More Drama for USRowing

[jrd]

Except that club rowing is second tier. Everyone points to the clubs that have quasi varsity status with coaches on salary with the rec department or who own the boathouse that the varsity women rent and think that's a model for men's collegiate rowing. The reality of club rowing is hand to mouth with the inmates running the asylum, poor safety practices, and a coaching corp that is incredibly hit or miss with very little longevity and programs without institutional culture.

Slim's posts are often really insightful and nuanced. I wonder if he intentionally described how the USNT feels relative to other national federations with this comparison.

[crewu]

So, now folks at USRowing are just flagrantly ignoring the By-laws (while at the same time asking members to amend them). This is just more of the same as to why so many people hate this organization.

And now Amanda Kraus is in the thick of it. Sigh, I had such high hopes for her.

Quoting my previous comment to emphasize how USRowing is ignoring its own by-laws and USOPC mandates of Athlete representation.

On September 2 the HPC met without the appointed athlete representatives Tom P and Meghan M present. Perhaps it was to tell the other 4 they were being let go?
https://usrowing.org/documents/2021/10/ ... df?id=2769

And whoever is taking minutes for these meetings is just mocking the membership.

[Mango]

So, now folks at USRowing are just flagrantly ignoring the By-laws (while at the same time asking members to amend them). This is just more of the same as to why so many people hate this organization.

And now Amanda Kraus is in the thick of it. Sigh, I had such high hopes for her.

Quoting my previous comment to emphasize how USRowing is ignoring its own by-laws and USOPC mandates of Athlete representation.

On September 2 the HPC met without the appointed athlete representatives Tom P and Meghan M present. Perhaps it was to tell the other 4 they were being let go?
https://usrowing.org/documents/2021/10/ ... df?id=2769

And whoever is taking minutes for these meetings is just mocking the membership.

Jesus. I have never really gone through the USRowing meeting minutes before. These are astonishingly bad. There are too many people involved in the sport who work for too many large companies, or NFP's, or local governments, to claim ignorance. Who is the secretary? I did some random clicking on dates from past years and this is not a new problem.

For anybody curious of other NGB's, both large and small, here are a few random examples.

USATF: https://www.flipsnack.com/usatf/bod-mee ... -view.html
USA Ski and Snowboard: https://usskiandsnowboard.org/sites/def ... 202021.pdf
USA Curling: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... 281%29.pdf
USA Badminton: http://usabadminton.org/wp-content/uplo ... h-2021.pdf


And here is USRowing HPC...

https://usrowing.org/documents/2021/10/ ... df?id=2769

[Faster-n-faster]

"As we drafted these procedures, one of the biggest motivators for change was athlete feedback. We have spent much of the past 3 months listening to our high performing athletes and consolidating all of their experiences regarding the existing system."

I need to ask the question…what athletes did you talk to? Cause if you’re only talking to bitter club athletes, you’re gonna get one side of the story. Let’s face it, if you’ve been bumming around in the club system for several years without getting an invite to the TC or performing in some other way, you might just need to move on with your life.

I see two people on the HPC that has less-than-stellar experiences with the training centers and I think that played into the decision making here. Hint: not Tom and Musnicki

[Mango]

Wolf posted this in the boats section, but I think this RFP is pretty integral to the conversations being had here revolving around the restructure and transparency. The ask does not seem to quite jive with what they put out there for the coming calendar year.

https://usrowing.org/documents/2021/10/ ... at_RFP.pdf

USRowing is asking for the below for the senior team alone. Which in a centralized model makes sense. But if they are decentralizing the NT, and are on record for only keeping 12 men and 12 women in Princeton, WTF do they need 8 total 8's? There is not enough athletes to row them. And I believe based on selection procedures, there still won't be enough athletes to fill (8) 8's.

(8) 8+
(4) L2x'
(8) 4x/-
(12) 2x/-
(12) 1x

So with the plethora of equipment, exceeding the number of athletes in house, where is the rest of it going? Are they going to distribute it to the other clubs/satellite locations? If so, what clubs, how does one apply to be one, what certs are needed, etc?

USRowing also wants you to give $72k that will be dispersed to the athletes at the World Championships who are rowing your boats. But....they also don't totally gaurantee that anybody will row your equipment at an international regatta.

USRowing will work to identify the leading candidates in these boat classes and work
with the Official Supplier and athletes to put them into the Official Suppliers’ hulls for
training and competition as a first option

USRowing will commit to the use of the Official Boat Supplier’s hulls in the Olympic-class
“camp” boats, which will include W8+, M8+, W4x, M4x, W4- and M4-.*

* For discussion: If for some reason one of the noted boat classes needs to switch
manufacturers for competitive reasons, USRowing must provide notice 90 days prior to the
world championships, and the named official supplier will have a right to address any concerns
prior to a switch being made.

