Since we're going to have a new USAT election

Triathlon Forum
1

…and since it is obvious that the campaign has started in earnest, with another friend of the federation (jj this time instead of geraldi) helping voters to understand why black is white and up is down…

I thought I’d point out a few things. I do so with full disclosure that I’m running for the seat, in the Western Region, Jim Girand won last time. Here are a few points which seems to me salient.

  1. In the recent article on the BRP’s decision in Inside Tri Jim Girand is quoted as saying, “the panel said we did nothing wrong,” and that the Panel found, “there was no evidence of impropriety.” In fact, what the Panel found there was no outright fraud, that is, there is no evidence Girand, et al, manufactured or discarded votes.

The Panel writes of Jim Girand, et al, “Their actions, at times, were certainly not of a caliber one would expect of candidates for Director positions on a National Governing Body. The Panel questions whether those candidates let their own personal aspirations override good judgment… The Panel also holds the Board accountable for not heeding the advice of Mr. Backer, Co-Chair of the Legal Committee and Mr. Grinder, Board Counsel.” The rest of the decision reads likewise.

  1. Girand, et al, therefore believe they not only did no wrong, they somehow, unbelievably, feel that the Panel agrees with them. Not only is this not the case, but the fallout of all this is that our E.D. resigned, the chair of the legal committee resigned (almost 30 years of USAT tenure between them), the federation is staring at upwards of a third of a million dollars in fees associated with lawyers and a special election, the federation and by extension its sport, triathlon, is in disrepute, we’ve been without leadership for upwards of six months, and the USOC now essentially runs our federation. all these things were predicted.

  2. they were furthermore predicted several times. those who’ve predicted this were not simply people like me, who offered our opinions on spec. they were people whose opinions were specifically requested by the board. this means, to me, that a certain element of the board (girand, gattis, travis, sommer, becker, and the three elites) was only so happy to seek opinions of various lawyers, but never had any intention of following these lawyers’ advice so long as it ran contrary to their own aims.

i am frankly shocked that any of these three would deign to run again, but it appears at least two of them are, perhaps all three. that’s their choice and their prerogative. when they were in office last time, their reason for championing these voting practices was to engage an unengaged electorate. yet i understand one of the proposed bylaw changes coming out of this group was increasing the term of office from two years to six, further restricting any possible engagement of the membership.

my view? vote for me. vote for somebody else. vote for whomever you feel is best for the federation. just realize that if you vote for girand, gattis or travis, the rule applies: if you keep doing what you’re doing, you’ll keep getting what you’re getting.

2

I’ll vote for you in the Western Region. Better someone who hasn’t had a chance to make the wrong decision than someone who has.

BTW…I’ll be the first one at the barricades when the revolution comes

3

"In the recent article on the BRP’s decision in Inside Tri Jim Girand is quoted as saying, “the panel said we did nothing wrong,” and that the Panel found, “there was no evidence of impropriety.”

Sounds like my kids when they were 5, “No we didn’t”

I don’t get IT anymore, thanks for the update.

Bump

4

Dan-

If you are elected I assume you will continue to push to have the petition you and Lew prepared and circulated put before the membership for a vote?

5

“If you are elected I assume you will continue to push to have the petition you and Lew prepared and circulated put before the membership for a vote?”

we’re still pushing for that right now. as i recently wrote to tim yount (acting E.D.) if our petition called for the 2005 nationals to be held on planet jupiter, the bylaws require a vote of the membership. it’s not about the merits of the petition. it’s about the rights of the federation’s owner/members to effect their own remedies if they so choose. so we’re asking that the petition be included with the ballot for a vote of the board.

the main reason i’m running for the board is to help ensure that some sense of honor and normalcy be returned to the board. however, i do have certain things i’d like to see occur, and one of these things is to reverse the (what i consider) pervasive feeling in colorado springs that the federation really belongs to those in that town that draw paychecks fundend by you and me. that fact needs to be impressed upon anyone in colorado springs that doesn’t yet quite get it.

as the weeks progress i’ll describe in detail, not in generalities and platitudes, precisely what i’d like to see happen at USAT, and what i’ll work for if i’m elected to the board. what must happen first, however, is that the USAT staff has to understand that the members own the federation, and they also need to understand that from here on in they’ll be treated not as political pawns, but as the honored, vital elements to the federation they are. they need to be properly paid, properly directed, i’d like to see them have 401k plans, proper benefits, and be treated as career employees are treated in other industries.

we’ve got a weird way of doing business at USAT, and we need to make this corporation act like any other business. i’ve run a division of a public company before, and USAT is no different in my view, except that its profits are reinvested or returned to the shareholders instead of ending up in the hands of venture capitalists or large stockholders.

