Discussion: Sprint Discussion (continuation of WOC Quals)

Today, Sergei Zhyk and I (with off-site assistance and coordination from Pavlina) spent the day organizing a Corporate Team-Building Event in Connecticut, the proceeds from which ($600) are going to the US Team Fund.

It is sad and frustrating for me to see that this money is, apparently, being spent to help sponsor some people's overseas vacations instead of rewarding those chosen to represent the United States at the World Championships. I have all the respect in the world for Tom Hollowell and his contributions to the team but, if spots on the WOC team are to be handed out according to contributions to the team, then why not just pull out the team donor list from last year and offer the team spots to those that donated the most?

We have a team selection process for a reason. That reason is to select, in as fair a way as possible, a team that will represent the US in every race of the World Champs for which we have slots. If some of those slots are not to be filled, there better be a damn good reason, since the US runners at WOC not only have the privilege of racing, but also the responsibility of representing our country to the rest of the world. I do not fault Tom for wanting to run when the vacancy appeared, but that vacancy should never have appeared in the first place, barring injury or some sort of extreme circumstances. Perhaps the excuse of racing the following day might be an acceptable one, but the relay (the next race Americans qualified for) is not until Sunday.

And finally, from a purely personal and selfish point of view, if it had been known beforehand that not enough people wanted to run the sprint, I am sure that some alternates further down the list (Mook, Mihai, or certainly myself) would be overjoyed to go to Sweden to represent the United States, even if for just one race. I would have considered it an honor, a privilege, and a responsiblity before the rest of the team and the rest of USOF membership.

Sincerely,
Boris Granovskiy, CSU,
US Team Executive Steering Committee Member

To clarify, my previous post was not meant as a criticism or attack against Tom or any of his actions in any way. He is a great friend and supporter of the team. I did not try to imply that he acted inappropriately, but rather believe that he did what any of us would have done when the situation arose. I merely wanted to make clear that such a situation should never have arisen in the first place.

I am verry sorry if my words were misinterpreted and if people's feelings were hurt unnecessarily.

- Boris

Hi all!

As a Team supporter, I personally would not have a problem with having either-or

(a) a self-paid full alternate category, or

(b) a donor slash space-tourist category

to fill up the three WOC slots that are currently left vacant. The Team needs money, money is capitalism, capitalism is selling parts of things that should otherwise not be sold, in order to maintain financial viability. Life is full of tradeoffs. I will be very glad to write a proposal for such opportunities to be presented to the public as early as the next (expensive) WOC. But not before the proposal is properly discussed and voted upon by the Team, and a corresponding USOF Rules change is made.

I wish this thread could have waited about two weeks, but since it is started I would like to strongly endorse Boris' first message, especially every point in his third paragraph (We...Sunday) and an absolutely appropriate use of the word "damn".

I am disturbed that Boris felt some pressure to clarify his comments. Except for timing, Boris owes nobody an apology or explanation. In fact I believe that every athlete in line for this WOC slot SHOULD be equally upset. If not, their competitive character should be questioned. I'll gladly trade a diplomatic timing indescretion for a competitive attitude since this trait is far more important to the success of USA orienteering.

I hope our athletes and coaches remain focused on finding the next WOC control, then the next one, and the next one....

For the offended attackpoint spectators, I hope this is a learning experience.

I personally wouldn't be so quick to fault the athletes for not willing to run a race that they felt unprepared for, and/or wishing to save competitive energy for the Relay—which, despite being several days removed from the Sprint, is the most important race of the Championships. I would, however, note again that the technical issues of getting an alternate to Västerås on a short notice were most likely surmountable. I regret that such notice was never given, especially since the minds of the athletes seem to have been made up well in advance. Hence my questioning of the effectiveness and ethical motivations of the Team leadership on site.

As far as whether the substitution of an entered official for an athlete was legal, my understanding from reading IOF Rules and Bulletin 4 is that it was not. It appears that the event officials were not particularly concerned about letting the Rules slide for a smaller, non-podium-threatening O-nation.

The US team is faced with multiple challenges: trying to increase WOC performances in a increasily rigorous WOC week (now with 3 qualification races, as well as a relay, and if lucky/successful, one or more finals as well), with a minimal sized team, do to the cost constraints of sending a team to WOC every year. Individuals, in order to give their best performances, must have the option to not run all the races they have the opportunity to, but at the same time, representation in all the races is important as well.

