I am glad to see the criteria being elevated substantially, I had a bad experience in my level 1 clinic because of people who really didn't care about coaching clients in the furutre taking up valuable time from the instructors.

We all have to start somewhere, and USAT has decided that "somewhere" is not at a USAT level 1 clinic.

It would be great to have USAT offer seperate education clinics apart from the actual coaching certification clinics. If there is a market for it, they would be smart to exploit it. I think the Art and Science of Triathlon sypososium in a few months in San Diego is a very good first step in this regard. I would attend that and get to know the folks at USAT. Give to the sport and it will give back to you.

My path: I started by volunteering to coach for the leukemia and Lympoma Society (Team in Training). I was in the TNT bashing camp until a friend and former TNT head coach suggested that if I was so sure they were poorly coached, perhaps I should become part of the solution rather than sit idle and bitch about it. While coaching for TNT, I took the coaching certification course given by TNT where Dave Scott is the instructor for three days (he is the national head coach for the TNT tri program). After two years coaching for TNT, I decided I was ready to advance and get certified by USAT and USAC. I learned a TON from the two USACX certification courses and the two USAT certification courses I have taken, but that knowledge pales in comparison to how much I have learned just working with individuals to meet their performance goals along the way. My first client was a neighbor who paid me by mowing my lawns for a season. Yes, you will work cheap or for free in the beginning, but that experience will be very valuable should you decide to go further with your coaching.

If you think the level 1 clinic is hard to get into, try geting into the level 2 clinic!

Good Luck,

---

Dave Stark
dreamcatcher@astound.net
USAC & USAT level 2 certified coach

It almost sounds like the triathlon world might advance (not devolve) into a world where people judge potential coaches based on their actual results with other athletes as opposed to a largely meaningless (though hopefully that might change) certification. How is that a bad thing?

If you have someone with a lot of experience coaching, for example, high school swimmers and runners, who decides to start coaching triathletes, I can't think of anything better than that person taking business away from some local "coach" who did an Ironman and decided to start charging advice for, essentially, rehashing what they did to "prepare" (using the term loosely...).

As I said earlier, coaching should not be - first and foremost - a business. And if this move damages those who are focused on it as a business, I have absolutely no trouble with that.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

i have to agree with you Rapp, on the same token there are Certified race directors who have never put on a triathlon yet, and some of the best RD's are not certified.

Great point. The entire USAT coaching education system largely exists as a financial conduit within the broader scope of the USAT financial machine...selling CEU's; conferring insurance benefits on USAT coaches encouraging them to encourage more athletes to buy memberships, which funnels more people to USAT sanctioned races, which creates more eyeballs for sponsors, etc etc....

Honestly, the actual material in the Level I course is pretty decent, but is somewhat misplaced within the current coaching structure.

The ASCA structure, though still with its flaws, does get it right by having Level I as a true beginner cert. Level I shows you are minimally qualified but have at least affiliated with the leading organization. Level II requires experience, and Level III requires experience and achievement (Levels IV and V require national and international achievement). USAT basically lumps everyone and everything into Level I, which would have been solved with a "true" Level I. Not saying the ASCA model is perfect, but USAT could have solved some problems with a true intro course for novices and then require some experience (as it seems they are doing) for additional education.

If anyone thinks the USAT coaching system is really about coaching and not business....that ship sailed long ago! And that applies to all levels, not just level I...

Isn't coaching a business? Isn't it basically like any other service-based business? Don't the coaches on this thread treat their businesses like a business?

Not trying to be snarky...just curious what you mean.

I see your point. Lots of coaches out there - especially the big names you mentioned - without a USAT certification. But for someone wanting to break into the business, it seemed like a good starting point. After nearly 30 years competing, reading everything I can get my hands on, I feel like I have a lot to share but also realize I have much to learn. I guess I was thinking certification would be a good starting point but you have me ready to re-think my strategy. Perhaps I'll look at mentoring with a coach or coaching group.

---

Geoff from Indy
http://www.tlcendurance.com

I agree with Geoff. We are in the same boat.
Some great points being made here and it's really valuable to hear how other people are seeing this issue.
As for other ways to gain experience mentioned earlier...I'm already doing most of them and still feel like I could benefit from a more formalized education process.

Re: good books to look into...I'd love some suggestions or what to search for on the forum to lead me in the right direction.

---

http://www.tri-ingtokeepwarm.com

That's a fair question but here's one take...

If you coach a team (XC, swimming, track)...You don't offer one of your athletes a "stock" training plan, several others a "Bronze" plan, and several others a "Platinum" plan (setting aside the reality that some kids end up getting better treatment than others...in general though, the coach simply coaches based on what he/she believes is necessary for the athletes to get better...not based on marketing services designed to improve income yet possibly depriving the athlete of something he/she could use to improve.)