[andpaddle]

Wolf posted this in the boats section, but I think this RFP is pretty integral to the conversations being had here revolving around the restructure and transparency. The ask does not seem to quite jive with what they put out there for the coming calendar year.

https://usrowing.org/documents/2021/10/ ... at_RFP.pdf

USRowing is asking for the below for the senior team alone. Which in a centralized model makes sense. But if they are decentralizing the NT, and are on record for only keeping 12 men and 12 women in Princeton, WTF do they need 8 total 8's? There is not enough athletes to row them. And I believe based on selection procedures, there still won't be enough athletes to fill (8) 8's.

(8) 8+
(4) L2x'
(8) 4x/-
(12) 2x/-
(12) 1x

So with the plethora of equipment, exceeding the number of athletes in house, where is the rest of it going? Are they going to distribute it to the other clubs/satellite locations? If so, what clubs, how does one apply to be one, what certs are needed, etc?

USRowing also wants you to give $72k that will be dispersed to the athletes at the World Championships who are rowing your boats. But....they also don't totally gaurantee that anybody will row your equipment at an international regatta.

USRowing will work to identify the leading candidates in these boat classes and work
with the Official Supplier and athletes to put them into the Official Suppliers’ hulls for
training and competition as a first option

USRowing will commit to the use of the Official Boat Supplier’s hulls in the Olympic-class
“camp” boats, which will include W8+, M8+, W4x, M4x, W4- and M4-.*

* For discussion: If for some reason one of the noted boat classes needs to switch
manufacturers for competitive reasons, USRowing must provide notice 90 days prior to the
world championships, and the named official supplier will have a right to address any concerns
prior to a switch being made.

Where are you getting eight 8s from? It looks like that document requests two 8s for senior men, two 8s for senior women, and one each for U23 M/W. Given the need for occasional repairs and different sizes for different squads, it doesn't seem unreasonable as a request? The full request including small boats is definitely a lot of boats for the permanent training center squad size that's now being proposed but I guess they want to have them on hand for when they have larger selection camps or something?

[caustic]

I think it is ridiculous to place complete blame on Teti and Terhaar for the overall team performances at the Olympics or even not qualifying crews for the Olympics. They basically have control over the camp boats, and nothing else. They don't decide the selection procedures - that is done by the HPC. So especially in Teti's situation, he controlled the 8 and the 4-. How did they do? They were the only two men's boats to qualify for the Olympics and both of those crews made the A final with the 8 only 2 seconds off of a gold medal (the 4- was 5 seconds off of gold). So pinning the "failure" of the teams on Teti and Terhaar makes no sense.

I have said this before and I will keep saying it, where the US fails is by having open trials.

We have a lot of good rowers in this country, but the only way to get the fastest boats is to get all of those good athletes together and have them training together, pushing each other every day, and putting together the fastest lineups to represent the country (They also should have to meet minimum time standards as well -if a crew does not have the speed, then they don't go). Leaving open the option to let people train in different locations, with slower teammates only dilutes the quality of training, and the pool of athletes to make fast boats.

I would venture a guess (or at least that I remember off the top of my head - feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that the last time we had a "non camp trials crew" that actually medaled at the Olympics would be the Lewis/Enquist 2x back in '84 (and those were boycotted by the eastern bloc countries).

Honestly I think that USRowing/Kraus should take a serious look at this since is all about trying to medal. So take the emotion and subjectivity out of it and simply look at what system (camp vs trial) produces more medals at Worlds and Olympics?

The 2- of Bea and Murphy took silver in 2000 and PennAC had 4-‘s in 1988 and 1992 who took silvers as well. These were all non-camp boats, so it’s been quite a while that a non-camp boat has medaled at the Olympics.

In the same period of time, say from 2000 until today, aside from the 8 and the 4, which camp boats medalled? Were those "camp" boats because they were selected at NSRs, or were they active athletes who had been training at teh USTC for the months and/or years beforehand?

There's camp boats, and then there's "camp" boats.

[caustic]

https://usrowing.org/news/2021/10/15/le ... mance.aspx

12 men , 12 women in Princeton

Teti coach of CRC. Clubs to be at the forefront.


****edit . Have to take this in a bit more.

Athlete Feedback: This process has been designed in direct response to athlete feedback gathered in our 2021 athlete survey, 2021 athlete interviews, and the USOPC Arent Fox Investigation Report. Athletes have asked for more control within their performance journey and a more objective selection process.

