Now do you understand the lies over prop#2?

Triathlon Forum
1

i think if you read the slowtwitch headliner article you can see why:

  1. our board tried to slide a quick one by us on prop#2
  2. our board’s president directly lied to me over prop#2
  3. he directly lied to members seeking elucidation over prop#2
  4. usat’s website abruptly changed halfway through the election regarding info over prop#2 when it became obvious the ruse was up, and did so with no notice and no explanation.

the usoc has been seething over the rights the members have over the organization they own, and now it’s clear that certain board members who want to appease the usoc have tried to slide a resolution by the members in order to make the usoc happy, and knew that the only way they could get it passed was by sleight of hand.

i’ll hold out hope i’m wrong about my board’s president, and that maybe i wasn’t lied to, maybe members weren’t lied to, but if this is the case then we have people running this election and this board who have no idea what’s going on, and who apparently don’t want to know.

it’s interesting to me that a usoc that championed free and fair elections is only so willing to stand by and allow a travesty to occur, so long as it gets what it wants.

2

Just when you thought things were getting better…!!!

I don’t know why (well actually I think I know) the threads about Mr Tibbs get so much attention and this one (much more important to all of you american triathletes, and to others as well because it could happen in your country, and probably happens as we know the olympic removal pressures are a big thing and the olympic movement always uses these as leverages to keep all the federations in line) does only get one answer, from a swiss guy that should care less than you guys do.

Anyway, thanks Dan for this interesting article, and I think the sport needs guys like you that are keeping their eyes open and are ready to stand against bigger powers. This said, I’m sure it’s not all black (USOC) and white, but having worked for a year in the marketing department of the IOC, our biggest “enemy” was the USOC, because they thought they had all the rights. A french expression : they wanted to be “calife” in place of the “calife”.

Long life to Triathlon (and to the former version of the Triathlon de Nice)

Laurent

3

If you are able to answer, Dan…what aspects of this situation, if any, went into your decision to step down? I’m still troubled over that decision, for reasons we’ve covered in other threads.

As an outsider, I’m beginning to get the feeling that the ROOT of the USAT woes lies in the opposing demands of Olympic/Elite support and the needs of the AG constituency. In what ways is this an accurate assessment? On the other hand, how does it NOT accurately reflect what you see? If it is accurate…how do you think we can bridge that gap? How would an opposing view seek to bridge that gap, if indeed they would even try?

4

I had no idea about this before reading what you wrote. That bothers me. What bothers me more, is that without your writing, I would have NEVER figured any of that out. I’m not a politically-interested party for the most part, partly because I didn’t understand the connections between the USAT and USOC, partly because I’m not privy to this kind of information, and let’s face it…partly because I’m motivationally deficient (lazy) in the politics of something I do for recreation.

Thanks for the education. I am becoming much more interested in the back-room (would it be more appropriate to say back-alley?) shenanigans, and I’m becoming peeved. What was that line from the Incredible Hulk? “Don’t make me angry, you wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.”

You do the members of the USAT a great service by informing us of your eagle-eyed viewpoint on these matters.

5

Un be friggin lievable…thanks for the scoop slowman.
i got my vote in. good article. maybe congress should take another look…

6

The quick answer to your question is no, I don’t understand what was going on with question two. I do understand it well enough to have voted against it.

About the only thing I understand is that games were being played, probably motivated by power or money or both.