If one of your kids sends you a few emails to talk about their training or comes into the office several times to chat, you don't say, "Sorry, your Bronze plan only allows two emails per month and one 30 minute phone consultation." If someone needs work on the mental side, you don't charge them for a "Race Planning" session (though some swim coaches do make a side business with private lessons for their own team...).

But outside the private market of coaching, your job on a team for your is simply to coach and not try to exploit more from them. Maybe that's an old fashioned romanticized way to see things, but I think that's what's meant by separating the coaching aspect from the business aspect. The coach is there to provide anything within his/her own expertise for the betterment of the athlete, though certainly refer out (medical, nutrition) when necessary. The business aspect has led to a market flooded with different levels of service and a la carte offerings, no different than what you'd find at a regular ol fitness gym where they are constantly trying to sell you something else. Yes, pricing of different services is how scarce items (ie, time) is rationed, but there's a fine line when it begins to impair the quality of services provided if too much access is limited to the coach.

Agreed, I know a few people who are USAT certified who just did it for shits and giggles and to call themselves a coach. Dilution at it's worst.

---

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project

Interesting comments on coaching and businesses. What do you think is the percentage of coaches that fall into each camp? The ones I know are all doing it for the money and to grow their business as large as possible.

.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

This doesn't mean don't do the course if you have the opportunity to do so and you can swing the $$ and travel; just means that USAT L-I as a label has been diluted. There are still benefits though, as there are a few decent information nuggets to gain, many consumers don't realize the title has been diluted (if you are interested in the marketing benefits) and you do get insurance coverage.

As I mentioned previously, the Level I curriculum is decent (not great, not horrible, but decent). However, with all the collective years of experience in the presenters at the international level, the several hundred page manual, and some fairly experienced coaches and athletes in attendance, we ended up spending 45 minutes debating the ethics of having a "swim buddy" for scared newbies in open water swims!! One minute we're talking research on Long Term Athletic Development to get kids ready for the 2020 Games, then next minute a bunch of people want to talk about "swim buddies"....

No, it isn't. Coaching is like teaching. You aren't providing a service for money. There's a level of trust that's just not required, for example, when you hire some guy to fix your washing machine or mow your lawn. At the risk of digressing into Lavender Room territory, I'd say a big problem in this country is that we've allowed things that are most definitely not businesses to be run like they are. There's not a bottom line when it comes to educating people. And, likewise, there isn't really a bottom line in the same way when it comes to coaching people.

Go ask any good middle school or high school coach if coaching is a business. It's not. I would trust any high school coach with a history of success coaching runners or swimmers well before I'd trust the typical triathlon "coach" in the US, because the former clearly understands what it means to be a coach.

Ironically, it's those coaches who deal with athletes for whom racing really is their business that treat their own coaching the least like a business, and it's those coaches who deal with AGers who want nothing more than emotional ROI that treat coaching like it's just a service.

Case in point - Paulo Sousa and his Triathlon Squad. Paulo is a PhD Mechanical Engineer. He's probably the most intelligent person I know. He could be making a shitload of money doing DARPA funded projects on miniature drones - his PhD was on the aerodynamics of insect flight; robotics - especially small scale robotics - is big business for obvious reasons with regards to DoD projects. But he doesn't work as an engineer. He gets paid shit - when he gets paid (he does way more pro bono work than he'd ever admit to) - to help a bunch of kids (young adults, whatever) chase a dream that many (most) of them will never realize. He doesn't coach like a business. He coaches like a parent. In a weird way (he doesn't have kids, so his sense of parenting is a bit odd). More aptly, he coaches like a teacher (a harsh one). That's what coaching is. It's not a business.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I think you make a valid point, but is there not a way to place a value on good teaching or good coaching? Is that not a necessity in order for these teachers or coaches to receive compensation for their work? The lack of money doesn't necessarily preclude someone from making the earnest effort at teaching or coaching that is required to do the job justice, but neither should (does?) a surplus of it (not that there is a surplus of money in coaching average amateur triathletes). Basically, I don't see how the above is necessarily true. I agree that in practice it is true, but could these coaches that currently earn a pittance not charge more?

---

__________________________

I tweet!

 A challenge exists in terms of certification v education.

