for it when no state is running in the black these days....

"i think this is a fair point. at the same time, branches of the federal govt (specifically yours) place a higher priority on the protecting and preserving the elements of freedom embedded in the constitution, and that includes (most constitutional scholars agree) on an inherent right to privacy."

If USA Swimming was making some attempt to violate an athlete's right to privacy, I'd see your argument here. In this case, however, Phelps made no attempt to keep his actions private. His photo was taken and spread around the tabloids and news agencies all over the world. You could argue whether or not the person who took the photo violated his privacy rights, but USA Swimming certainly didn't.

"i'll bet sailors and naval officers understand their code of conduct with greater specificity than do athletes."

We conduct training on what types of things are allowable and which aren't. I would assume that USA Swimming does some sort of similar training for its athletes. I know the NCAA did when I was in college.

" i want to make sure this code is designed to protect the sport, and the athletes, not the jobs and careers of those who work in governance. "

Well, the two go hand in hand sometimes.

"just that they give us a code of conduct a little more meaty than: don't disappoint."

The Code of Conduct is pretty specific about a lot of things. The part that Phelps is being disciplined for violating is the catch all conduct clause, which will always need to be part of any code like this because you can never anticipate or spell out every possible violation.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"If USA Swimming was making some attempt to violate an athlete's right to privacy, I'd see your argument here."

funny, i would think taking away my living for 3 months on the basis of a photo taken of me, in a private residence engaging in what *might* be illegal activity, no arrests, no accusations, and of course nothing that has one thing to do with swimming, that would seem pretty invasive. maybe it's just me. u.s. senators get lighter treatment.

"The Code of Conduct is pretty specific about a lot of things."

other than "you shall not go into the opposite sex's locker room" i don't know what specificity you're talking about. why don't you go onto usa swimming's website and find me that specificity?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"funny, i would think taking away my living for 3 months on the basis of a photo taken of me, in a private residence engaging in what *might* be illegal activity, no arrests, no accusations, and of course nothing that has one thing to do with swimming, that would seem pretty invasive. maybe it's just me. u.s. senators get lighter treatment."

I think you're confusing "invasion of privacy" with "doing somthing that pisses you off." USA Swimming didn't have someone hiding in a bush taking pictures of Phelps in his private residence. Phelps smoked pot at a party and his picture was taken, and then boradcast for all to see. There is no longer any privacy involved in his actions.

"other than "you shall not go into the opposite sex's locker room" i don't know what specificity you're talking about. why don't you go onto usa swimming's website and find me that specificity?"

Dan, you're starting to sound pissy. Have you actually read USA Swimming's Code of Coduct? Here's a link. Please read it.

http://pacswim.org/page/doc_code.pdf

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"Dan, you're starting to sound pissy. Have you actually read USA Swimming's Code of Coduct? Here's a link. Please read it."

in fact, i have read it, along with the codes of conduct of these athletes in each of various specific enterprises (e.g., while on the national team) as well as codes from other NFs.

please don't make it personal, okay? no need for that. we're having a discussion. don't call me names. i can't imagine that's what discussions devolve into among naval officers, please let's have you on good behavior here as well.

in point of fact, usa swimming did not cite any code of conduct provisions when it banned phelps, because he was not guilty of any of these provisions. he was banned because disappointed people -- that according to u.s. swimming's e.d. that's not a good reason. he did not commit a felony. he was not convicted or charged, nor did he enter a plea, to a felony, or to taking illegal drugs. he just disappointed people.

this means two things: that if you disappoint the wrong people, you're gone. and it means that if you engage in the very same behavior as phelps, but you're not big enough for it to matter, you're not gone (i specifically heard this from a federation head yesterday). so, right of privacy, equal protection, free speech, presumption of innocence, might at any time be a casualty, depending on what those in power over you decide about you.

look, you've decided swimming acted appropriately. that's fine. i respect that. it's a defensible view. some folks thought the same thing of the AAU in the 1970s. i was around, competing, back then, i remember the national dialogue. those who favored the status quo were in the minority, and things changed. you're in the minority now. maybe things will again change. maybe not. maybe you're right, or least more right than wrong. in either case, i think the conversation is appropriate.

again, i think if kelloggs wants to pull its sponsorship, fine. if u.s. swimming wants to pull its stipend, fine. but as to this ban, causing him the inability to earn a living, something few if any on this forum have ever faced, he disappointed people isn't sufficient.

finally, 304.3.15 is a disgrace. its very existence says that usa swimming doesn't exist for the swimmers, rather the swimmers all exist for usa swimming. the purpose of citizens is not to further their government, the purpose of government is to serve the citizens. why do we hate totalitarian governments on the national level, but are quite happy to live under them one or two rungs down?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"please don't make it personal, okay? no need for that. we're having a discussion. don't call me names. i can't imagine that's what discussions devolve into among naval officers, please let's have you on good behavior here as well."