Small Boat Emphasis: This plan is built to provide a cascading trials and camp process that allows the best performing athletes the opportunity to make boat classes in an organized timeline. Participation and performance at trials events will be used to earn positions on the team and to earn funding. This effort will reward small boat skill, which we believe will contribute to the improved performance across all boat classes. For those boat classes with selection camps, they will be run on shorter time frames, earlier in the year. In addition, 75 percent of these camp invites will be performance-based. Selectors will be chosen to run the camps, and the athletes named to the boats will get to nominate a lead coach in consultation with the new CHPD. Athlete performance at the National Team Trials will be the predominant pathway to selection and/or invitation for these boat classes.

Fund Athletes, Not Boat Classes: While an emphasis on small boats is a cornerstone of this process, we are outlining a system where funding (DAS) will follow athletes through their performance at trials and selection camps, and not necessarily the final boat class they make. This allows our top athletes to decide which boat classes they would like to compete in, rather than forcing athletes into boats for which they may not be best suited.

I don't even know how to react. It is so different than anything I thought would come out of this. Defund the 8???

You know, this isn't that bad of a strategy. for years and years we've all known that people who are good at moving small boats move big ones better. For DECADES, small boat rowing has been essentially non-existent in the US "feeder" programs. Sure, college guys get tossed in pairs over the summer from time to time, and of course whoever doesn't make the 8+ at camp gets tossed into smaller boats, and predictably they get the kind of forgettable results that kind of "training" provides.

Instead of having 30 scullers fighting it out for 3 seats, and the rest all going home, how come they aren't being invited, or subsidized, to continue their training? Also, how come the guys in the 8+ aren't being required to fight for their slot by doing small boat speed trials?

If you want fast boats, you need to race your athletes as much as possible. As my old college coach once said "if it's a duck, you race it!". As others have said, simply making your 8+ boats seat race for months on end, or do long rows for months on end, or do practice rows in small boats for months on end, is not going to do it. There's no greater motivator than necessity. As Frank Cunningham used to tell me, "you should be rowing as if there's a shark biting at your stern!" And then he proceeded to put the launch about 6 inches off my stern, and I think he even started to slowly open the throttle.

It's going to take a different kind of coach to make that happen - one with better soft skills, who is better at corralling and convincing more independent athletes to work together as a team. Less commander and more guru. Less yelling and more discussion. Instead of athletes being told what to do, they should be asked to chime in. The coach is the team leader, but emphasis on being IN THE TEAM.

Fear will bring the speed we need to win. Fear of this space station! I mean, er, fear of having to go home!

[Slim]

I guess. Were it me, I’d have started by funding the small boats at the JR world and U23 level and self funding any other entries and then built the capability from the bottom up. This change at the beginning of a short cycle with senior team athletes who need to produce at the Olympics in 3 years seems like a recipe for disaster.

Prediction: if the money really follows the athletes, the top athletes all decide to row the 8. Probably out of Princeton and CRC.

[crewu]

I guess. Were it me, I’d have started by funding the small boats at the JR world and U23 level and self funding any other entries and then built the capability from the bottom up. This change at the beginning of a short cycle with senior team athletes who need to produce at the Olympics in 3 years seems like a recipe for disaster.

Prediction: if the money really follows the athletes, the top athletes all decide to row the 8. Probably out of Princeton and CRC.

The 2022 selection procedures criteria says the 8+s are pretty much unfunded so I think that is unlikely. Although the funding outlined below is different from the Direct Athlete Support DAS so I guess anything is possible. Still an expensive decision for the rowers to collectively make unless they know in advance they have a sponsor picking up the tab.

intent is to fund the following boat classes to at least one World Cup and,
performance dependent, the World Championships. Boats must place top seven (or in the
case that top 7 is not in the top 50% of entries the crew must finish in the top 50% of
entries) at the second or third World Cup to qualify for funding to the World
Championships. If the athletes do not qualify for funding based on their World Cup
performance, they still have the right to represent the United States in their respective boat
class. If an unfunded priority boat places in the top five at the World Championship, they
would be eligible for a reimbursement of their World Championship Fee.

Given the 2022 budget uncertainty the available funding, eligible boat classes to receive
funding are:
W1x, LW2x, M2x, W2x, M2-, W2-, M4-, W4-, W4x
If the 2022 budget allows the following boat classes may be considered for funding:
M1x, LM2x, M4x

All athletes and coaches attending the 2022 World Rowing Championships in an unfunded
boat class will be responsible for all costs. The fee will be posted May 1, 2022. They will not
include to cost of boat rental, oars, nor airfare. The fee must be paid on or before August 1,
2022.