There are lots of options that I considered at the time
1) Going straight education with no certification-- a problem there was the idea that people would not attend if there was not something at the end. While it is great to say the people will walk away with knowledge, in order to make it work financially and to offer incentives, people seemed to want a "certificate". There is another issue that pops up as well with this model: liability insurance. One of the reasons to be certified is to gain access to inexpensive liability insurance. To me, any coach that does not carry it is an idiot. However, you need to know what is covered. USAT supposedly covers their coaches as part of the coaching license. I saw the policy once and there were so many limits that, to me, it rendered the insurance useless. Other NGBs had better insurance, but the scope was limiting. For instance, USA Cycling's insurance was pretty good, but it only covered cycling and cycling-related activities. So one might be able to getaway with someone suing over a weight room incident, but running or swimming would be a harder thing.
2) Offering a way for a person to just take the certification exam without attending a clinic. Seriously considered this option as well. However, it really has the feel of one of those diploma mills. Also, I think that a classroom with an instructor that can answer questions really helps. I also believe that the networking and creating a working relationship with other coaches can lead to them helping one another. NSCA, ACSM and others do this. In the situation I was in, we lacked confidence that the folks coaching that sport had any background in science---our group thought that was pretty darn important. To me, coaching without a reasonable foundation in exercise science either through academics, self-study or a coaching clinic is just wrong.
3) A coaches education program at a NGB should be a money maker in the organization especially at USAT (which it is--check out its most recent 999 IRS filing), USAC and USATF (not sure it is at the last one). The reason it should be a money maker is that the content should be pertinent and beneficial so that coaches want to come and learn. Sometimes at a clinic or conference, it is great to hear others speak and challenge your way of thinking. This breaks the "I trained this way" or "I was trained this way" so that is how I will coach.
4) Is a certification important? I would say that it generally will lead credence especially if you are knew and maybe someone who will be a good coach, but you do not have great results. It is true in several sports that the former (or current in USAC and USAT) racers will be looked at, but the market is a great thing. If the coach does not perform well, it is time to look around. I have seen many good athletes get into coaching thinking it will easy and fall flat because 1) they are too busy with their training 2) they cannot adapt and adjust the training schedules as needed and on short notice many times, 3) their communication skills are lacking, 4) lack of well-rounded knowledge, and 5) lack of any business sense. There are probably others.
5) Does a certification make you a good coach? In and of itself, no. It should be part of a long journey in becoming a coach. A certification merely means you passed a test. What makes a good coach is a complex question. Knowing the sport is critical; communication may be more. If you cannot communicate what you know to someone then what you know (in this context) is pretty useless. As people have noted, many top coaches do not carry a NGB certification. Some may have at one time and let them lapse and some may never have. It was always nice to see a good coach join the certification track. Heck, had an Olympic medalist stand up in one clinic I put on and said that this was one of the best experiences he had. That carries a lot of weight as that guy had little reason to be there. (He was sort of forced to be there to get a job which actually made his comment even more better).
6) I attended a USAT level 2 clinic. The poor guy trying to teach the section on lactate threshold was in way over his head. While I knew he knew the material (he and I had chatted many times), he started off assuming that the group knew something of the science and only one had had any remote exposure. When he asked what lactate was, no one responded. I did not get the impression the group was shy (there had been some good discussion earlier). I go the impression that only one person knew and she did not answer very well (not wrong, just incomplete). My takeaway was that people attending a level 2 clinic should already have at least some idea of basic physiology especially when lactate threshold is a critical factor in endurance performance. (Across the board I am dismayed at the lack of scientific preparation in USA NGB coaching education programs. USAC comes the closest probably and it could be better. Not even going to comment on the fact that PhDs no longer teach the exercise science portion of the USAC level 2 clinics.)

Maybe I missed it, but I could not find an agenda for the level 1 clinic on the USAT website. I seem to recall there was some swim time that was part of the course. Since there seemed to be big demand (spaces selling out in short order), I would revamp the course content so that it was able to accommodate more people. Or make a lot of it available online. If skills are an important part of the clinic (which I think they should be) then have people complete the online stuff and the level 1 clinic turns into all skills and drills and how to teach them. (Since the idea would be that these folks will be teaching others, right?). You could have the course instructors evaluate and offer feedback on how well the would be coach teaches the skill). If there are people there who have no intention of coaching, then they could self-identify and be skipped over for this part.

Not sure who teaches the level 1, but the offerings could also be limited based on instructors and availability. In that case, you train more instructors or find them. USAC (whose entry level--3 for them--- is completely home self-study. Yes, the barrier is low, but it gives that coach dabbling in coaching some information and access to insurance. Plus it is a cash cow for the organization. High profit, low overhead as a human never has to deal with them except for shipping the level 3 manual out. But the philosophy was to keep the barriers to entry low, offer basic but useful information. Then get more in-depth at the second level. It will be interesting to see how it changes with a new person running the show.

