Looking at some of the discussions below regarding the efficacy of USAT and the relevancy of having such a body (and us paying for it), perhaps one answer might be to regulate the USAT – i.e., require open books and accounting so that we, as members, can see where the membership fees generated by the 125,000 + members go? Let’s look at the books. Over $4 million is a lot of money.
Annual Report
http://www.usatriathlon.org/content/index/5545
Financial Statements and Tax Returns
http://www.usatriathlon.org/content/index/814
.
Nicely done, thank you. They are a 501(c)(3), which means different tax treatment, and the need to publish their annual statements.
The statements are indepdendently audited, which is a plus. They appear to be a cash-rich entity, making lots of dough with little expenses. They have invested nearly $3 million of their cash holdings into long-term investments (mutual funds, etc.), which is interesting. They also invest in CDs.
For FY '08 expenses, they invested heavily in “Championships” and TEAM USA ($1.72M – nearly half their revenues). National teams get some cash ($836K), along with other items like coaching ($526K), and “athlete development” ($221K). There is a “residency program” that got $32K last year, and other items went to things like the Age Group Commission.
So I am impressed that they have audited statements, and appear to make good money. For a 501(c)(3), their taxes are light, and they have to prove their charitable status to the IRS. They appear to take care of their employees with a 401K, etc., and seem well run.
As far as the original, legitimate query as far as “What do we, the non-pro non-National Team general population” get for our $$, I submit that the question is still out there!
Nicely done, thank you. They are a 501(c)(3), which means different tax treatment, and the need to publish their annual statements.
The statements are indepdendently audited, which is a plus. They appear to be a cash-rich entity, making lots of dough with little expenses. They have invested nearly $3 million of their cash holdings into long-term investments (mutual funds, etc.), which is interesting. They also invest in CDs.
For FY '08 expenses, they invested heavily in “Championships” and TEAM USA ($1.72M – nearly half their revenues). National teams get some cash ($836K), along with other items like coaching ($526K), and “athlete development” ($221K). There is a “residency program” that got $32K last year, and other items went to things like the Age Group Commission.
So I am impressed that they have audited statements, and appear to make good money. For a 501(c)(3), their taxes are light, and they have to prove their charitable status to the IRS. They appear to take care of their employees with a 401K, etc., and seem well run.
As far as the original, legitimate query as far as “What do we, the non-pro non-National Team general population” get for our $$, I submit that the question is still out there!
Some of us just like supporting the sport and development of athletes.
As far as the original, legitimate query as far as “What do we, the non-pro non-National Team general population” get for our $$, I submit that the question is still out there!
Some of us just like supporting the sport and development of athletes.
x2. If all they did was run the Olympic stuff, I’d still support them.
John
That’s alot of $$$ just sitting around in a bank. I’d prefer if they upped the going rate for officials and reduced their officiating cost for race directors.
I’d personally like to see more officials at the races.
I’d be happy with an updated website and more forward looking event schedule.
Also, doing way with whacked out policies like the following would be nice:
"Team USA Age-Up Rule
At 2009 Nationals, athletes will race in their appropriate age groups based on their age as of December 31, 2009. Awards will be issued based on those results. If an athlete “ages up” into another age group in 2010, a separate set of results will be issued accounting for those athletes who aged up and Team USA slots will be awarded based on these results. So their finish time will be compared to those athletes in the older age group. For example, if John Doe is going to be 49 years old by December 31, 2009, he will age-up up into the 50-54 age group for the 2010 World Championships since he will be 50 years old by December 31, 2010. Thus, for Team USA qualifying purposes, his time at the qualification event will be compared to the men currently in the 50-54 age group."
So, you could be top 10 in your 50-54 age group, yet get bumped by a 49 year old not even in your wave?
The whole, qualify for nationals in 08 to race in 09 to go to worlds in 10 issue also needs to be addressed.
agreed.
but the 54 year olds will be bumped up so you are competing against the 49-53 crowd 
.
so how would you do it ?
so how would you do it ?
Not bump up.
And work on removing the need to bump up in the first place. ie. having nationals closer to worlds. Having to qualify in july/aug? 2009 for 2010 worlds in sept 2010 is just too long.