The more things change …

8

“If you are able to answer, Dan…what aspects of this situation, if any, went into your decision to step down?”

it’s quite like i put in it my statement. i could serve on the board, mute, or i could not serve on the board and write. i felt that i would be of better service sitting here writing than having you all have no idea what is going on.

and there’s more coming. this is just warming up. we’ve gotten most of the bad apples off USAT’s board, yes, the board is still not entirely serving the members because of its fear of the USOC, and the majority of the rest of the big work to be done is bringing the USOC into line. once that’s done we’ll have a dandy federation, well, we already do, but it can be dandier.

simply put, the USOC representative threatened to bring a sport of 500,000 people to its knees, and threaten its existence, in order to satisfy its own sense of power over how 100 olympic aspirants are governed. that’s news, i think, and it might be news outside of our sport as well. i don’t know.

as to your original question, the board was uncomfortable with my writing about this stuff while i was sitting on the board. some members also felt that i ought to pull this forum down while i was on the board, because they felt that even you all writing here was a breach of my obligations to the board, because i was hosting a site on which things critical of the board were being written.

lately, many board members have come up to me and said they wish i wouldn’t have quit. but they pretty much decided that on their own, by setting their own terms. i have a lot of admiration for the board, several are friends of mine, several are friends i made while i was on the board—in particular i have an extreme fondness for the elites i met on the board—but i don’t agree with them on certain things, and i’ll fight them on certain things, in court if i have to, and in the court of public opinion certainly.

9

“I am becoming much more interested in the back-room (would it be more appropriate to say back-alley?) shenanigans, and I’m becoming peeved.”

Not to change the subject, but this is exactly the same sort of stuff “W” and the politicians (I’m republican by the way) do all the time - I quess us idealists are not realists!

10

“i’ll hold out hope…”

that’s really the only way to look at it. i don’t think anyone really wants to point the finger.

trouble is that the situation was either maliciously directed, or simply mishandled out of ignorance and lack of control.

at a time when we should be impressed, neither scenario leaves me feeling good.

11

I don’t know why the threads about Mr Tibbs get so much attention and this one does only get one answer

there’s a simple answer, I’m sure the one that already occurred to you - humans prefer gossip and scandal, to having to think. Thinking is hard, pss-pssing about scandal needs only an opinion…

12

yeah, something along those lines !

13

Dan:

Interesting observations. Like many others, I would have had no idea this was occurring had it not been for your editorials. Proposal #2 mystified and concerned me from day 1. I mean, how could the Board provide us the exact language to be used to amend the bylaws for proposal #1, and then jsut say “trust us” for proposal #2? Shady, if not downright unethical.

I want to believe in the Board. I want to believe in USAT as a federation. But I’m becoming increasingly disenchanted by the crap that’s going on here. I understand that politics are a game you can’t always avoid, but this one seems to be a no-brainer. I think USAT needs to tell the USOC to go pound sand.

14

“simply put, the USOC representative threatened to bring a sport of 500,000 people to its knees, and threaten its existence, in order to satisfy its own sense of power over how 100 olympic aspirants are governed. that’s news, i think, and it might be news outside of our sport as well. i don’t know”

I was thinking about this last night on my way home from work. Given the recent history of the IOC and olympic corruption in general, I think this story could be of interest to a good number of people outside of triathlon. Sure it’s not going to end up a lead story on network news, but I could see an article written for a general audience ending up in newspaper sports pages and news sites in some pretty substantial markets. San Diego, Seattle, Portland, Denver/Colorado Springs all come to mind. Places where active lifestyles are common, or have a history with olympic politics, and not dominated by other news categories like politics in D.C., finance in NY…

The best thing to do when someone threatens you is kick them in the balls. (That is an old proverb, right??)

15

“I want to believe in the Board. I want to believe in USAT as a federation. But I’m becoming increasingly disenchanted by the crap that’s going on here.”

had the board been straight up-front with you, and said, “the USOC is going to penalize us, or disown us, as long as we have a member driven organization, so we must get rid of the member’s rights,” then the members can just make a decision. this is what happened to pros. read here:

http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/features/union.html

you’ll see that the pros decided to give up their rights in order for the USOC to accept USAT as the nat’l governing body.

the members might well decide the same thing. or not. in either case, the fiduciary, LEGAL, responsibility, about which their are both civil and criminal statutes, is to YOU. the board is legally bound to honor and serve YOU, not the USOC. YOU elected them, it is an organization owned, as a matter of law, by YOU. therefore it is YOU who must decide whether or not you want to cede your power.