Pardon me Dan, but it was your post that began the snarky negative tone, and I never called you a name. If you've made up your mind on this subject, and don't really care to discuss it other than to voice your own opinion, that's fine.

"in point of fact, usa swimming did not cite any code of conduct provisions when it banned phelps,"

According to USA Swimming's website: "USA Swimming has reprimanded Michael Phelps under its Code of Conduct by withdrawing financial support and the eligibility to compete for a period of three months effective today, Feb. 5, 2009."

"this means two things: that if you disappoint the wrong people, you're gone."

Not gone, just penalized.

"look, you've decided swimming acted appropriately. "

I've decided that their actions are justifiable within the construct of their rules.

"but as to this ban, causing him the inability to earn a living, something few if any on this forum have ever faced, he disappointed people isn't sufficient. "

USA Swimming is NOT preventing Michael Phelps from earning a living. Please don't trot that out as any kind of legitimate argument in this particular case. Michael Phelps has no need of the money he gets from USA Swimming.

"finally, 304.3.15 is a disgrace. its very existence says that usa swimming doesn't exist for the swimmers, rather the swimmers all exist for usa swimming."

I disagree. 304.3.15 says that USA Swimming exists for ALL swimmers, and no single swimmer can put that in jeopardy by their inability to behave appropriately.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"According to USA Swimming's website: 'USA Swimming has reprimanded Michael Phelps under its Code of Conduct by withdrawing financial support and the eligibility to compete for a period of three months effective today, Feb. 5, 2009.'"

here's the whole article:


USA Swimming has reprimanded Michael Phelps under its Code of Conduct by withdrawing financial support and the eligibility to compete for a period of three months effective today, Feb. 5, 2009.

This is not a situation where any anti-doping rule was violated, but we decided to send a strong message to Michael because he disappointed so many people, particularly the hundreds of thousands of USA Swimming member kids who look up to him as a role model and a hero.

Michael has voluntarily accepted this reprimand and has committed to earn back our trust.


i don't mean simply to be argumentative. i'm trying to have a discussion here where ground may be gained by each side toward a common understanding of what is most appropriate moving forward in sport. i would think those holding your view would be at least as equally motivated, since your side's position is in the distinct minority regardless of what swathe of the population is polled.


if you were suspended without pay for 90 days and the reason given was that you violated the uniform code of military justice, i think all parties would think not sufficient specificity was given, and would wonder why. if you read wielgus one and only statement -- rather buried well underneath in usa swimming's website -- printed above, it seems not in the best interest of usa swimming to cite what it is phelps actually did (because maybe the specific reason is not very defensible); rather the true specificity is as i said: disappointment. specifically, of the kids.



i think this is cheap. trot out the kids. that's how prop 8 in california got passed: we'll be "teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay."


what if phelps does a public service announcement for safe gay sex? dates a porn star? appears in a porn movie? appears in a trojan ad. or in an extenz ad? or is an avowed communist? or thinks al qaeda has a case? in point of fact, triathletes, swimmers, etc, just don't have enough money as a group to have a union, the way major sports figures do. that's why swimmers like phelps can get kicked around by their federations. they have no protection, they have no option.


i don't think what phelps did was good. my question is: is it actionable? maybe after he confessed, was sentenced, yes. stronger case. maybe if wielgus offers the amplification, and enters into this discussion.


consider this. i wanted to ask the usoc athlete ombudsman questions. he said okay, if the usoc would allow him to answer them. an ombudsman cannot properly function unless he has fierce independence. the point of an ombudsman is to be the conscience of an organization, to be its fact checker, its truth teller, its explainer. this is the athlete's ombudsman for the usoc, and i inquired of him early last week and i haven't heard back since. it seems to me no answer is the answer, and he won't be allowed to talk "explain" phelps. its shameful that he has to ask the powers at usoc before he can "explain" phelps in a way his constituency can understand.


so that's my view. feel free to have the last word (for today at least).

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"if you were suspended without pay for 90 days and the reason given was that you violated the uniform code of military justice, i think all parties would think not sufficient specificity was given, and would wonder why."

If I were punished under the UCMJ, it would be through the military justice system, and a specific charge would be required, even if that charge was simple "Conduct Unbecoming." In the course of that process, I would be told what behavior was "unbecoming," much as Phelps has been told which behaviors of his were "disappointing" and in violation of the Code of Conduct. I don't think there's any question about specificity with regard to what the violation is.