I sort of get what USAT is trying to do, but I would say making the barrier of entry higher is actually the wrong thing to do. To me, you want as many people as possible to be exposed to the coaching education program even if that person is only coaching him/herself. To me, it is not USAT's business how I use the knowledge from the clinic. I also believe in spreading the knowledge and making it available to everyone. USAT has around 100K members and about 1700 certified coaches. A fear is that if everyone comes to a coaching clinic that no one will need a coach. Bullcrap. Look at the growth of triathlon, cycling and running coaches over the past decade or 15 years (I believe much of the credit goes to Chris Carmichael's self-promotion in making coaching something that age groupers would consider). There are athletes out there wanting a coach because doing it themselves is time consuming and hard and they end up posting threads asking how to train and get a dozen different answers that leave them more confused.

I see other negative aspects to the application process:
1) You might be applying to a clinic with lots of folks higher on the pecking order so you are denied, but it you apply to the clinic the next month then you get in if fewer people higher on the pecking order than you apply. Do you have to complete the application each time or can you just update it and roll it over?
2) It gives the perception that you have to know someone to get in or game the system. That creates ill will in an area where people do not need the certification to coach. It is not like a PT or RN or RD needs a license to practice. I could call myself a triathlon coach tomorrow and there is not one thing USAT could do about it as long as I did not try to use their marks or portray a certification from them. From what I understand, this perception long existed for the higher levels that already required the application.
3) How does one prove he/she is a full-time coach? Affidavits from clients? Website? Facebook page?

I would come down on not being a fan of the application process at least not at the entry level. To me, it creates too much subjectivity and too much work for the staff. How many applications come in? If each one needs reviewed and checked, what is the cost in staff time? To me, this does not move the education program forward. Staff that should be looking to improve the program end up handling paperwork.

Wow, that was a lot, but I have been thinking about some of these things for a while. Coaching education is important to me (heck, education is).

Coaching is like teaching and last time I checked teachers got paid. Not to get too political, but a bad teacher can stay around for decades. A bad triathlon coach will eventually not have any clients or so few as to make it impossible to make money.

There is a business side to coaching. I think few people go into coaching (aside from those with a pro sports or college sports option like basketball and football) to get rich. The reasons people become coaches varies and the ones who really treat their clients well will be successful and some can be quite successful. For a person to become a professional coach, to me, means that person should also be spending time keeping up with the latest developments. To me, the best way for this to occur is for that coach to be paid well enough that he/she can quite his/her "day" job and focus on education and the clients.

For that to happen, the coach needs to have a system for billing and getting paid. Someone noted the different levels that coaches have. I have talked with lots of USAT and USAC coaches over the years and few say they hold clients too accountable for that. 20% of the clients take 80% of the time of the coach (at least that is the sense). For instance, the Bronze level athlete might be limited to 2 phone calls per month and the Silver 10. Well, few Silvers ever call 10 times so that leaves time for a few Bronze's to exceed the limit. As one cycling coach told me, I do not have time to track how many times each client emails or calls me and he would have felt like an ass and probably lost the clients if he had done it. (If the client becomes a PITA--then just tell the client you cannot work with him/her any longer).

I concur with some of what you say in that you need to treat your clients well, but that does not mean that you cannot also be compensated for it. In fact, I argue that every coach out there giving away services is doing a disservice to the profession and to other coaches. Is there a time to help kids, especially poorer kids (I guess in triathlon that would be the kids whose parents only own one home)? Sure, but you also need to get them to value the experience by making them do something or else it creates a sense of entitlement. I know coaches who had kids who paid nothing for coaching but had to contribute in some way. Services were bartered. People will take better care of something they value and have earned or paid for.

Your mistake - thought that's not really the right word - is equating "business" and "compensation." Those two ideas are separate. i.e., just because you don't treat something like a business, that doesn't necessarily mean you aren't paid well. Yes, there is certainly a way to put value on good coaching, just like there is a way to put value on good teaching, or good music, or good art. Coaches - and teachers and musicians and artists - can all value their time. And they should. But that isn't the same as treating what they do as a business. I never said that they all earn a pittance. Some of them are pretty well compensated. It's about what the focus is. What's the primary goal of the endeavor? That's the basic question (IMO, anyway). For a lot of people - in my experience - the question is some variation on, "I like triathlon. (Often there is also the statement "I don't like my current job") How can I make money in triathlon? I know, I'll coach." That's a problem.

The real professional coach tries to figure out how to make money while coaching. The typical USAT-certified "coach" tries to figure out how to coach while making money.

Is that more clear?

