Slowman. . .Ethics question for you.

Dan, during my bike workout this afternoon I happened upon an intriguing question. Well, its intriguing to me at the very least. Anyway. . .

Let us suppose you are elected to the BOD. What ethical limits, if any, will that impose on your involvement on this, YOUR Slowtwitch, website? Will there be any changes or moratoriums on certain types of content on the main page during your tenure? I’m curious as to your position. I can’t, at first glance, come up with anything solid since this isn’t a money-making venture for you. But there is the old Roosevelt bully pulpit side that may pose problems, at least in some corners.

Just an honest question. . .

Why should he put any limits on himself? Anyone who wants to can put up a web page and/or forum. Personally, I think it would be great to have a member of the board informing the membership about the happening on the board.

Why should he put any limits on himself? Anyone who wants to can put up a web page and/or forum. Personally, I think it would be great to have a member of the board informing the membership about the happening on the board.
I concur.

I can’t, at first glance, come up with anything solid since this isn’t a money-making venture for you.
Just an honest question. . .
You really think he isn’t making money from this website?

It seems to me that the issue is whether there is any conflict of interest. First, most conflicts can be resolved by merely disclosing the conflict. This allows anyone reading to take what is said with a grain of salt. For example, the recommendation to by stock ABC may not be as valuable if the person making the recommendation owns the stock and is looking to sell once the price goes up.

A more appropriate example is the former owner of a bike company who gets royalties setting up a website and recommending that brand of bike to all triathletes. By the way, my kudos to Slowman. I think that he always discloses his connections with various brands.

The real question is how might the views expressed here impact his voting at the Board level. On the pledge of allegiance case, Scalia had to recuse himself because he had publicly criticized the opinion of the lower court in a case that was being appealed to the Supreme Court. So, if Slowman speaks out on a topic that will be before the board, say on term limits, will his public statements that indicate he has already made up his mind be a basis for him to recuse himself from voting? I don’t think so, but . . . ?

I’m thinking specifically of things like product reviews. Suppose he posts favorable reviews regarding bikes, components, wetsuits, etc. that are later under consideration for support/sponsorship/official product endorsement by the federation. Is there a conflict of interest there? Suppose the federation decided to enlist the support of Cervelo, an advertiser on this website. Does that not enter the realm of possible conflict of interest, particularly if Dan is seen to vote favorably for Cervelo? These are purely hypothetical situations, of course, but potentially similar to real situations which may arise.

I’m simply asking if there are some types of content that will be ethically challenging to continue during a board tenure.

Well, he has never presented it to us as a commercial venture, at least in the mold of QR, his previous project. I don’t think he’d hide that fact from us. He may, indeed, draw income from the sponsors of the board and the FIST clinics it has spawned, but I doubt the proceeds are more than what’s required to keep this site afloat, kind of like a self-licking ice cream cone.

I think you raise a good question. But, given that our current board is starting to make Enron’s leadership look like a bunch of boy scouts, I think there are bigger problems to worry about. I suspect that given Dan’s opinions expressed in this forum he would go out of his way to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest; if that was in the best interest of the USAT.

Chris

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=67581#67581

here’s the funny thing. we’ve got about, oh, 14 or 15 advertisers on slowtwitch, and altho we don’t charge very much per ad, it really does add up, especially when you consider the fact that we have no print bill or anything that equates to what a print mag has to pay.

then there’s the fact that i can use slowtwitch’s readership as a springboard to leverage attendance in F.I.S.T. workshops, and they add up to a nice revenue module. it might not seem like there are a lot of synergies, but there are when you think about it. you brought up selle san marco, as an example. why do they advertise on slowtwitch? aside anything else associated with an online magazine, SSM’s agent, tom petrie, realizes that 80 or so retailers will traipse through our compound every winter, and they’ll each get to hear what we think about not only bike fit, but about which aero bars, saddles, bikes, are probably most appropriate for triathletes. so i think tie goes to us, because we’re whores after all, and if he stopped advertising maybe we’d tell all these dealers to buy koobi or fizik. and if we’re not that transparently two-faced, it’s at least in our best interest to keep him thinking we are.

then, yes, as you point out, there is the work i do with de soto, and a bit with ABG (addressing their dealer conference last year, as an example) and so forth, and altogether it creates a reasonably decent living, particularly because my nut is low.

so altho i’d love you to think of me as an altruistic guy, i’m really not.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

“What ethical limits, if any, will that impose on your involvement on this, YOUR Slowtwitch, website?”

this is the best question anyone has asked me this entire election season. i’m still wrestling with it, and the reasons are twofold.

first, i’m a news organization. what will i owe my readers, and what will i owe the organization and fellow board members in terms of propriety? i truly don’t yet know the answer.

second, i compete with the federation in certain areas. for example, i intend to fully flesh out an RD services program on slowtwitch. it is something the federation ought to do. how will i justify that? again, i don’t yet know.

I think the recusal idea is a good one. Again in the example that TriBri grought up. If there is a company that advertiese on ST and they’re competing with other companies to become an “official sponsor” for the USAT, I would think Dan would have to recuse himself from the vote. That’s only sensible.