6

Friend of the federation, JJ, checking in now.
I know the majority of active respondants on this group are pro SL as you are and since this is your board you’ve had ample opportunity to promote your opinion since it’s inception so I’m here make sure the other side of the story isn’t lost in this love fest.

Let’s just CONSIDER for a moment that the issue I’ve championed on the previous thread has some merit and the BRP was not totally unbiased. I’ve shown that the relationships exist between SL and the USOC and I’ve heard little more than faint protests of my claim that this issue revolves around SL. So if you’re open minded enough to CONSIDER these possibilities does anything that came out of the BRPs decision have any merit? You’ve jumped on their negative comments like a hungry bulldog on a raw piece of meat and are using them as justification why you should be running to defeat the evil “Girand” political machine and I contend you are the one seeing black as white and visa versa.

It’s your side of the argument that brought on the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs which the USAT will be forced to spend to defend itself against the “Holy 4”. It’s the people you are defending and running for that gave us the election rules that put us as a whole in this situation. And it’s your side, by filing suit, that has crippled the federation for the last six months.
The people I’m defending were duly elected by the rules set down by your people and now your people are setting that election aside by the good ole american way of lawsuit. We do agree on somethings Dan, people should research these issues and vote for whomever they feel is best for the federation because they’ve been “getting what they’ve been getting” for the last 13 years and this new and “sitting idle” board never even got the chance to prove you right or wrong in your opinion of them. They never got the chance to prove if they would be more of “the last 13 years” you’ve been defending, or maybe, god forbid, something better. They never got the chance to show if they would take on the legacy left by your side of the argument and actually change the bylaws to provide for a truely fair and equitable election process. They never got to the chance to show if they were the next reincarnation of hell or angels above. They couldn’t, they been hogtied by your side’s legal process for the last 6 months and your good buddies sitting formally in the ED’s chair and currently on the board.

Your side could have saved everyone a lot of time and money by sitting back, waiting for the next election, and letting this legally sitting board prove they’re the fiends you claim they are,-------or not.

JJ (defender of up is up, down is down, etc.)

7

we can have a lively debate here, however i’d like to disabuse you of a couple of conceptions you have which are not true.

first, i am not pro steve locke. i am pro USAT or, rather, i’m pro the right’s of USAT’s owners to have a federation that they can be proud of and that they feel gives them their money’s worth.

second, when you say, “your side,” i believe you wrongly assume that i stand in solidarity with the petitioners. let me tell you precisely where i sit.

first, i will certainly back steve locke in his bid for the at-large board of directors seat, because he’s up against val gattis. we can’t have gattis on the board again. also, if we’re going to have some fresh blood on the board, i think it would be immensely helpful to have somebody on the board who knows his way around the federation. however, you ought not to assume i’d push for locke to be back in his E.D. seat. i told him straight out, yesterday, that were he to want that job i’d consider him one candidate out of perhaps several. in the end, maybe i’d consider him the best of these candidates. perhaps not.

as to the petitioners, were they all to run for the board today i’d vote for about half of them, against the other half, depending on who ran against them. i also felt that they overcharged in their lawsuit. i felt that the fraud charge was unwarranted. having said that, i’m glad they brought their suit, because the gattis/girand/travis machine was clearly running amok. i believe backer was right in his assessment, as was grinder, as was the BRP, whose 5-person panel agreed unanimously. that’s 7 for 7. i also suspect the colorado judge, USOC’s chief counsel, and its associate counsel, agree. anybody who’s been asked by this board to render an opinion has come down on one side of it, and they’re all lawyers, and they all have the same legal opinion, more or less.

i don’t feel that the petitioners were wronged. they’re not my guys, they don’t represent my side. the federation and its members were wronged.

8

“we can have a lively debate here, however i’d like to disabuse you of a couple of conceptions you have which are not true.
first, i am not pro steve locke. i am pro USAT or, rather, i’m pro the right’s of USAT’s owners to have a federation that they can be proud of and that they feel gives them their money’s worth.”