if you look at the verbiage the board gives for prop2, they dance around it. they know EXACTLY what is going on. but they don’t tell you what’s really going on. furthermore, they tell you that any and all bylaw changes are on the website for all to see, but they aren’t. well, they are NOW, but only weeks after the election commenced did they try to slide it onto the website, unannounced.

i FULLY expected them to do this. do any of you remember when i kept pestering you to go to usat’s website and READ THE WEBSITE, and to REPORT BACK HERE WHAT YOU READ!

some of you guys probably thought i was being an asshole, but i wanted witnesses. once i got about 10 responses back i let you guys out of jail. the usat website is now different, changed by sleight of hand in the dead of night, to try to bolster their case. but they can’t because i took screenshots of the usat website, and uploaded the documents they had on the site, which are different than the documents now.

this is just so the board couldn’t do this to you, altho they tried, and still are trying. i’m adamant about this, because THIS time the usoc’s blue ribbon panel isn’t going to come to your aid, because prop#2 is what they want. this is the usoc’s proposition. so all that high and mighty talk from the usoc about fair elections above reproach in the last scandal, forget about that this time around.

what matters here is PROCESS, folks. when we don’t have fair standards and processes, we have nothing. we need a fair vote, and then i am willing to stand by the results. apparently, very few others on the board feel that way. best if you all email the board members and tell them yourself that the election for prop#2 should be thrown out, and if that means we are thrown out of the USOC, well, perhaps we ought to throw them out first if they can’t live with a member driven organization.

16

What’s the possilibity of the vote on the proposals being invalidated if it doesn’t go the way that USAT/USOC want it to go and then just USAT/USOC doing what they want to do on their own.

17

“what matters here is PROCESS, folks. when we don’t have fair standards and processes, we have nothing.”

yeah. you’d think the board would understand the benefits of simply making the “big call”…telling us what is what and let the dust settle where it may. the process as it stands is only throwing more fuel on the fire. they just don’t get it. very sad. it would appear that accountability is not a standard the board is striving to uphold. for that matter Dan…does USAT, or the board, even have a mission statement?

why are we what we are, and who are we to become?

18

“What’s the possilibity of the vote on the proposals being invalidated if it doesn’t go the way that USAT/USOC”

prop 2 is the only one of real import, nobody has any problem with prop1. that’s why, when you looked on the usat website, and it said, "click here for bylaw changes if proposals (plural) pass well, you only got the changes occurring in prop1. there are three options as i see them:

  1. prop2 loses
  2. prop2 wins and is tossed out by a judge, or whatever.
  3. prop2 wins and is upheld.

there is another option, which is that the board declares the prop2 vote invalid. let us hope this happens.

19

Why is it seemingly so important to some members of the board to bend over for the USOC? What is in it for them? Olympic qualifying races? If you equate money with power, it seems that splitting with the USOC would give the BOD more power, since they would have more (of our) money to spend. Are these board members looking at careers with the USOC/IOC or something?

20

David wrote: I guess us idealists are not realists

A realist is an idealist with experience :wink:
.

21

the idea of a split between USAT and the USOC is very interesting and something I would want to investigate thoroughly. One of the main things that I would want to find out is, how would this split affect our standing with the ITU. Would USAT still be responsible for choosing and fielding the teams for age group world championships? If USAT spun off the elite part of their membership to form their own organization that would then be recognized by the IOC and USOC, would age groupers that wanted to compete in the various world championships need to be a part of both organizations, even though the vast majority of the membership would then not be elites? Would we not be back to the same problems all over again with the new organization? Without recognition from USOC/IOC/ITU, we can’t field teams for Worlds, whether age group or elite. Then what is the sense of having a National Championship. I wouldn’t say its a majority, but a lot of people go to Nationals with the sole purpose of trying to qualify for Worlds.