To be clear, at least to my knowledge as both a US Team competitor, and an ESC member, there is not written/documented instructions on what to do should a qualification slot become available during the day or two days prior to a qualification race, which clearly states the correct or at least agreed-upon procedures for filling slots with alternate runners. I am sure this will be become clear in the near future to rectify a situation that has obviously caused concern.

Also to be clear, Tom did first both consult with the team and with me, as an ESC representative, before even posing the question to the WOC officials about competing in the sprint qualification race. I take full responsibility for my response and appologize for both the problems/contention that it has caused and for not taking more appropriate action (i.e.not reaching all of the other ESC members for consultation).

Please take into consideration the challenges of mulitple responsibilities (for both the athletes and the team leader) at an event such as WOC: and at least recognize that mistakes can be made, and that they are mistakes, not pre-conceived ideas.

WOC 2004 is now over and I would very much like to clarify my position relative to some of the above comments and postings. I have purposely waited to do so until the WOC was over since I felt the correct focus for the team should be on the ongoing events and races.

--> EricW: The clarification Boris offered is related to an e-mail I sent him off-line from Attackpoint and for purely personal reasons. The first paragraph of his posting would seem to imply that a spot on the WOC team as either athlete or leader was "purchased" through a contribution to the team. I was deeply hurt by those suggestions. Boris was not pressured into a clarification but wrote it without being requested to do so. I have nothing but respect for that. The remainder of Boris' posting I find to add value to this important discussion.

-->Vladimir: I am not sure what you mean by the statement "questioning of the effectiveness and ethical motivations of the Team leadership on site" but I would like to explain what actually happened and the time-line of events.

At the beginning of the WOC week we had a discussion of who would run which events. In fact only one male athlete, Eddie, said that he definitely wanted to run the sprint event at that point in time. Mikell had already made it clear that he did not want to run the sprint in any circumstances. Brian and James wanted to wait until seeing if they qualified for another final first. At the team meeting in the evening following the middle-distance qual on monday Brian said that he wanted to run the sprint. My view at that point in time was that James or Mikell may change their mind about running the sprint and I made it clear to them that I would not turn in the entry form for the sprint qual until tuesday at 12 noon in case they wanted to run. I did not mention to any team member or raise the question of myself filling the empty spot until it was absolutely clear that neither James nor Mikell had changed their minds. Shortly before handing in the entry form I spoke to Karen as an ESC representative and asked her opinion. However, I want to point out that I take the full responsibility for the final decision. At that point in time I was not assured of a start since I was not entered as an athlete. As you so correctly point out, the event officials gratiously allowed a start. I can guarantee you that I have an absolutely clear conscience as far as my ethical behaviour goes. I did not even dream about entering a WOC race prior to this happening. I would also never have asked about entering myself if I did not feel that I was physically fit to do my best in representing my country.

I guess if I had been an "effective" team official I would have notified the ESC that 2 sprint qual spots were available after our team meeting at the beginning of the week and 2 alternates would have been sent out. Instead I chose to wait and see if the already selected athletes would change their minds and run the event. If I had not chosen this course, Brian would not have run the Sprint qual and quite honestly I doubt we would have had a sprint final runner.

Or on Monday, after the middle qual (our team meeting was at 7 pm Swedish time) I guess I should have notified the team ESC that one sprint qual place was probably available. That would have allowed an alternate to be flown out monday evening (?) or most likely tuesday evening (assuming flights weren't already booked) for a wednesday morning start. Would that preparation really have been fair to the alternate? Would he be able to perform at his best? Again I chose to prioritize the athletes already on hand and hoped one of them would decide to run.

I'm sorry, but relative to these 2 scenarios I can't see what I did wrong in not calling in an alternate.

This is of course all assuming that I as team leader had actually received any instruction on how I was to handle such a situation as the one that arose. Prior to the WOC week we were supposed to be 2 team leaders however unfortunately Beatrice Zurcher, for very good reasons, was unable to attend at the last moment. I don't know if Beatrice had received any instruction from the ESC, I don't think so. I found myself on the way to the WOC with very little information on what my task was and what tools I had to perform my task with. What information I had was collected by Beatrice and myself prior to WOC directly from the athletes. Based upon this I think we as a team worked very well together and honestly I feel pride in the work I did and for the athletes performances, and a very positive social environment that we had during the 2 weeks involved.