"if you read wielgus one and only statement -- rather buried well underneath in usa swimming's website -- printed above, it seems not in the best interest of usa swimming to cite what it is phelps actually did (because maybe the specific reason is not very defensible); rather the true specificity is as i said: disappointment. specifically, of the kids. "

Two things. First, I think we both know that what is released as a public statement, and what actually takes place in private are often two different things. I'd be willing to bet that whatever official suspension paperwork was filed specifies the violation. Second, I think the specific behavior is not mentioned in the statement partly out of a desire to not bring any additional attention to it (not saying the word "drugs"), and partly because there is no legal evidence of actual marijuana, although I think we all understand what Phelps is doing in the picture.

"in point of fact, triathletes, swimmers, etc, just don't have enough money as a group to have a union, the way major sports figures do. that's why swimmers like phelps can get kicked around by their federations. they have no protection, they have no option."

Again, I would ask you not to paint Phelps as a helpless financial victim. He's doing just fine, and he doesn't make his living from swimming anymore.

"what if phelps does a public service announcement for safe gay sex? dates a porn star? appears in a porn movie? appears in a trojan ad. or in an extenz ad? or is an avowed communist? or thinks al qaeda has a case?"

Then USA Swimming would have to decide, by whatever process is in place, whether or not those things constitute acts that are "detrimental to the image or reputation of USA Swimming, a LSC or the sport of swimming." If they decide that appearing in a porno, for instance, is a violation, and the swimmer disagrees, he can sue or file a complaint with the intent of being compensated, and a mediator or court can decide if USA Swimming is acting fairly and in accordance with its legal obligations and responsibilities.

"my question is: is it actionable? maybe after he confessed, was sentenced, yes."

Are you arguing that USA Swimming, or any other employer for that matter, can only take action if an employee is found guilty of and sentenced for a crime? I doubt very much that the majority of people involved in your polling would agree on that point.

"the point of an ombudsman is to be the conscience of an organization, to be its fact checker, its truth teller, its explainer."

The Ombudsman is not the conscience of an organization. The Ombudsman is a neutral arbiter of disputes, and an adviser to the athletes with regard to their rights and responsibilities. Talking to you about another athlete's case is certainly not a responsibility of the Athlete Ombudsman. In fact, I would imagine he would need permission from both USA Swimming or USOC, and from Michael Phelps to do so. That privacy thing you mentioned before.

Look, I understand that you don't like the suspension or the portion of the Code of Conduct that USA Swimming says Phelps violated. I also understand that you disagree with the punishment doled out. Not being a competitive swimmer, I can't say if a 3 month suspension is appropriate or not. I honestly don't know what the practical impact of that would be, from an athlete's point of view. That said, Phelps entered into an agreement with USA Swimming that includes the Code of Conduct. It is fairly weak to enter into that agreement, and then complain when it is enforced, which is why Phelps has said he understands and agrees with the action USA Swimming has taken. Without seeing any other bylaws or rules, it certainly appears that the USA Swimming Code of Conduct allows some discretion in determining what acts are violations if they are not among those specifically listed. Since it is impossible to list every action that could be a problem, the 304.3.15 section seems reasonable and not particularly surprising to me. Most professional sports have some sort of morality or conduct requirement for their athletes, since those athletes are representatives of the organization. For instance, the NFL Player conduct policy states that players can be disciplined for "Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL Players."

I understand that my opinion with regard to this issue is in the minority here. Sadly, my opinion that Phelps should not be smoking dope is also apparently in the minority on ST, maybe a telling statement. Additionally, I think you'll find that lots of people don't like the idea of being held accountable for their actions. It's not surprising. That said, Phelps entered into an agreement by which he gets paid to swim and is allowed to compete in sanctioned events. He is bound to follow the rules, and the rules state that USA Swimming has the discretion to decide what actions of swimmers are detrimental to USA Swimming. Whether or not the punishment given is the right punishment, it seems clear that USA Swimming has the right to give SOME punishment.

Have a good night.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Are you confusing a media or news ombudsman with the athlete's ombudsman? I would assume in this case the ombudsman is a mediator between the athletes and USOC. He should maintain strict confidentiality of his dealings with Phelps (if any) from the both the USOC and the media. It is a little odd that he appears to answer to the USOC before Phelps to get permission to speak to you, but the answer "no" is completely within his right. We are not the ombudsman's "constituency" - the athletes are.