I’m glad you cleared that up because although I am admittedly anti locke, your editorials and close association with him have certainly led me to believe that you were a supporter. Despite what, (we’ll call them that side for now), will see as abrasive rhetoric, I am also pro USAT and want what’s best for the organization. However having been somewhat of an insider for the last few years I know in no uncertain terms that SL does not fit that description. He may have been in the early years but like so many long entrenched “Politicians” (if you’ll excuse the comparison) he has long lost focus of what he should be doing in his job and many of the goals you put forth in your “Campaign announcement” are directly adverse to what he has practiced in the last few years of his reign.

“second, when you say, “your side,” i believe you wrongly assume that i stand in solidarity with the petitioners. let me tell you precisely where i sit.
first, i will certainly back steve locke in his bid for the at-large board of directors seat, because he’s up against val gattis. we can’t have gattis on the board again. also, if we’re going to have some fresh blood on the board, i think it would be immensely helpful to have somebody on the board who knows his way around the federation. however, you ought not to assume i’d push for locke to be back in his E.D. seat. i told him straight out, yesterday, that were he to want that job i’d consider him one candidate out of perhaps several. in the end, maybe i’d consider him the best of these candidates. perhaps not.”

And here is where I differ. You see it as a plus having SL with his “experience” on the board. SL ran USAT with virtual impunity for the last 13 years and you know this to be true. I’d argue that many of the problems we now face were directly attributable to him. Although as I’ve stated elsewhere he would have made some “for profit company” a good CEO, he treated every dollar that came in USAT as his own and resisted efforts to invest some of those dollars in programs that should have been funded to further the sport. I’m not making accusations that he spent the dollars improperly so the rest of you can save your flame for my other comments. I am making the charge that he would never turn loose the money necessary to fund the types of changes you put forth in your “introductory platform”. To repeat myself, I’m a business owner who believes in fiscal responsibility, but I also believe that a certain amount of revenue must be reinvested into whatever enterprise you are charged with. As for your problem with Ms. Gattis, I don’t know the specifics but she’s certainly fresher blood than what you hope to replace her with. What bothers me most about your candidacy is that you would even consider SL returning to his former post.

“as to the petitioners, were they all to run for the board today i’d vote for about half of them, against the other half, depending on who ran against them. i also felt that they overcharged in their lawsuit. i felt that the fraud charge was unwarranted. having said that, i’m glad they brought their suit, because the gattis/girand/travis machine was clearly running amok. i believe backer was right in his assessment, as was grinder, as was the BRP, whose 5-person panel agreed unanimously. that’s 7 for 7. i also suspect the colorado judge, USOC’s chief counsel, and its associate counsel, agree. anybody who’s been asked by this board to render an opinion has come down on one side of it, and they’re all lawyers, and they all have the same legal opinion, more or less.”

Of course we differ also on these points but I have to ask where the GGT machine ever had the opportunity to “run amok”? And if we ignore the power struggle related actions, (which your conscience just might not let you do for one millisecond), what points of policy and direction did the evil machine get to implement that has led the federation astray. As you will see in the future I’m real bad about continuously dredging up old points that I really believe in. Please suffer along with me. But as I see undue influence and motive in many of these parties, I cannot accept their decision as unbiased and “for the good of the federation”.

“i don’t feel that the petitioners were wronged. they’re not my guys, they don’t represent my side. the federation and its members were wronged.”
Perhaps I’ve made too quick a judgement on your positions, perhaps not. Only if you’re successful in your bid will we ever actually get to pass judgement based on the actions you’ll take as a sitting board member. But your close associations with those that I know foster opinions opposed to my own that I believe to be right, (for whatever that may be worth) concerns me greatly. Guilt by association may not be correct, but I’m sure you find me “Guilty” as well.