[Mango]

I guess. Were it me, I’d have started by funding the small boats at the JR world and U23 level and self funding any other entries and then built the capability from the bottom up. This change at the beginning of a short cycle with senior team athletes who need to produce at the Olympics in 3 years seems like a recipe for disaster.

Prediction: if the money really follows the athletes, the top athletes all decide to row the 8. Probably out of Princeton and CRC.

The 2022 selection procedures criteria says the 8+s are pretty much unfunded so I think that is unlikely. Although the funding outlined below is different from the Direct Athlete Support DAS so I guess anything is possible. Still an expensive decision for the rowers to collectively make unless they know in advance they have a sponsor picking up the tab.

intent is to fund the following boat classes to at least one World Cup and,
performance dependent, the World Championships. Boats must place top seven (or in the
case that top 7 is not in the top 50% of entries the crew must finish in the top 50% of
entries) at the second or third World Cup to qualify for funding to the World
Championships. If the athletes do not qualify for funding based on their World Cup
performance, they still have the right to represent the United States in their respective boat
class. If an unfunded priority boat places in the top five at the World Championship, they
would be eligible for a reimbursement of their World Championship Fee.

Given the 2022 budget uncertainty the available funding, eligible boat classes to receive
funding are:
W1x, LW2x, M2x, W2x, M2-, W2-, M4-, W4-, W4x
If the 2022 budget allows the following boat classes may be considered for funding:
M1x, LM2x, M4x

All athletes and coaches attending the 2022 World Rowing Championships in an unfunded
boat class will be responsible for all costs. The fee will be posted May 1, 2022. They will not
include to cost of boat rental, oars, nor airfare. The fee must be paid on or before August 1,
2022.

A whole lot of questions.

If you win trials, the wording seems to imply you have to take a seat in either the 2- or the 4-. There is no option for the 8+? So I am not sure it is even possible for the fastest 2-'s to "choose" the 8+.

The 8+ is unfunded. But, like, what if CRC or PNRA just say, "OK, we will pay your way". I would be shocked if CRC would not fit that bill for those guys (and gals?) out there.

If the top 2-'s do row the 8, and it is unfunded, do those athletes still qualify for DAC, or does being in the 8 disqualify you?

Edit: Worth noting, USRowing is backing 6 womens events to 3 mens events. Given the last 20 years in the US, not surprising.

[crewu]

Edit: Worth noting, USRowing is backing 6 womens events to 3 mens events. Given the last 20 years in the US, not surprising.

Based on that the men could (and someone probably will) file a discrimination law suit and I predict would 100% win.

USRowing has made it very clear they are now not funding boat classes. They are funding the best athletes. And yet here we are.

If the DAS funding even remotely follows this gender priority the NGB is going to place itself in great jeopardy of a lot of legal fees and additional payouts.

This also goes way against all the PR about equity and inclusion Amanda Kraus has claimed to stand for. Quite the shame.

Even US Soccer pays its men's and women's teams the same now.
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/15/10372373 ... -contracts

U.S. Soccer said it "firmly believes that the best path forward for all involved, and for the future of the sport in the United States, is a single pay structure for both senior national teams."

[Mango]

Edit: Worth noting, USRowing is backing 6 womens events to 3 mens events. Given the last 20 years in the US, not surprising.

Based on that the men could (and someone probably will) file a discrimination law suit and I predict would 100% win.

USRowing has made it very clear they are now not funding boat classes. They are funding the best athletes. And yet here we are.

If the DAS funding even remotely follows this gender priority the NGB is going to place itself in great jeopardy of a lot of legal fees and additional payouts.

This also goes way against all the PR about equity and inclusion Amanda Kraus has claimed to stand for. Quite the shame.

Even US Soccer pays its men's and women's teams the same now.
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/15/10372373 ... -contracts

U.S. Soccer said it "firmly believes that the best path forward for all involved, and for the future of the sport in the United States, is a single pay structure for both senior national teams."

So, based on the Tokyo Olympics I think this follows the "fund the athlete not the boat" model. The men qualified just 2 boats for Tokyo. Meanwhile the women qualified all of them.

I do not know the merits backing any lawsuit one way or the other.

[oneofthorsboys]

I was wondering then that old chestnut would rear its ugly head again.. Seems whatever I read about US Rowing eventually comes around to lawsuits and/or erg scores.
I wish you all the best. It would be great to see the US back up there with the top nations.

[crewu]

I was wondering then that old chestnut would rear its ugly head again.. Seems whatever I read about US Rowing eventually comes around to lawsuits and/or erg scores.
I wish you all the best. It would be great to see the US back up there with the top nations.

Fairness is a pillar of sportsmanship and the USA has legal protections for its athletes. Despite your highbrow dig I'll never see that as a bad thing.