I would think one thing he could not do is offer competing services to those of USAT sincem if on the BOD, he’d have inside knowledge to the details behind those services.

But I don’t believe this issue is specific to Dan. Think of all of the RDs who are running and the relationships they have with numerous companies and sponsors. What does differentiate Dan from the RDs in this case his commentary that he publishes on this site. That’s opinion, and frankly I think it would be a good thing if opinions of more BOD members were made known to the membership.

first, i do make a pretty darn nice living from slowtwitch and its various ancillary businesses.

yes, i would have to recuse myself from just about any sponsor issues involving endemic manufactured products, because i know everybody. but i doubt that’s how it would likely work. more likely the board would say, “hey, dan, you know everybody, find us a sponsor!”

the much bigger issue is what i’ll write and not write on slowtwitch. i think that’s the first thing everyone would ask if we were all in a room together for a board meeting: “can we talk in confidence?” my guess is, board minutes are published anyway, so i doubt there’s very much of an issue there. executive session is another matter.

i hold a lot of confidences, however. there are a lot of things about which i don’t write. that’s the case now. but as to what the rules are i’d set for myself, i don’t know. i’d probably ask eric schwartz, lew kidder, and john duke how they played it. they were all board members and also published magazines concurrently. kidder is the one hell-raising publisher from whom i’d take the most counsel, because he was pretty unafraid to write anything.

Dan, have you seen Eric Schwartz’s editorial on his site regarding Steve Locke. What do you think?

“Dan, have you seen Eric Schwartz’s editorial on his site regarding Steve Locke. What do you think?”

i posted my caveat on the thread started elsewhere here on slowtwitch alerting people to that article. eric is a fine publisher, and i really like duathlon.com. it’s an excellent site and i highly recommend it to slowtwitch readers.

also, eric is a quality guy, and he’s a very good athlete in his own right. he’s thoughtful, articulate, passionate, and i think he was probably the ablest elite board member they’ve had in some time. i think there’s real leadership abilities there.

to me, one must consider the article through the prism of what it is you think steve locke is running for. if it’s steve the potential executive director that’s one thing, if it’s steve the board member, that’s another. one can have differences with steve on how he runs the federation, but he’s clearly by far the most experienced guy to be running for the board.

then there’s the other issue, which is, if you don’t vote for steve, you get val gattis as the at-large candidate. now, here is where it’s interesting. eric’s historic constituency is the pro athletes. it is crystal clear what the USOC thinks of gattis and girand. the USOC would never let them off the airplane in colorado springs, if they had the power.

so, here you are, the USOC, you’ve had your chief ethics officer write a sternly worded letter, then when that wasn’t heeded you impaneled a group and they wrote a scathing rebuke. do you know what the USOC terms this federation? one of the “terrible T’s,” to go along with tae kwon do, track & field, table tennis. we are a “problem federation.” we’re on the radar.

so, what will the USOC think if we put gattis and girand right back in office, after it did what it could to get them out? do you think USAT’s elites will see another nickel of grant money? and that’s ALL their funding, mind you, and all there’s going to be, because the elites made a big deal in this last election of being “self funded” and not needing any money from the AGs.

so it’s ironic as hell to me that as thoughtful and smart a guy as eric schwartz is backing gattis, because in so doing he’s got the knife up to the throat of hunter kemper, andy potts, susan williams, and he’s starting to cut.

Excellent question for Dan.

I had the great fortune and pleasure to meet QRman (who morphed to Slowman for obvious reasons) once and had brief conversations with him over the last 10 or so years and have bought several of his excellent products over the years.

I have also read his various musings and ramblings on just about every aspect of triathlon. My conclusion is thus:

Dan is one of the very few people in the world that I truly respect. My life would be better if I lived closer to him and he would consent to be my friend. He is a top bloke. Dan thinks about stuff ahead of time and comes to a well reasoned and thought out position on a given subject and then is kind enough to let us know what he thinks. He does it in the best way possible and is very humble about his contribution to triathlon and to us. He always declares any conflict of interest and I honestly believe that he is able to separate what is right in a given situation versus what is best (or most beneficial) for him. Sure he makes money out of Slowtwitch.com. We all gotta eat! When some pro says bike “X” is best we all take that with a grain of salt. When Dan says “Y” is best (he normally says “Y” is very good for XXXX and “A” is good for ZZZZ, from my experience). you know he’s tried it and done his homework. Conflict of interest is something I never even consider when Dan gives his opinion.

Without going over the top, I could not possibly imagine a better person for any job in triathlon. He is honest, intelligent, experienced, thoughtful, fair and incredibly hard working. So he makes his living off triathlon. We all know that.

Now get on with voting him onto the Board! He’s the best by a country mile!

OK…I have been following this from afar, but I can only lurk for so long.

