Didn’t see any comments on the article, so I guess I’ll be the first.
Steve Locke wrote, ‘Our job is to create the heroes of the sport; to develop role models; to get those heroes onto the front pages of the mainstream press…’
If USAT is just a marketing tool, I want out. This will be my last year to renew my membership.
Steve Locke wrote, ‘USA Triathlon’s membership growth is very similar to the growth in youth swimming that took place years ago. Smart people from swimming used the “development of coaches” tactic and US Swimming was and still continues to be the beneficiary of that approach today.’
Didn’t United States Masters Swimming break away from US Swimming? This seems like a good argument in favor of USAT breaking away from USOC.
Steve Locke wrote, ‘“Inbreeding” creates weakness within an organization… The model is just wrong for these times of a needed higher grade of business sophistication.’
If USAT is just about “business sophistication”, I want out. This will be my last year to renew my membership.
In a sense I agree with you. However the real downfall to me is I’ve not met one single person that deided to do a tri “because I saw it on the olympics”.
I’ve met several that have watched IMHI and were “inspired” to try the sport but no one that watch the olympics. Myabe it’s to soon to tell and I think Mr Locke’s cause and effet relationship of “our mebership spiked during the Sydney olympics” is a bit weak. There needs to be a bit more evidence than “A” to “B” to prove teh effect…well IMO. Was 1999 IMHI a particularly exciting race? What other types of things happened prior that may have caused a spike?
The point he made about the coaching services I have to agree with. These services go back and diretly effect many triathletes and provide them with an increase level of support and services, IMO, good for the sport.
I got into the sport in 2002. I don’t recall ever knowing that triathlon was in the Olympics until I read about the ITU and Olympic triathlon in Triathlete (or was it Inside Triathlon?). I’d sure heard of Ironman and Julie Moss (I remember watching a replay of that on Wide World of Sports or some such show), and thought anyone who would do that was insane.
Frankly, Ironman didn’t get em into it, either… it was a general desire to get in shape, and the fact that a friend convinced me to do Team In Training. Had a great experience and knew instantly I had to try an Ironman. Now… I’m in it 'cause I love it.
I did my first triathlon last year. My business partner challenged me to do it because at the age of 40 he was concerned I was sliding down a slippery slope. I lost 30 pounds and had a life changing experience. 8 of our friends did it with us, 5 for the first time. We will take 16 people this year, with once again almost all of them being newbies (several are or have been proficient single sporters; cyclist, swimmer, marathoner). Not one of us is doing this because of the Olympics. I love to watch the best in the world compete, but in my opinion triathlon participation is growing because it is a great way to stay healthy and there is a growing segment of our society that has decided that being fit is a good idea.
Cause and effect is usually difficult to establish with any certainty. Triathlon’s recent growth has indeed coincided with its participation in the Olympic Games . . . but it has also coincided with the multiple expansion of the IM franchise and the growth of on-line registration. Plus, the growth in USAT’s numbers was significant before ANY of these three factors came into play.
So, who gets the credit? Steve is certainly overreaching when he attempts to claim it all for the Olympic relationship - but it’s likely to have played a part. Example: USA Today did a full-page article on the three U.S. ITU women stars in the 10/3/03 sports section. That is big-time exposure - and it only came because of the Olympic connection. Example: Sheila T. was front-page, lead article subject in Delicious Living magazine for July of 2001. Never heard of it? It is a Penton publication, branded and distributed for free by such retailers as Whole Foods. Example: Sheila has been written into the Frazz comic strip - which is syndicated nationally in over 200 newspapers.
Those are powerful platforms from which to reach a much wider audience than the hardcore devotees of slowtwitch. What effect did these (and other) olympic-inspired articles actually have? Hard to say . . . but for what it’s worth, I personally coach a group of nearly 20 women runners. Half of them have done their first triathlon within the last two years - and only one has shown any interest at all in Ironman.
Maybe it’s true that triathlon, as a whole, has benefited from the Olympic coverage, but like Slowman has said before, USAT gets the benefit whether it’s connected to USOC or not.
That’s a pretty cynical attitude. But let’s say you have your way and we separate from USOC. Then USOC discovers that it costs more to produce top athletes than they thought, so they do what they’ve done with xc skiing: accept mediocre (actually, more like wretched) performance as the necessary consequence of a new federation unable to produce much in the way of income. Just how do we plan to bask in that “reflected glory”?
USAT should break from USOC - there is no reason for our sport federation to be linked and controlled by USOC.
Case in point - #1 - Olympic/ITU racing is not what 99% (ok I could be off on this figure but you get my point) of USAT members do. We are not comparing apples to apples and should not be spending huge amounts of money (the general members $$) to grow oranges when we are apples.
#2 - we are not developing kids in a way like US Swimming does. Do you ever really think we will be at a USAT event with hundereds of 8&U kids doing a triathlon?
#3 - triathlon is an adult, lifestyle sport - it in no way compares to swimming, track or gymnastics. The Olympic sport development and management mold does not fit.
“but in my opinion triathlon participation is growing because it is a great way to stay healthy”
I have to agree with this. I know far more people interested in triathlon that are or used to be “one sport” people that are looking for ways to be more well rounded, avoid injury etc etc than people influened by the olympics, IMHI or any other race.