"Are you confusing a media or news ombudsman with the athlete's ombudsman?"

an ombudsman is a term of art. there's no confusion there. if this person is not an ombudsman, fine, perhaps he should have a different title.

and i'm not asking the ombudsman about phelps. i'm asking the ombudsman to speak to slowtwitch readers as if they are athletes living under a code. which they are. in point of fact, when you press a federation official to describe the differences between the "code" under which elite athletes live with that under which all athletes live (in swimming, triathlon, and other usoc impacted sports) all i have spoken to confess that there may in fact be none.

this ombudsman has as his specific portfolio the knowledge and explanation of the rules as they pertain to athletes. unfortunately, if usa triathlon's athletes want an explanation of banned versus allowable athlete behavior, it appears it must be in discussions one at a time. if the usoc wants to present another official in the ombudsman's stead, that's fine with me. so far, no go.

in this thread i've presented a host of behavioral scenarios to get to the root of what usoc sees as sanctionable behavior. and i've asked several federation people whether identical behavior is bad enough to be sanctionable in "big" athletes yet not sanctionable in lesser known athletes. there seems confusion there among federation people, and it seems the ombudsman, or, fine, someone else at the usoc, might be able to make statements on which federation owners (you and i) can hang their hats.

but i want be clear here. i have heard nothing but good about john ruger, the usoc's ombudsman. i have spoken to him, he seems a stand up guy, and federations, athletes, and even attorneys who represent athletes on the wrong side of a federation ban (some of whom i know), specifically point to luger as a stand up guy. i have no beef with him. on the contrary, i'm eager to hear from him. i think he'd be a fabulous vehicle to help educate slowtwitch readers, and to work through with us the posture of the usoc toward off-the-field behavior, the parts of that approach that do work, and whether the parts of that enforcement need to be examined. that's why i asked him to join in the discussion. my disappointment is that it seems the usoc apparently doesn't agree that its ombudsman should come on slowtwitch and... ombud.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

If you want to smoke some pot occasionally at a party, I don't think that is sad, although I've always been scared as an athlete to intentionally suck smoke of any kind into my lungs, so I never have.

I interpreted your comment to mean that swimmers regularly smoked pot to alleviate the boredom of training.

Sport has always been a way for me to deal with the stress and boredom of the other parts of my life, so when drugs are used as a way to deal with the stress and boredom of sport, that is sad to me.

Still, I know that for pro athletes, collegiates on scholarship or younger athletes hoping to earn a scholarship, sport is a way of earning $$ and not just play like it is for the rest of us.

Slowman,this resopnse is not directed at you but just a personal observation of the hypocracy surrounding Phelps and the whole western culture.

It seems that there are so many who want to slam down Phelps for smoking some dope.Well if it your personal opinion then fine but why do we make such a distiction between Phelps and so many other millionare "role models" out there.How many of you have been to the movies over the last few years?How many of you boycotted the Pirates of the Carribean movies because Johnny Depp has done drugs?How about Robert Downey jr?Do we throw away all that Drew Barreymore has done since she was a drug using alcoholic teen?How about all your daughters looking to Lyndsay Lohan as a roll model.How about Pammy and Paris for making nice, family home movies?How about Britney,Amy Winehouse and all those who just love rehab so much.How about all those drugged up rock stars who are the icons of the music industry?Maybe we should ban all of the Rolling Stones music or pretend Bob Marley never exsisted.Please lets not talk about baseball or NFL players!

Here in Oz we forgave the one of crickets greatest for repeated infidelity.We idolise a cricket great for holding the record of drinking the most cans of beer on a flight from Sydnay to London(42 I believe),We give credit to a Prime Minister who at one time held the world record for drinking a yard of beer(Bob Hawke at Oxford)We forgive our meathead footballers for drunken rampages and oh-rape!!!!!!!!!!!!We still give credibility to drunken journo's,who stagger around drunk in the streets while their kids are tucked up at home with the wife.

That is okay though because they are not the guy who is the greatest swimmer to have ever lived.That is okay because the normal childhood he gave up means nothing to us!The normal teen years he missed by staring at the black line while the rest of you were out doing whatever normal kids do!The years he dedicated to being one of the icons of the modern Olympics mean nothing to you BUT one day during an out of comptition phase where this same guy,this one national hero,sucks back some dope,is not arrested,is not charged,is doing what so many college kids his age are doing,you are crying for blood!
If he took PED's I would be with you but he didn't.He smoked some dope,big fucking deal!!!!!!!

For those who want to know I do not smoke dope and have seen way more social carnage as a result of alcohol and prescribed medication than any as result of some laid back stoners.

.

Phelps receives a stipend from USOC/USA Swimming. Phelps has signed a Code of Conduct agreement with USOC/USA Swimming. Phelps has a responsibility not to participate in what some/several/many people consider immoral behavior. Determining immoral behavior is a subjective task but I would argue that blocking the entrance to an abortion clinic is much lower on the scale than smoking pot. The person blocking the entrance is taking a moral stance (albeit illegally). My guess is that Phelps was not taking a moral stance on the legality of marijuana.

Finally, if my picture ended up either a) on the front page of every news website in the world, or b) on someone's MySpace page with my face in a bong and legal counsel or HR came across that image then I would most certainly lose my job. I believe USOC/USA Swimming had an obligation to suspend Michael.