Justifcation for Proposal #2 revealed as "USOC to Grab USAT’s assets?"

Triathlon Forum
1

Laying aside the fact that USAT bylaw proposal #2 technically doesn’t exist, the article posted today entitled “USOC to Grab USAT’s assets?” presents the dilemma that the USAT board would like to resolve by having bylaw amendment authority. “…e are no longer able to make timely and prudent adjustments to respond to changes in policy that the U.S. Olympic Committee…have made and will make in the future.”

For those who have asked for examples of why the board would need/want to change the bylaws to react to the USOC, this is it.

It appears to me that the USAT board would prefer to appease the USOC’s concerns and avoid decertification or disenfranchisement. To do that, the board wants the authority to change the bylaws so that it can aleviate each and every USOC concern, such as the ones listed in the article…

More than one executive at USAT has divulged that the USOC has serious issues with USAT’s way of doing business. Among these, reportedly, are the length of time it’s taking to hire a permanent executive director; the fact that USAT’s board is mostly made up of age-groupers and race directors instead of former Olympic athletes; and that its directors do not currently serve at least two-year terms of office.

…or, they could go the exact opposite route…stand up to the USOC by threatening to use the ability to manipulate the bylaws to strip out references to anything “Olympic”.

2

This should be treated like the AT&T case in '84. Split off the elites into their own NGB, and return USAT or Tri-Fed or whatever it’ll be back to its original focus.

This fixation on the Olympics, and the concomitant appeasement of USOC, hasn’t done anything for traditional triathlon, as far as I can see. I have no problem with drafting in the Olympics, but it’s just not my kind of triathlon.

T.

3

I think it is perfectly reasonable to split USAT into two separate bodies, one for developing and maintaining Olympians and one for age-groupers. Maybe even a third body for Ironman.

You can’t really expect the USOC to support Iron-distance racing when it is not an Olympic sport. USSwim and USA Masters seems to work well, and there is no competition between the two for money, grants, etc. Masters swimmers and Olympic swimmers actually have a very good relationship. On the other hand, there seems to be some unneccessary competition between Olympic (and developing) athletes and USAT age groupers. Maybe if they were separated that could end?

I guess the argument is USAT age-groupers support the Olympians, but if the USOC is going to hold up the end of their new deal, it seems that USAT (Olympic) could stand on its own two feet. Who knows.

4

"…the fact that USAT’s board is mostly made up of age-groupers and race directors instead of former Olympic athletes…"

The USOC can, respectfully, cram themselves up their own asses. There is no part of the USOC that has any concern for the average USAT member. The USOC apparently believes that the USAT membership and the federation itself exists to support Olympic triathletes. The purpose to of having a federation for the sport of triathlon and for triathletes at large is to support the growth of triathlon and to support the membership. A small component of this mission is cultivating olympic athletes.

5

The decertification wouldn’t affect the average age-grouper. Everyone would still pay the same fees to USAT every year, everyone would still fork over 500 dollars to Idot.

The problem that the USOC has with USAT isn’t the age-grouper’s money, it’s the constant bickering, fighting, scamming, and stealing that goes on within the governing body. They want to clean it up, and they should.

The only problem I have with going back to “traditional triathlon” is everyone’s willingness to pay thousands of dollars for entries, thousands of dollars for bikes, thousands of dollars for coaching. If you want to go back to traditional triathlon, go out with some buddies and do an irondistance race on your own. Swim around a lake, bike into the mountains and run a marathon in the outskirts of your town. If you want to go back to the beginning, don’t pay anything, do it for yourself.

Triathlon has evolved. The Olympics, the Ironman Hawaii, Nationals. Every one of them is a money maker. That is the nature of the sports world today. Just because there is drafting in one doesn’t make the other any better or any more traditional. None of them are traditional anymore.

6

I don’t give a rats ass about “traditional triathlon” (well maybe that’s not entirely true) or “going back” to anything. I have issue with the USOC making threats to a governing body consisting of, and funded by, the participants of a sport that the body governs. Of course decertification wouldn’t impact the average age grouper. That’s the point. Who the hell is the USOC to the average age grouper, and why should age groupers, you know, the owners of the federation, have to take any shit from the USOC??

The membership wants the USAT problems cleaned up too. I just have a hard time believing the answer is letting former olympic athletes take the reigns.

7

“and why should age groupers, you know, the owners of the federation, have to take any shit from the USOC??” Well, I think you have a fundamental flaw in your logic - AGers are NOT the owners of the federation in any way shape or form. That is the fundamental scam in all this.

USAT has to play by the USOC’s rules if they want to get the elites into the olympics, and take the USOC $ in the process. However, in my view this is a different issue than what the USAT’s responsibilities to the AGer are. Ther are trying to serve two masters and are suceeding at neither. They are shameful to both the elites and the AGer.