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Ah, I understand now. Thanks!

---

__________________________

I tweet!

There are alternative routes to attaining similar knowledge as you'd get studying for a USAT cert, and also to liability insurance...but they're not shortcuts. You need to put your time in the trenches, both physically and mentally.

Ben Greenfield
MS, CSCS, NSCA-CPT, C-ISSN

Aside from getting hands on experience with real athletes, what other resources are there to begin the education process? Book? Forums?

---

http://www.tri-ingtokeepwarm.com

Bravo. I love your points, Jordan. I love that USAT has made it more difficult to get this license. Triathlon is littered with too many people that, as you stated, did a couple of races, got tri-fever, and obtained an easy to get USAT certification. Now they can pass their "how to finish an IM in less than 16 hours" knowledge on to a bunch of clueless consumers. Some of the advice I read on BT or on some "coach" blogs makes me want to pound me head into the wall.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

Not to change the subject, but this seems to be a step in the right direction. However, is there any type of certification to be an RD for a USAT race?

Jordan,
I could not agree more with you. I have been a competitive endurance athlete for close to 43 years and a triathlete for thirty.I have coached at the high school level for cross country, coached as a masters swim coach and worked with triathletes and runners for twenty years. Yes you treat it with a professional business approach but you are right about treating athletes as family members or students. It is not just sending out a training plan. it is checking to see how each athlete responds to each workout. How they recover. Pay attention to any patterns that may occur such as getting sickness at seasonal weather changes., what other stresses are going on in the athletes life etc. Taking the athlete and building confidence and putting them in the position to be successful.
I am glad that the USAT has taken action to correct the influx of non qualified coaches. It was basically do a year or two of the sport and then get certified and start a coaching service.
I have seen coaches give people plans and walk away. I have a masters swimmer who is using a coach to qualify for Boston. The coach gave him a plan for 18 weeks and after week five has not spoken to him once. He has the athlete do four hard runs in 6 days and his two hardest and crucial workouts back to back days. Now this is an athlete who has an extremely high injury rate. There is no room for adjustment.
No training plan goes exactly as planned for 12,14,16, 18 ,20 week etc. Even elite athletes need adjustments during a training block. Life is not that simple. These things take time to learn. Volunteer with a training group or another coach. Gain some experience and then you will get even more out of a coaching clinic.


http://futrmultisport.com/

Here are some of my suggestions:

-University degree in an exercise science related field (yes, it takes 3-6 years, but you are technically being paid to help people achieve their dreams and not get hurt along the way, and a few months of studying for a 2-3 day cert isn't going to necessarily prep you for that).

-Advanced certifications from NSCA, ACSM, or NASM.

-Coaching certifications from USA Cycling, USA Track & Field or USA Swimming

-Bike fit certification

-Daily immersion in the leading exercise science journals. There are some good ones listed here: http://www.cc.ysu.edu/...i-alumni/ex_jour.htm

-As I think you know, I do quite a bit of mentoring and have an entire forum with a bunch of other resources at http://www.SuperhumanCoach.com - but that is designed for coaches who are simultaneously pursuing other certifications or coursework in a related field - and not meant to be a standalone curriculum.

Hope that helps,

---

Ben Greenfield

Nutrition & Human Performance Advice
http://www.bengreenfieldfitness.com

 
Rappstar:
The real professional coach tries to figure out how to make money while coaching. The typical USAT-certified "coach" tries to figure out how to coach while making money.

I really like this. Yes, Jordan, this does clear up your earlier statement. While I believe that any service oriented business should be run as you are saying, I also believe that he as an obligation to his paying clientel to stay in business. Otherwise, he will not be there to provide said service in the future.

Having said that, I've learned that if you treat people well and put their welfare first, the money will come.

---

-Stephen in Arkansas

Though if it's true that many are taking the course for personal enrichment and not becoming certified, perhaps an ulterior motive is to simply create a bigger influx certified coaches (more certified coaches = more CEUs purchased, more ambassadorship for USAT goods/services; take the course but don't certify = limited follow up revenue for USAT on CEU sales...)

That said, regardless of motive, anything that creates higher barriers to entry is a good thing.

Regarding the example above, sadly that's not an uncommon refrain even with some of the crappy experienced coaches out there, so institutional reform at the entry level can only go so far...its a start but not a panacea universally improve quality.

Been several references in this thread to mentoring with an experienced swim coach or XC/track coach...but sometimes experience just means you have more years of practice sucking at what you do. I mean, American high school cross country is not known for a tradition of success in keeping athletes healthy!....Still, probably the lesser evil compared to "I did an IM last year in 16 hours, so now I'm qualified to coach".