“personally coach a group of nearly 20 women runners. Half of them have done their first triathlon within the last two years - and only one has shown any interest at all in Ironman.”
My point in bring up IM was not to say that most people get ino triathlon because of IM but that there are other, stonger influences than the olympics. IOW I know of several people that got into tri’s because of IMHI, but none that did so because of the olympics.
OTOH I think both of these are only minor influences on the sport compared to other factors like, cross training, a friend is into it, I’m a ored biker/runner/swimmer…
‘Just how do we plan to bask in that “reflected glory”?’
Good point Lew. That’s where you come in. Just keep trolling those Div I pool decks for another Sheila.
I think this goes back to the question: what is the main goal of USAT - creating good Olympic athletes, or helping race directors put on quality races.
If Olympic gold is the goal, then USAT must affiliate with USOC and, as you have stated in the past, risk having the race directors leave in order to create their own federation.
If it’s helping race directors, then it looks like USAT leaving USOC is the best solution.
It was in the pre olympic hype that I learned that Ironman <> Triathlon. I realized that there were triathlons of different distances, some of those distances short enough for me to try.
Well, at the risk of being obvious, there is a third option; USAT stays with USOC and performs both missions. That is in fact what we’ve been doing for the past 16 years, and we’ve done a reasonably good (not perfect) job of both. Elites (or at least the elite women) have done very well, and the growth of the sport more generally has been robust.
That assumes the willingness of USOC to let, within certain broad paramenters, USAT chart its own course. There are certain hurdles that must be cleared before that can happen, the most important being the designation of some reasonable adults to negotiate for each side.
If you want to get technical about the history part of it, I’d say the big boom in competitive swimming in the US was more late 60s, early 1970s, and US Swimming didn’t exist until 1980. Before that, it was under the old giant AAU umbrella for Olympic development.
And competitive swimming in the US is extremely fragmented. Besides the USS swimmers proper (about 250,000) the masters swimmers (about 40,000 registered) you’ve also got the high school kids (250,000 according to last year’s National Federation numbers) who may or may not also swim USS, the countless summer and country club league kids who are either beginners or don’t want a huge time committment out of the sport, the college kids who may or may not do USS meets on the side …
‘That assumes the willingness of USOC to let, within certain broad paramenters, USAT chart its own course.’
That would be great Lew, but it doesn’t look like it’s going to happen. There are some on the current USAT board, namely Steve Locke, which want to radically change how the board works. If I understand his article correctly, the board will be made up of (I assume) Olympic athletes and outsiders - no race directors or age groupers. From his article…
‘It is a “hybrid” model meant to bring strength through multiple layers of expertise in sport, governance and business operations.’
I believe you are right - but just as he dismisses the resolution introduced by Jack Weiss as a last hurrah by someone who won’t be a director as of noon on July 1, 2005, we have to remember that Steve Locke will be off the board on that date as well. In fact, that’s when Fred Sommer, Tim Becker, and Ray Ploteccia will also end their terms - which means we will finally be largely free from the board in power when all the troubles started back in '03.
Plus even if no one contested proposition #2 from the most recent election, the board would have to submit such a proposal to a vote of the membership. Sorry, Steve, that one is not going to pass - the member/owners are not going to disenfranchise themselves from the right to select their leaders.
I think that Steve is misapplying the logic behind the “chicken and the egg” argument. He believes, wrongly (I think) that Olympic involvement has been the prime driver behind our increase in membership. He didn’t quote the marketing surveys that I assume he’s using to come to that conclusion, so I can’t say how he arrives there, other than by his own subjective observation.
Did Olympic involvement drive a membership increase, or did the increasing membership finally get us into the Olympics and the membership increase take on a synergy and a life of its own, once it reached a certain critical mass?
I believe in the second part of the above paragraph.
I agree with Jack, Dan, and Lew and disagree with Steve. Steve’s in tight with the USOC and is forgetting that the USOC is focussed on a few Olympic wannabes and spectators, not the broad range of age groupers who enjoy participating in sports. Giving over age-group sports to the USOC was one of many errors by the US Congress. My bike racing club has not affiliated with the USCF, but the ACA, to avoid having dollars drained to support a few elites in Europe. I pay $75 for my alpine ski racing license from USSA and get precious little value in return compared to USAT. Supporting teams on the World Cup circuit in Europe is expensive! I don’t bother with a license for nordic ski races, but the attendance for these is way down from what it was 30 years ago and I don’t see USOC doing much about it. The NYC marathon is the only running race that ever required me to join USATrack and Field. Snowboarders have a choice of two national governing bodies, one for the Olympics and one for broad participation in sports. Masters Swimming is not USOC-affiliated. I don’t see much need or value for us age-groupers in being affiliated with the USOC and think we would be in good company with other non-affiliated sports organizations.
Where there may be some problems is with the ITU, which is IOC-oriented and may insist on membership in a USOC-affiliated NGB to participate in age-group worlds. That’s about power, glory, and money. But I’d rather have our age-grouper, race director (and official) dominated participant organization than go to worlds anyway.
It might be an interesting class-action law suit if the USOC were to try to take over our assets. Whatcha’ think, Lew?