Update: Comminques Regarding Women's D-Team Post, Part 2

We've had quite a bit more commentary in the last few days regarding the analysis of the Women's Development Team selections (or, more accurately, the non-selections).  For our own sake, we should say that some of the comments on the page take a tone that we're not entirely comfortable with.  While we're hesitant to give the program administrators the benefit of the doubt here, there's no need to revert to name-calling.  In case you missed it, here's some of what was said:


One Anonymous commenter rumored that non-funded athletes are not allowed to use the USST or USSA name in their fundraising efforts.  We don't think that's correct, at least not to any meaningful extent.  You won't find Bill Marolt or Walt Evans prowling the wares at your silent auction or golf tournament looking for any sign of the logo.


Roger Brown, a Dartmouth graduate and former member of the B-Team, wrote in to educate us:
"Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. (From wikipedia - for what that is worth)

"So yes, calling the U.S. Women's D-team totalitarian was certainly hyperbolic, but not totally incorrect in my view. We should keep in mind that there is not a particularly public application process for for USST and USSA staff positions, and no input from the greater USSA community on those hirings; no appeals process for team selection decisions (and no independent board to appeal to if there were); and little input solicited or given on other major decisions at USSA (race sites for one thing).

"That said, a closed system isn't necessarily a bad system (the Red Sox don't take a lot of input from the public either...) and might be the best way to run it given the circumstances."


Another communicator, who wished to remain anonymous, noted that his daughter (who is on the D-Team) had actually established a good relationship with Seth McCadam and felt that she was already beginning to move along.  While he did note some shortcomings with the D-Team program's 4-event focus, he did not feel that everything was all wrong all the time.


And there was another milestone when we received the very first comment from an Anonymous user who disagreed with the facts as stated.  The comment appears to have been subsequently deleted from the page, though we didn't even think that was possible by anyone but us.  Nonetheless, we don't see anything wrong with republishing it here since it was submitted anonymously:

"Journalism 101. There are always two sides of every story. The unnamed author of this blog has an obvious bias toward the girls who did not make the team and against the ski team coaches who made the decisions. In order to be fair..., we should also be informed of the accomplishments of those who did make the team and what the thought process of the USSA coaches was in naming them to the team and why. Maybe there are other circumstances, criteria and factors that come into play that the author is not aware of. I don't know and that's my point. Without more information from other perspectives, presented in a unbiased manner, I'm in no position to judge. As presented, this is nothing more than irresponsible and damaging rumor mongering. We should be analyzing and acknowledging the hard work of those who did make it, and the coaches working hard to build a successful team, rather than trying to sabotage them all with unsubstantiated controversy before they even start. The author's bias and personal criticisms of the coaches leaves me wondering if he either knows or coaches one of the girls that didn't make the team. Let's see, which ski academy...hmmmmmm. "

There are some good points in there, so let's pick them out:
1.  Journalism 101, indeed.  Well played, sir.
2.  "The unnamed author of this blog..."  Yes, that's correct.  See: the poll results on the upper right.  Whether or not it's real, the perception is that criticism will be held against you by USSA, or that you are at least risking some kind of indirect retribution.  Ironic, isn't it, that the comment was submitted anonymously as well.  Looks like we're all sort of hedging our bets on the whole identity thing, aren't we?
3.  "We should be informed... what the thought process of the USSA coaches was..."  We agree, and we wish you the best of luck with your quest.  Parents of these kids (yes, they are kids, no, they are not professional athletes) have found it nearly impossible to get straight answers from anyone at USSA about how or why decisions are made.  The answer is usually very oblique, though when pushed it often comes out to something like "That's the decision, take it or leave it, it's done."  Have we, ourselves, asked?  No we have not.  But it's reasonable to guess that, were we to ask USSA or the coaches to justify their exclusions, we would be roundly rejected.  Note to USSA:  If that's not the case, please let us know.  We are interested in, and capable of, civil discourse.  Notice that we have no interest in them justifying the athletes they did include.  This is not a question of why so-and-so got named to the Team.  It's a question of why someone else didn't get named to the team.
4.  "As presented, this is nothing more than irresponsible and damaging rumor mongering."  Just to be clear, this article was fact checked by a number of different sources from both inside and outside the US Ski Team.  If you, or someone you know, has information that isn't presented here, or if you know some of this information to be factually incorrect, we need to know that.
5.  "The author's bias... leaves me wondering if he either knows or coaches one of the girls that didn't make the team. Let's see, which ski academy..."  Take your pick:
Caston: Park City
Berther: Snoqualmie
Samuels:  Rowmark
Samuelson: Ski Club Vail
Mounsey: Snoqualmie

So it must be Rowmark.  Okay, I give up.  It's me, Dave Kerwynn.*

-


*Just kidding.  It's not Dave Kerwynn.