Dan- you are blatantly misleading people by saying that the USOC would penalize USAT if Val and/or Jim were re-elected. At this point, the USOC should be concerned about their own lack of ethics in the choices they had for the kangaroo-court BRP. The US government has already had a field day with all of the problems in the USOC organization, I’m sure they would love to investigate this little tidbit.

Also, I think you have made it pretty clear that you would have no problem putting Steve back into the ED driver’s seat. What is amazing is that you would do so after reading those emails. Obviously he had an ulterior motive the whole time, and Eric hit the nail right on the head. Steve was going to lose his job, and he used this election “scandal” as a way to come out looking like he was taking the ethical high ground. The only thing that Val and Jim are guilty of is actually campaigning. They don’t have a website and forum where they are king of the roost, so they got out there to the club meetings and races and talked to people. Val is so passionate about making this sport better for everyone, especially the age groupers, that it makes me sick to see people drag her through the mud like this.

But the real thing that finally got me to post is when you say that the USOC will take away all of the elite’s funding if Val and/or Jim are elected. That is just a lie. Just like the one about $5 million going to 50 elites. Well, I haven’t gotten my check for $100,000 yet, but I’ll keep checking the mailbox everyday. Where in the hell did that figure come from?? And just for the record, I do not consider coaching clinics or junior development as part of elite funding, and that is why the budget picture has been so fuzzy for so long…everything just gets lumped together under one heading. Anyhow…the USOC gives funding based upon the performance of the athletes and the strength of the coaching program. And it’s a pretty safe bet that they are pretty darn happy with how the triathletes have been doing, and are not going to yank the dollars. They also love Libby and the High Performance Plan that she has come up with.

Lastly, I do not appreciate yours and Lew’s repeated threats to take away elite funding. If the USOC is going to be unhappy with anyone, it is you for making these theats. I find it funny that Lew has complained about USAT funds being wasted on certain athletes. Though he seems to be just fine with the $2000 that he got for coaching Sheila onto the team.

Just $.02 from a pro athlete and former BOD rep that is sick of it all…

Amanda Pagon

welcome to the forum, mandy. for those of you who don’t know, the previous board had as the three elite board members mandy pagon, eric schwartz (who wrote the anti-locke article on his duathlon.com site) and eric bean (of team girand).

you make some points, mandy, and they’re certainly worth answering.

MANDY: I think you have made it pretty clear that you would have no problem putting Steve back into the ED driver’s seat.

DAN: on the front page of slowtwitch there is a prominent link to what is my only article on this or any other site explaining my platform. on it i write, under ‘the case for a vote against me,’ that, ‘if you believe our former executive direct, Steve Locke, should be automatically reinstated as executive director by the new board, best not to vote for me.’

this is why i differentiate between steve the board member and steve the E.D. there are a variety of times i’ve locked horns with steve, one of which is over the federation’s posture toward endemic industry. when i was your primary sponsor, mandy, steve and i were locked in a variety of bitter struggles (no pun intended). likewise when i produced and financially backed a pair of “road to sydney” races and stepped in to finance and produce your pro national championships when no other RD would. during all these and other battles steve and i were pretty much consistently at odds with each other, including when i essentially took the federation’s RD congress and made it my own because USAT kept putting on 3rd rate conventions. and on and on. you ought to remember all this because you were there, in san diego, often in my factory and in my office, when all this was going on.

so if you’re looking for the board candidate that is bound and determined to put steve back in the E.D.'s chair, you’ve got to look somewhere else. that doesn’t mean, however, that i don’t believe he’d be a very valuable board member (one of eleven).

MANDY: But the real thing that finally got me to post is when you say that the USOC will take away all of the elite’s funding if Val and/or Jim are elected. That is just a lie.

DAN: you and i had a variety of conversations in january, prior to the elites voting as a group to turn down the protest asking for new elections, against jonathon grinder’s legal opinion. during those conversations i told you exactly what would happen. not what ought to happen, nor what was righteous, or true, or bitchin. what i told you would happen did happen. i didn’t make it happen. but it happened just the same, in precisely the way i said it would.

here we are again. there’s the way life oughta be, and the way life is. the way life oughta be is for val gattis to be doling out blessings to pros and AGers from 12 feet off the ground like glinda good witch of the north. but, then, there’s the way it is. perhaps you’re right. perhaps it was a kangaroo-court BRP. listen: i don’t disagree with you. that’s not the issue. if the USOC decides not to give you any money, you’re going to call it corrupt and unfair. however, that’s not the issue. i’m not writing that they shouldn’t give you money. i’m writing that there’s a very real danger they won’t.

once i had a friend of mine get fired from a life insurance company. he was shocked, because he put in 10 or 12 hours a day. “but how many policies did you sell?” i asked him. it just doesn’t matter what’s right or fair. it doesn’t matter how hard you work. it may not even matter how many medals you win. what matters is, will the USOC say yes to the elite funding grant requests when USAT puts back into power the very people the USOC threw out?

These are the best answers to hard ethical questions I’ve ever seen anyone running for anything give. I wish we had more politicians that would say “Yep, hard question. Haven’t figured it out yet. Here’s how I would think about it…”

Jeremy