8

Yes, my bad. I realize we don’t own it. But we fund it. Without the membership, USAT doesn’t exist. I think USAT and the membership need to take a good look at what it is that the USOC provides. I mean beyond threats, and a shot at the olympics for a very, very, very select few of the members.

“They are trying to serve two masters and are suceeding at neither.”

I couldn’t agree more. Though some might argue (not me) there are those who only want to serve themselves.

9

“I think USAT and the membership need to take a good look at what it is that the USOC provides. I mean beyond threats, and a shot at the olympics for a very, very, very select few of the members.”

I totally agree. They need to choose: AGer or Elite. Then, whoever is left out gets a new organization that is not populated with any of the board from this organization.

I am sure the USOC provides much for our up’ncoming olympians, and I don’t want to deprive those athletes. Yet another reason why elites should have their own org.

10

“For those who have asked for examples of why the board would need/want to change the bylaws to react to the USOC, this is it.”

you’re right, and if you look at the latest headline on slowtwitch, you’ll read about why it’s pretty much a requirement that the board DOESN’T get that authority.

the USOC is standing in front of our board, while our board is on its knees. except a few of our board members, who just won’t be treated like that anymore. (please excuse the metaphorical scene. i just can’t think of a more appropriate descriptor. it’s a figure of speech, and any similarly to actual events is entirely coincidental).

11

What is the point of USAT? I wonder this every time I see some issue like USAT election fraud, vote for so-and-so board member, this board member resigns in disgust, vote for petition 1 but not petition 2, and I try to convince myself that for some reason I need to care. I’ve been a runner my entire life and have never had to be a member of a national organization. I can run multiple road races every weekend and not have to pay an annual membership fee or a per-race $9 fee. Somehow road race directors can put on successful races without being part of a national organization, and you simply sign away any liability when you enter. Sure, triathlons are bigger beasts and surely much more difficult races to organize, but if USAT failed to exist would there be fewer races or would life be really any different? Safe, well run races would thrive and unsafe poorly run races would go about of business. I’ve heard the insurance argument and I don’t buy it. While there’s no swimming and biking risk, road racing has the same potential for death and race directors still manage to successfully hold profitable races without a national organization telling them how; indeed there are orders of magnitude more of them than triathlons. I’ve done Brad Jaeger’s races and the only differences I’ve noticed between his races and a USAT endorsed Vigorito race is fewer draft marshalls, and that’s just a decision by Brad that a higher entry fee could rectify.

Where does USOC get its money for the Track & Field program? Surely not from the annual fee or per-race fee of every person who enters a road race in the country, because such fees do not exist. Personally, I am a big supporter of triathon and have no problem supporting our elites. But, I don’t believe that every entry-level age-grouper should be forced to do the same, which currently is the case even if they don’t know it. Frankly, I relate my draft-free triathlon racing more closely to the Olympic cycling time trial than to the Olympic triathlon (aka the Olympic 10K road race on tired legs), so I would support an argument that USATs dollars have just as much a right to go to the development of cyclists as draft-legal triathletes.

12

“What is the point of USAT?”

you need it because you haven’t yet been through a liability insurance crisis. when we’re in one, and this organization is the only place to go for a policy, you’ll understand. the point of having money in the bank is to smooth out those times. if insurance rates instantly doubled to $1.5 million per year our federation could pay this out into the future, years on end, without raising any of its fees to you. meanwhile, all the lone ranger RDs out there, whom i love and to whom i wish the best, would be clamouring to get insurance from USAT, and USAT would and will be there to provide it.

now, the usoc, that’s another matter. no, we don’t need the usoc. it’s nice to be the ngb of triathlon, but only if this is a healthy relationship, and as of now it’s not. the usoc wants, and needs, your money. but it chafes at the idea that you should have any say in how your organization is run. well, the days of us having this sort of thing stick in our throats are over, and this will become more apparent over the next days and weeks.

13

How is it then that road races, which have had highly publicized hyponatremia deaths in recent years, manage liability without a national federation. Last I checked, both Boston Marathon and Marine Corps Marathon which have had deaths within the past 2 years, are still going strong. Is the liability waiver that you must sign as part of those race entries somehow more enforceable than a liability waiver a triathlon RD could use?

14

“manage liability without a national federation.”

it’s not impossible to get a policy. far from it. but i’m old. i’m 48. i did my first triathlon at 21, did ironman at 23. i’ve seen business cycles. in 1990 you couldn’t get insurance. okay, it’s 15 years later. but i’m like somebody who went through the depression. i don’t forget.

there are a variety of other things the federations does. rules. officials. nat’l champs (and we’re about to enter a new cycle of really great championship races). world championship teams. anti-drug policies. and safety. don’t say that races are no more safe than non-sanctioned races unless you’re also willing to stipulate that non-sanctioned races commonly poach off usat’s policies & procedures, waivers, rules, sanction guidelines, etc.

of course there’s more than the federation ought to do, and sometimes the federation staff and board forget their purpose, and think it’s to further their own existence, instead of furthering the sport.

