Power / time = controversy

:)

USAT and USOC have different goals. USAT's goal is to support race directors and age group athletes. USOC's goal is to get gold metals at the Olympics. Two completely, separate things.

Lately, USOC has been pressuring USAT to put more of it's resources into developing Olympic athletes. That means USAT would have to divert time and money away from it's core constituency - age groupers. USAT, namely board member Jack Weiss, is saying "No" to USOC.

I am curious to know how exactly USAT would improve things for the regular age groupers. I am pretty sure the majority don't really give a damn about USAT, and only pay our annual fee because the races we do require us to for their insurance purposes. I know that personally, I cant think of anything they could provide to me that would make me thrilled to be a member.

Thank goodness trier43, I was afraid to ask.

---

--
Trae McCombs
TSR - Sponsored by the Masses. Racing for the hell of it.
Ironman Finisher 2005 -- 14:09:18

USOC wants more money from & control over USAT, even though we don't really get a damn thing from them.

Well, you mentioned the insurance thing, which is a Pretty Big Deal. I think they claim race sanctioning ensures safer-than-normal races, not sure though.

Don't underestimate what that means. While at the moment, the climate is good for independent RD's to get their own insurance. USAT allows RD's to easily get cost effective insurance. This means that RD's are able (financially) to put on races.

There are other benefits from USAT, officials and their training, coaches, etc.

For starters, the insurance, services, and resources they provide to race directors is tremendous (it's up to the race directors to take advantage of USAT - we surely do here) ... this insurance (our insurance and ATHLETES insurance on race day) and these resources (if used properly) help assure your races are safe, fair and run smooth. For example ... When we ask for 15 USAT officials for an event they get them for us. There are events out there that skimp on things like this because the events may not want to pay for officials etc.

---

-------------------------
Dave Latourette
http://www.TTENation.com

there are two issues here.

1. the USOC is messing with USAT.

2. USAT has been less than forthcoming, perhaps, in its explanation of amendment #2 in the election you're now in.

As to point #1 above:

1. USOC wants us to no longer be a member-driven organization to the degree we have been in the past. no more member petitions, no more members changing bylaws, and greatly reduced chance that RDs and AGers can control the organization. no more directors from your region. more olympic coaches on the board. ex olympic athletes on the board. they want a typical olympic-driven NGB, and we just aren't that, never have been, never will be.

2. they not only want a greater amount of money spent by us (that is, by you) on olympic style racing, they want to direct us as to how we're going to spend that money, for example, in programs that many or most of us think will not work. many of us see this as trying to overlay upon us a model that works for, say, swimming, but is entirely inapplicable to triathlon. we tell the USOC this, they pretend they don't hear what we said.

as to the second issue:

1. that second ballot proposition is sort of in line with what the USOC wants us to do, which is to allow the board the right to do what it wants to the bylaws without member approval. but now even some on the board who advocated for this are rethinking the wisdom of this, because they now see the degree to which the USOC wants us to entirely change the nature of our organization, and prop2 plays right into this.

2. the ballot information has been mishandled, and i'm not going to go over this now, because i've very thoroughly covered it elsewhere.

3. i'm cautiously optimistic this problem is going to be resolved favorably anyway, so i'm not going to spend any more time on it for the moment. i'm going to let the powers that be do what it is they do and hope and wait for a good result.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Okay, I have also not been following this very closely, but had a couple of questions (maybe these are stupid questions since I haven't done my research...). Why should age-groupers provide for developing olympic athletes? Is there any other sport out there that does this? I couldn't think of any. And where would this stop? Paying for my one year license isn't such a big deal at $30. I do realize this does provide insurance. But what if it is increased to $100 because now $70 went to developing olympic athletes? Then I might have a problem with it. Could they make sanctioned races give a percentage back to the USOC so now my already expensive sprint triathlon is $70 or $80?

---

Bri Gaal
One Step Beyond
http://www.osbmultisport.com

Oh...you mean those officials that most racers think do a crappy job anyways?

I think most sports have memberships which fund to one extent or another their olympic/elite development programs. That's generally one of the mission statements of a national governing body of a sport. USA Tennis, USA Soccer, USA Gymnastics...they all support elite development through membership fees and corporate sponsorships (and TV contracts).