Actually, using your age on Dec 31 is a very good idea. It means you race as one age all year. You race the same folks in Feb as you do in November. Why does it matter if you happen to be racing against someone who is actually 49 if they turn 50 at some point in the year? As long as you also turn 50 during that year all is well. With a June 30 birth date I have always split the year in half between ages and much prefer to race the same AG all year long rather than some of one and some of another.
As for when World’s falls, USAT has no control over that. If the ITU folks pick a spring date for 2010 then the best way to pick a solid team is to use something late in 2009 when folks are fit. They can then plan with plenty of time for an event that is usually in another country. May is the earliest I’ve seen for AG worlds events and having a qualifying race in the same year would men having to pick a team in March in order to have any sort of time for planning a trip. That puts northern climes at a distict disadvantage.
You can’t please everyone all the time.
Chad
when folks are fit? puh-lease. Who isn’t fit?
I agree with the use your age on dec. 31 this year policy. Just not your age on dec. 31 next year policy.
I also agree you can’t control the ITU as to when they set the Worlds date. But typically they do set the date much further than a year out. If it is in May, sure, let’s have the nationals the fall before.
As a matter of practicality, if I am fit and excited about doing worlds. Sitting here in Sept. 09, the first worlds I could quailify for is in 2011. That just doesn’t seem right. Even if I want to do nationals next year, 90% of the qualifiers listed have already passed. If you are asking me what I would like to see from a nationals body, I don’t think it is that unreasonable to have a tenative 2010 schedule posted in Sept. 09. Not saying there aren’t challenges.
What? Are you trying to make a point here? Or are you attempting to say that everyone is equally fit all year long?
Chad
What issue? The US Amateur Sports Act empowers all NGBs to govern their respective sport. USAT (aka Triathlon Federation/USA) received USOC Group A membership when the sport became part of the Pan Am & Olympic Games. As such, USAT “controls” the sport of triathlon just as other NGBs control their respective sports. Unlike some sports, USAT allows its members to participate in non-sanctioned events.
Regarding $$$ in the bank, that’s a good thing. The organization nearly went bankrupt in '93. Also, they have a large deductible with their liability policy.
Before acting like some FOX News talking head, do a little research. The books are open. The Annual General Meeting is open. Ask your elected Board member.
As far as the original, legitimate query as far as “What do we, the non-pro non-National Team general population” get for our $$, I submit that the question is still out there!
What? Are you trying to make a point here? Or are you attempting to say that everyone is equally fit all year long?
Chad
I say move every race date…that way them folks from New Zeland cant come up here fit from the end of their summer and kick ass in our Spring races 
That’s alot of $$$ just sitting around in a bank. I’d prefer if they upped the going rate for officials and reduced their officiating cost for race directors.
I’d personally like to see more officials at the races.
The costs to a race director for officials are is not exhorbitant…$85-$125 per official. Its the motel and mileage that is usually more costly. USAT doesn’t have any control over local expenses. A budget of $600 could cover a lot of locally based officials or 3 or 4 who are semi-local (ie: mileage without motels).
"Not bump up.
And work on removing the need to bump up in the first place. ie. having nationals closer to worlds. Having to qualify in july/aug? 2009 for 2010 worlds in sept 2010 is just too long. "
so riddle me this: if I qualify as a 49-year-old this year, what AG do I race in next year at Worlds ?
By ITU rules it has to be 50-54, so then we have more people in 50-54 than allowed by those same rules (the 18 who qualified as 50-54 this year, plus the three 49-year-olds who qualified in 45-9, minus the two 54-year-olds).
Since I started paying attention in 2005, qualification has been different every year. Some years it’s been the way you want it. In 2006, Nationals was mid-July, Worlds in early Sept. I peaked for Nationals in order to qualify, and consequently had a below-par race at worlds. So I prefer it this way, frankly.
Like the weather - if you don’t like it, wait for a bit and it’ll change.
At the USAT Town Hall meeting in Tuscaloosa, some guy got up on his hind legs to p*ss and moan about how USAT had ruined his last year in triathlon by putting Nationals so close to Worlds. He wouldn’t shut up either, he had his grievance and by Mammon was going to make sure everyone heard about it.
On this matter at least my sympathies are entirely with USAT.