I intend on writing a report to the team ESC relative to the WOC 2004 and some recommendations I have for clarifying the team leaders "job description" for future WOCs. I would be honored to serve as team leader again in the future if asked. Now I hope this discussion can continue in the hands of the ESC and with viewpoints on the issue and not necessarily the persons involved.

Best regards,
Tom Hollowell

Thanks, Tom, for this valuable and sincere explanation. But more importantly, thanks for the service you did on behalf of the team and for a willingness to shoulder this responsibility in the future.

Some comments ...

1) First, to reiterate my previous statement so that it's clear upfront, I agree that Tom should not have run the sprint. In retrospect, it was clearly a poor decision that I think we all regret was made.

2) Given that Tom shouldn't have run and James and Mikell did not wish to run (for legitimate reasons), the only feasible option we had at our disposal was to leave it vacant.

3) As far as alternates go, at WOC they do not exist. A person is either registered as an athlete or not. At present we send a team of 4+4 and those 8 people do their best to represent the country. After arrival/accreditation in Sweden, there were no alternates.

4) To me, the concept of flying an alternate in from the US mid-WOC week is insane. Never in a million years would that possibility have entered my mind.

5) If we wish to field bigger teams to WOC or send "alternates", this is something that should be discussed.

6) We had 24 starts at WOC this year. What happened to this one sprint slot (an event that we basically don't even do in the US except as team fundraisers) is so much less important than the 23 starts made by US team members who were doing their absolute best to represent the US at the World Champs.

Brian

If at any point on Saturday (Pacific time) I was told that an alternate needed help getting to the WOC site before Wednesday morning, I would have gladly helped with FF miles. In retrospect, this would have been much better than using the miles to go myself. There were two chances to go and get there on time, on Sunday afternoon/evening and same on Monday, and there were plenty of FF seats from both coasts and for inside Europe.

(Eric B: a problem like we had in June with Jukola, in similar circumstances, would not have happened because Stockholm is an "e-ticket market" and Helsinki isn't.)

However fine the intentions of all involved parties may have been, now we are facing some explanations to provide to Joe Orienteer/USOF Member as to why the US Team appears to have this detailed selection process with some highly involved numerology and a set of rules, and what ends up happening is whoever has access to the Team and WOC event officials ends up running without even a touch of formal approval from any part of USOF.

Some of us are working very hard to put down a set of rules for orienteering in this country for instances in which there aren't sufficient ones; and, most importantly, to work on the mass perception so that the rules that are already in place are indeed enforced, not just some vague notion of common sense that may be one thing for one person and entirely different for another one. It appears that we need to clearly describe the WOC on-site line of authority and add it to the Selection Criteria and the "US Teams and Authorization for Intl. Competition" section of USOF Rules.

I'm biting my tounge so hard its bleeding...just like I was the middle of last week when this thread started.

You can't *immagine* how hard it is to best represent people back home with this shit going on (and that *IS* what we were trying to do over there, despite what some people seem to be implying). Its a "damn" good thing no one got hurt before the relay because I don't think I would have been mentally up to step in for it after Wednesday. Tom's description of the events above is EXACTLY how I saw it unfold on the ground there. Please read it *carefully*. Note that some of these posts are really pissing people off even though those folks have the strength of character (which I apparently lack) to refrain from saying anything right now. Attackpoint is read worldwide in the O community. People from *other teams* were asking me about the situation during WOC. I think thats bad.

I spent alot of time walking in the rain and wind Friday night in Vasteras turning this over, and even more time in the middle of my work day today. Please note that I'm still biting my tounge. I feel I've said too much already.

I think this matter has been blown way out of proportion. There's no sense in creating hard feelings about one race slot, especially after the WOC team did such a great job of representing the US last week.

What we did with the World University Champs team was decide a few weeks in advance who would be running each race. We also knew who would step in to run a race if someone got injured.

This approach had several advantages over waiting until the team arrived for the competition. One benefit was that everyone was able to train for their races before they left, In addition, any issues or concerns were ironed out early.

Once again, please read Tom's message above *carefully*. Pay particular attention to the decision times, IOF required competitor submission times and the decision drivers.

Vlad is right in one aspect of this issue - some people in USOF take liberty to interpret rules (or even ignore them) or find ways around in pursuit of their own benefits or favor. This country will not see any international success unless rules are clear, well accepted, and ENFORCED. None of the serious athletes can be raised within the flawed framework. Amateurism will produce only amateurs.