15

Call me egocentric, but the whole Olympic thing is a giant anchor on the USTA. I went to the trials in Honolulu last Spring and watched 30 or so triathletes in each of the mens and womens field do an exciting race that really dosn’t relate to any other aspect of Triathlon activity.
Like who gives a rats? We’re talking six people from our sport every four years for one race. I know at one time I was totally in favor of the Tri being an Olympic event, but now I just don’t really care. I think if the USOC wants the Olympic Tri, give it away. No loss to us. Yes I know the the “Olympic” star can rain some more money, but we seem to have plenty of money as it is.
I think a seperate USTA not involved with the Olympic movement would work just like other mass participation events. ie running or canoeing You pay your dues and race. If Olympians or former Olympians want to come play fine. I think the USTA’s goals should be to enable Race Directors to
put on events for anyone who wants to show up. G

16

I think USAT could do well without the olympics and by splitting the two, but it could do even better with keeping the two, under correct circumstances.

I do believe the olympics have had a positive impact on the sport, only not as big and miraculous as many predicted (or hoped I guess). It also brought some problems, but having been in Athens for the two races, believe me they were fantastic races under optimal conditions and can only be beneficiary to the sport of Triathlon in general (be it drafting or non-drafting, short course or long course). But for it to be beneficiary, it requires that people that know the sport very well are in charge. Otherwise you will only get boring courses in the centre of cities with no hills and a big bunch drafting the whole bike instead of the animated races we had in Athens.

The elites need the age-groupers, but the contrary is also true. We need both worlds.

17

“I do believe the olympics have had a positive impact on the sport, only not as big and miraculous as many predicted (or hoped I guess).”

i don’t think anyone is against triathlon being in the olympics. the question is, is USAT the right governing body for this? if USAT is not the NGB for triathlon the value of tri in the Olympics, big or small, will still accrue to us. lance winning his tours doesn’t necessarily increase membership in USCF, but it does sell trek bikes.

18

I think it does increase membership. Only not more than other actions or events. It’s just part of the equation.

Furthermore, the olympics have an impact on the image of the sport. So I would rather have the Triathlon federation (that knows its shit, so to speak) rather than the USOC to run that show too.

19

“So I would rather have the Triathlon federation (that knows its shit, so to speak) rather than the USOC to run that show too.”

it still will. even if the USOC sets up some paper federation that is almost entirely USOC funded to run olympic tri, they’re absolutely in a fog about talent identification and coaching. they don’t know how to do it. we keep telling them, over and over, that you don’t find olympic triathletes at age-13 or age-17. you find them at age-21 or age-26, when they’re done swimming at the elite level. then, we discover which ones can run, and boom, you have a triathlete.

now, the one exception to this is hunter kemper. however, for every hunter you have 10 andy potts types.

either way, it’s not the USOC who’s going to find these athletes, it’s those of us who are in triathlon.

you don’t identify a decathlete at age-13. when i was in high school there was a big, 6’4", strong, muscular, runner from sacramento who was state meet 400m champ in 47sec flat or thereabouts, and he was also a 7’ high jumper. he went to USC and quickly burned out. however, THAT’s the kind of guy you find and turn him into a decathlete, after he’s already developed in individual sports. that’s how you find triathletes.

the USOC wants us to put $550,000 into “pipeline” projects, like U23, juniors, coaching, etc., and that’s just stupid. it’s a waste of money. i don’t mind spending money at the pipeline, but it’s just a fact that OUR pipeline consists of older athletes, who already have their own coaches. i tell the USOC, “give pipeline money to swimming, and you’re also giving it to us. make fast american swimmers and some of them will eventually be world class triathletes.”

but i keep hearing the same thing from others, like jack weiss and lew kidder, who’ve argued it out with the USOC, just as i have. they all say the same thing: “these guys are stupid, or stubborn, or there’s some other agenda that we can’t see, like the IOC is forcing this down on them or something, we just don’t get the USOC’s stance in this.”

bottom line, whoever is the NGB for triathlon, REAL talent identification is going to come from the triathlon community, not the paper NGB thte USOC sets up.

20

“you don’t find olympic triathletes at age-13 or age-17. you find them at age-21 or age-26, when they’re done swimming at the elite level”

We don’t have that problem in Switzerland : we don’t have that much elite level swimmers to work with, so we have to take the other way, which is work with youngsters, aged 13 to 17. It has proven to be not so bad so far if you look at the medal counts from the last two olympiads for Triathlon though.

In all fairness, Magali Messmer was a swimmer turned triathlete. But Sven Riederer (bronze in Sydney) is a pure product of Triathlon. Most of our elites have swimming as “weakness”, but the swiss have always been a strong Triathlon nation.