" Why should age-groupers provide for developing olympic athletes? Is there any other sport out there that does this?"

read the resolution that will be on the agenda for the next USAT board meeting. this makes exactly that point.

now, to a certain extent, i think it's okay. these athletes do, to a certain degree, represent us, our sport, the best of our sport, and are our "sponsored pros."

however, when the USOC says, "you aren't giving enough," then we need to determine whether that's true, and whether THEY are giving enough, since these funds benefit their aims as much or more than our own. second, when they tell us HOW to spend that money, in other words, not how to spend the money they give us, but how to spend the money we ourselves pledge, that's going over the line. especially because we know better than they how it is we develop our own medal-contending athletes.

that's sort of where this is right now. but, you should understand that if this was the end of it, there wouldn't be this hubbub. the REAL problem is that the USOC has taken a swipe at RDs, telling our federation we can't allow these ne'er do wells to have much say in the running of our federation, and also at all of you, because they don't want 54,000 owners of the federation to run an organization that a few professional colorado springs based staff should control.

they've taken a swipe at just about every constituency that makes up USAT. they shouldn't a' oughta done that.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I think that is not a fair characterization. When people complain about officiating it is almost always due to there not being enough official presence out on the bike course. the two causes of this - not enough officials on the course, and dangerous sections of the course (i.e. crowded out and backs) that draft marshals can't patrol - are uniformly the fault of the race director's poor planning. When the officials are out there very few people (blatant drafters excepted) complain about their performance. You may not be happy about receiving a penalty, but you can very rarely say that the penalty was not assessed correctly.

the races Dave represents, the half and full Vineman, are known for having much greater official presence and significantly fewer drafting problems than other races of similar size. We can only hope that other race directors take officiating as seriously.

J

"I am curious to know how exactly USAT would improve things for the regular age groupers."

This is question that comes up often. Like most of us here, I don't see any tangible, concrete evidence that USAT is helping me out in any way.

What's the one thing that USAT could possibly help me out with? They might be able to help build/maintain an environment where safe races are plentiful. Do they do that? I don't know. It's kind of hard to tell.

I think USAT is like my neighborhood association. In my neighborhood association, we have bylaws, a board, board meetings, open meetings, etc... What tangible, concrete things has my neighborhood association done for me? Well, I'm not sure.

But I'm glad they're there. Who am I going to call when there is a problem? Who will give me a voice in city government bigger than my individual voice? How will police disseminate info without calling each individual in my neighborhood? These are all "soft" benefits.

So - relating back to USAT, I see that organization as giving me the same kind of "soft" benefits, not direct benefits.

does USAT solely develop improvements...or should USAT members take a role in what happens? me thinks a little of both.

USAT is the only game in town when it comes to a governing body for triathlon.

sorry you feel there is nothing you could think of that would make you thrilled. how about having races around to begin with?

yeah there is insurance available from sources other than USAT. that has not always been the case and we could return to that picture again.

i didn't care for a labor union i had to pay dues to once so i did what i could do and became a shop steward and did something other than complain. there's a lot that a card carrying USAT member can do to be a part of the picture like volunteering at an event...or...getting certified to be an official for a race...or helping organize an event....or....

come up with your own thrill...don't wait for someone to come up with it for you.

---

Train hard...race well.
www.jimmishler.com
"Jim, I happen to agree with you" DougStern

Dan's points are well-taken, and I agree with them. They just serve to further illustrate my reasons for voting "no" on the ballot to both propositions. I sensed that #2, especially, was a way to pry ownership away from the stakeholders, namely us.

I also like having a national body like USAT around to coordinate things and help cultivate and "grow" our sport. Whatever your opinion of Steve Locke, and I know that there are many opinions of him, I felt that he filled a vital niche in the old Tri-Fed and the current USAT. Plus, he's done triathlons (I remember him competing with us at the Muncie Endurathon back in '95, on one of the hottest days of the year) and he has an appreciation for the age-groupers that a lot of the USOC just doesn't have either the time or the inclination for. Also, that little bit of cachet that I've talked about before (brand clothing, stickers yada-yada) plays a part in why I spend the money every year for dues, even though I've raced a grand total of 4 times since late '99 :-)

As Dan also said, our sport is unique in that the Olympic variant of it isn't even very widely done here in the U.S., so what would be the downside to the 300 or so elite/pros out there, especially if we fund and set up a new NGB or subsidiary organization for them, anyway?

I think that USOC has, to use a Dubya word, "misunderestimated" the independent nature and free-spirited origins of our sport, and has tried to use the threat of loss of participation in the Olympic movement as some sort of cudgel with which to beat us over the head.

Unfortunately for them, it won't work.

Tony

i've messaged everyone on the board using the addresses posted on the USAT site. so far two have come back
"undeliverable" Steve's and Tim's.

whadyaknow?

---

Train hard...race well.
www.jimmishler.com
"Jim, I happen to agree with you" DougStern

"Something's rotten in Denmark". This is going to get ugly very quickly, I predict.

Tony

nah.

everytime we do or say something we find out what we needed to find out.

---

Train hard...race well.
www.jimmishler.com
"Jim, I happen to agree with you" DougStern