JJ

9

“But your close associations with those that I know foster opinions opposed to my own”

i’m at a loss to understand how it is that i’ve given the impression that i have particularly close associations with people you don’t like. inasmuch as i participated in the hawaiian ironman 23 years ago, and founded QR 17 years ago, i’ve been around the sport for quite awhile and so know a lot of people. i think, however, you’ll search in vain for a group or clique or camp or party or gaggle with which i might be closely associated.

i’ve had very difficult times and also fond times with just about everybody in this melodrama, including almost all those involved on both, or all, sides of all this. in other words, at one time or another i’ve royally pissed off just about everybody. i don’t think there is one person on either side of this that feels entirely safe from what i might say or do regarding their, or anybody’s, performance or opinions.

i’ll repeat to you what i told steve locke, if i am elected to the board i’ll consider all candidates that apply for the job of E.D. and lend my support for the best of the lot. should steve be that choice, he might not want to serve if i have anything to do with the direction of the natl office. yes, i believe in letting the E.D. do his job. at the same time, there will be no imperial directorship if i’m given any role in directing the E.D. i have no dog in this fight. any friendships would be subservient to what i believe are in the federation’s best interests.

“what points of policy and direction did the evil machine get to implement that has led the federation astray”

their biggest failure was in their inability to, or distaste for, working in a collegial manner. they fostered intrigue. they were especially weak at forming consensus and fostering an air of goodwill. otherwise, let’s see. single-handedly causing gatorade to, for the most part, leave the sport of triathlon. choosing a horrible host site for nationals. attempting to increase board member terms from 2 years to 6. failing to put in place a policy where online registration engines remit USAT’s dollars to USAT directly. allowing accounts receivable to rise to alarming rates of default. allowing USAT to buy a building it would outgrow in a year. hiring a duathlon coordinator in a blatantly transparent act of pork, when the last thing you do is spend marketing dollars toward your least popular product. failing to institute any meaningful reforms in USAT’s almost worthless quality of help to RDs (especially new RDs) except for offering insurance. upping the one-day rate from $5 to $7 to $9 when there was already more than $1.5 million in the bank. overseeing a coaching certification system that is deemed a joke by the very people who founded it. likewise putting on RD congresses that are third rate. underfunding the positions of risk manager and CFO. failing to conceive of and implement the most rational plan for identifying and nurturing the talent that is likely to win olympic and world championship talent (almost none of very good talent we have was originally identified by the national office).

had i 10 more minutes to think about it i’d double that list above. certainly some of that is not the board’s fault. but it all happened on this board’s watch. i don’t want to be particularly negative, but you did ask.

10

had i 10 more minutes to think about it i’d double that list above. certainly some of that is not the board’s fault. but it all happened on this board’s watch. i don’t want to be particularly negative, but you did ask.

Impressive list and although I recognize quite a few of your items as actions sponsored and carried out by those individuals I have been actively detracting from I’ll defer a response until I can get more accurate information on which are the fault of “My Boys” and which are the fault of "those other guys. I am in the usual position having to put on one of those “pesky races” this weekend which is what really matters so I’ll be out of pocket and unable to continue with this fun little pastime until monday. Have a great weekend.

JJ

11

Dan - I read an article of yours once (which I haven’t been able to find) where you spoke of money and what I perceived as your greed for it. I suppose my point of doubt in your lobbying has always been around this perception. Do you happen to remember which article that was and could you point me to it, I would love to read it again. Also, could you give a further explanation of what you meant in that article?

12

“which are the fault of ‘My Boys’”

if the girand/gattis/travis bloc has demonstrated anything it’s in its ability to get passed pretty much whatever they want. while i’m sure they can gin up good excuses for every one of these issues, my interest is in results, not good intentions or even hard work. two members of this bloc are term limited and must give up their seats this year. everybody has been in their for multiple terms. when you’ve been in there a good long while and you have a decisive majority, and you can’t get the important stuff done, then it’s time to go.

13

“money and what I perceived as your greed for it.”

i can’t imagine what that article was, or what i meant. but there’s no denying i certainly try to earn it. if you own a company that works in the environment of multisports, i think you could do worse than putting me in the job of earning it for you.

i’ll state right up front i have a conflict of interest. over the last 12 or so years i’ve almost constantly had to consider the federation a competitor, and only because i could make money doing things the federation ought to have been doing, but didn’t. whether it was producing a race director congress, a national championship, providing goods and services to RDs, producing and marketing to mass media triathlon training programs for non-triathletes, putting together a national schedule of races, identifying and supporting new professional talent, forming and executing a first-time RD support program, it’s all stuff i’ve done outside of the federation because the federation wouldn’t do it or wouldn’t do it well. and it continues. i’m creating an entire RD support program on slowtwitch, and it will only be successful if the federation doesn’t do it. so far it hasn’t.

my conflict is, if i’m on the board i’d push for the federation to do these things, and in some cases these are things i could privately be doing for profit. fortunately, i’m not interested in personally producing an RD congress, national championship, or in sponsoring pros, or any of that, so my areas of conflict are limited. i’m sure i’ll always find ways, however, to bump up against a federation that ought to be doing its job but isn’t.