The team and orienteering community in the USA is very grateful to those tens and hundreds people who are working hard and contributing to the team and orienteering sport in the country. Unfortunately this kind of situations spoil the whole picture. Some conclusions need to be drawn and actions taken to keep our sport enjoyable and fair for all.

On the side, we should expect from all USA Team members without any exceptions to participate in at least one fund raising event per year. I think it should be one of the selection criteria for the team. It is an obligation to the team sponsors who organize these events.

As one member of the orienteering community, I will say that I had no problem with what happened in Sweden. They did what made sense at the time. I do have a problem with the complaining about it here on Attackpoint ie the public media. The timing of the complaining couldn't have been worse. Reminds me of another steller example--the criticism of the junior training methods right in the middle of JWOC! I think that this infighting amongst team members reflects negatively on the whole team and should have been handled privately via US team email. Join hands and sing Koom Ba Yah, live together in a biosphere for a year, whatever. Work on your team camaraderie and trust. This will have a bigger impact on WOC performance than more rules.

When did the athletes know what events they were going to be running in? Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but I find it strange that someone was entered (or at least slotted to enter) in a race in which for a long time he had said he wasn't going to run in.
Sorry if I may have gotten this wrong, it was from the previous stream.

I frankly have no interest in supporting hand-holding, team-building, good-feeling, kumbaya-singing exercises. I do have interest in helping a competitive team of athletes who devote a significant time to training in order to achieve the best possible performance, helping with my time and money. Maybe I'm alone on this, but I would think at least some USOF members feel the same way. In other words, camaraderie does not appear to be adequate substitution for a year's worth of VO_2max intervals.

I think all USOF members have a right to express an opinion on whether those representing their federation are doing a job worthy of the support that has been given them. I don't think that a team that is confident and serious in its preparation should be afraid of a public scrutiny of its efforts. It is obvious that the feedback that several remarkable performances at this WOC received has been overwhelmingly positive. There has been an organizational issue that has not been handled well. There is a sizeable difference between calling for the quickest resolution of this issue and "infighting amongst team members".

It seems counter-productive to me to send a team all the way to Sweden and in the middle of the competition, blast their moral character. Maybe it wasn't intended that way, but my perception is that they felt attacked. Attacking to me is part of infighting.

Sure everyone has a right to express their opinion, but couldn't it have waited until the end of WOC?

I sent some comments earlier to the ESC on this topic, but I have see more there. Apparently Attackpoint is where the interesting discussion is.

Overall, this appears to a be a relatively quick field decision to fill the empty slot. It seemed reasonable given the rationale used, and given the fact that they (apparently) didn't consider the feelings of those other US athletes who have worked hard for years, but have been long denied the prize of representing the the US at WOC, nor of those who work to keep the WOC selection process fair amongst a competitive crowd (this one included :) I'm happy to see what appears to be most of the US WOC Team (incl. Tom) realizing this as well in retrospect, and I think we should move past this as an 'oops, sorry, I won't do it again' situation.

As for a few specific points:
- I don't have a significant problem with the selected athletes not running the Sprint. We selected them, they went to represent the US at WOC, and they did so (at the vast majority of opportunties for them to do so.) While I think it would be better if they started every race they could, if you don't like it, then, via the Team Trials (& rankings) you can beat out for a spot on the Team, and start every race yourself.
- As for the vacant spot in the Sprint that became especially clear, I would MUCH prefer the spot to have been left vacant. If somebody one the Team Trials scoring list could get there in time (e.g. if Boris was there spectating), and could be registered as an athlete at the last minute*, then they could run. (*Note that a late registering athlete seems at least as reasonable of a WOC process as letting an official run.)
--> As for people clarifying who is allowed by the US to run in a World Champs, please see http://www.geocities.com/rileywyatt/Esc/TeamTrials... - bottom line: if you want to run at WOC, get yourself on the Team Trials scoring list. A particularly relevant quote: "The WOC Team ... will consist of the number of competitors required to make up a WOC relay team, plus one. ... Under normal circumstances, these will be taken from the top (four) candidates from the scoring list at the Team Trials. If one of the members of the WOC Team is not able to attend, the next highest placed person on the scoring list will be substituted." There is (intentionally) no mention for substituting someone who has not earned a place on this list.

Again, overall, I understand how this decision was made, and seemed fine at the time, hence 'oops, sorry' (as more or less has already been said), and let's try not to do this again. (Although we'll naturally stir up something else controversial too someday - seems like a normal part of running a competitive team :)