News & Articles Features  Swim Links  Speakers Bureau  Contact Us  Marketplace  Clinics & Events
 

USOC Public Hearing

To: Committee For the Public Hearing of USOC Direction

From: Chuck Warner

            Head Swimming and Diving Coach, Rutgers University

            Vice-President American Swimming Coaches Association

Date: April 24, 2003

I offer these written ideas in place of what I desired to be spoken words at the “Public Hearing” you are holding in New York tomorrow. I was prepared to make the trip, but told I would not be permitted to speak. I will be brief.

It seems to me that there should be two purposes for the USOC:

1. Clearing the path for American athletes to succeed at the Olympic Games.

2. Provide leadership in maintaining those aspects of the current American “athletic system” that allow athletes to be successful in participating at the Olympic Games.

In order to achieve the first objective I have two suggestions:

1. Enable athletes and coaches to have the “right to participate.” My understanding of the Amateur Sports Act was that it was put in place to enhance the opportunities for athletes to succeed and identify their basic rights. But we see an enormous number of institutionalized restrictions by groups and organizations who are accepting funds from the US Government. I am specifically referring to high schools and university programs that accept federal funding and then tell coaches they can’t coach athletes and tell athletes they can’t be coached. Some years ago I was actually a part of the passage of a law in Connecticut that allowed athletes to participate in training outside their high school team. Incredibly, restrictions occur all over the country on high school and college students training. These should be removed.

Taking this a step further, coaches should be able to participate in the USOC. The function of a good coach in any sport is to anticipate, to prepare and then dedicate themselves to helping athletes succeed. The best coaches spend their entire life devoted to learning how to successfully achieve this end within a specific sport. But the USOC does not have any avenue to have them be a part of the planning or implementation process. They ARE the best planners and they ARE the best implementers in the world of sports. They spend 40, 50, even 60 years in a sport, often as an athlete first and later as a coach. Coaches are in the best position to look out for the long term welfare of the success of athletes in sports. Why does the USOC plan to make a place for athletes on their committee structure, but no coaches? Why does the USOC plan to put NGB representatives, who are selected by at least 20% input of athletes (by federal law), but no coaches?

Regarding the second objective:

2. The USOC should ask NGB’s, coaches and athletes to help them analyze what has facilitated their success. They should then attempt to keep in place those institutions. There is an obvious example in the sport of swimming. The American collegiate system has been an integral part of our success as a country. But we see it rapidly eroding with more and more universities eliminating “Olympic Sports” in favor of bigger salaries and budgets to compete in “revenue sports.” Yet these institutions are receiving federal funds and state funds to run what many would describe as a “professional training ground.” We need leadership to support what has long been a broad based program of collegiate athletics. Again, this is one of dozens of areas that the USOC should be providing loud and vociferous leadership to the population of the USA.