14

“what points of policy and direction did the evil machine get to implement that has led the federation astray”

i’d like to repent of something i wrote some days ago in response to this question. i criticized this current board for the job being done on the coaching certification program. i wrote, “overseeing a coaching certification system that is deemed a joke by the very people who founded it.”

here’s what’s true. yes, certain of those people who’ve been involved in setting up this program, forming the curricula, etc., are not happy that the Level One certification is not as rigorous as it could be. however, that is set against a backdrop of what is perhaps the most successful new program over the past 5 years. the staff, namely alan ley and gale bernhardt, with help from george dallam and libby burrell, have put together in a relatively short time a progam that is almost a requirement if one wants to be a triathlon coach. tons of people work their way through the curricula. one just has to look on USAT’s website to see how many coaches pay for and travel to these classes, workshops, etc.

yes, it could use some tweaking, however when i consider the FIST workshops i administer, they require constant tweaking and rethinking. i therefore feel it is unfair for me to criticiize a program that has no fewer challenges that the sort of thing i’m faced with. i apologize to alan, gale, et al, for what was a flip and unfair characterization.

furthermore, if i’m going to criticize the most recent board–and that includes jim girand, the man against whom i’m running in western region–for overseeing what i consider certain failures, then it’s incumbent upon me to congratulate the most recent board for its successes, which include the program alan, gale, et al, administer.

so, what i should’ve written was, “overseeing a coaching certification system that is deemed an almost unequivocal success by an awful lot of people, including me.”

15

Can’t you guys just call each other on the phone?

16

“Can’t you guys just call each other on the phone?”

you, brad, are the best advertisement for my candidacy. one day, assuming a group of 11 people actually conspire to make the federation a net benefit for you, you will start sanctioning your races. when you sanction, then i’ll assume USAT has finally started doing an acceptable job.

until then, i’ll engage in public discourse on this and other issues. it’s hard to have public discourse on the telephone. that would be an awfully cumbersome conference call.

17

Could you either enlighten me on this point or point me to where I could read up on … “single-handedly causing gatorade to, for the most part, leave the sport of triathlon”.

18

I should have put a little smiley face next to my comment. It was meant to be humorous. That’s all. I honestly do take great interest in reading the opposing views.

I sanctioned Steelman this year in order to help out many athletes that asked me to try it once.

I still don’t see a benefit in doing this. The insurance price is very nice, but all the little caveats that are in the contract, drive the price up of organizing the race greatly. NOt to mention the extra time in taking care of paperwork and other things that go along with it. I had hoped that by sanctioning it would drive the numbers up since we are closing roads in Baltimore and need the numbers to keep the race going after this year, but it is having the opposite affect. My regular customers are very upset with the USAT affiliation and are not signing up and they are not being replaced by USAT members.

I would vote for you and JJ if you both ran and if I was a member. Having opposing views would benefit the organization.

Well, I’ll get off now, I probably pissed someone off. :slight_smile:

19

put in place a policy where online registration engines remit USAT’s dollars to USAT directly<<

Dan, this would be fine as long as I wouldnt be forced to use a different online reg service. Active.com is working fine for us and it saves me a lot of time each year to be able to copy the listing for the next years event. (i’m not a full time RD)

I would think something as simple as more communication with RD’s on the issue would help sort this problem out. I received 4 seperate emails on “what to name the new RD newsletter” from usat… they could always use the same list to communicate useful and important issues.

Good luck with the campaign.

Tom

20

“Dan, this would be fine as long as I wouldnt be forced to use a different online reg service. Active.com is working fine for us.”

active.com is the one service i know of that is ready to execute this right now. i don’t know about signmeup or doitsports, etc., but i beleve we could drop the one-days from $9 to $7 and still be cash ahead by doing what i suggest, for ALL KINDS of reasons. i’d be glad to elucidate if anyone is interested. i’d suspect that the other engines could do it as well. i would also suggest implementing this after a period, say, 4 to 6 months, to give signmeup and doit, and whomever else, enough time to implement this feature.