Update #2: Please read this: linked-to note regarding sources and identity. Please also take the time to look through more of the site than just this one page before passing judgment on what we're all about. Thanks.
Well, a picture might not be worth 1,000 words exactly, but this one's worth at least a few. The intensity and the grim look on Development Team head coach Seth McCadam's face as he watched his best Slalom skier of 2011, Lizzie Kistler, train at Loveland last November. A few days after this training session, Kistler was ordered to take a week off snow immediately before the opening Nor-Ams in Colorado. Skill acquisition and maintenance be damned: the logic said she had to be feeling physically fresh for race day, so she was sent home to vineyard country in California and wasn't allowed to train in the run-up to the races. And thus began the unwinding of the women's Development Team last year.
After poor performances in those opening Nor-Ams, the girls were lectured (some have reported it as more of a berating) by McCadam and other Ski Team coaches about professionalism, their approach to the sport, and the fact that they were now working for a business and needed to behave as such. One such dressing-down occurred in the dining room at the team's hotel in Lake Louise, in front of numerous other club and regional teams. For their apparent failure to meet company standards, they were forbidden by their coaches to wear their US Ski Team uniforms during the Panorama Nor-Ams, until they shaped up (which, by the way, is not accordance with USSA's own policy regarding team apparel). The girls appeared on the hill in jackets from their home clubs, or other clothing they borrowed from teammates and friends. The results and the treatment did not improve from there, although they were eventually allowed to wear their uniforms.
By season's end, the women's D-Team was decimated. Abby Fucigna, Lizzie Kistler, and Devin Delaney all returned to their home programs part way through the season, unhappy with the atmosphere and management of the D-Team. Anna Marno was injured in February, and Foreste Peterson was injured before the season even started, which left just 2 girls to finish out the season: Abby Ghent and Rose Caston. Only Ghent was renamed to the Team for 2012, even though Caston was injured in 2010 and then named for 2011. Vanessa Berther finished out much of the season traveling with her parents and handling her own travel and logistics, even often on race day. All the girls, except Ghent, refused service from the Ski Team's chosen technician, Jeff "Chief" Wagner, because of his insistence on 2-degree side bevels (laughable on anything but deep powder) and doubts about the quality of the work.
At the end of the year, the buzz among coaches was that surely McCadam would be let go, and likely his assistant coach, Mike Prado, too. Rumor had it that USSA might not even field a women's D-Team for 2012, needing to step back and reassess the role of the D-Team and women's development in ski racing nationwide. If they did field a team, would the athletes who left opt to come back?
None of that ended up happening. Both coaches kept their jobs*, an outcome that surprised many in the ski racing community. And the nominations for the 2012 women's D-Team are out, but only Peterson, Marno (both injured for 2011), and Ghent were asked back. The composition of the rest of the team can perhaps only be described as a hodgepodge. Discretionary picks abound, and the coaches seem to have capitalized on the fine print of US Ski Team nomination guidelines.
What's less surprising than who they did nominate is who they didn't nominate. And if you compare those two lists, it can be even more puzzling. We're not going to detract from the happiness that the nominated athletes must certainly be feeling, but it does seem odd to many people that one could be named to the Development Team with, say, over 70 SL points. That's the case now, and there's no question it's a little strange. Stranger, though, are the people who didn't get picked.
We looked at the top 5 girls in each event, for each birth year eligible for the D-Team ('92-'95). Some of the girls nominated appear in the top-5 rankings for their year in only one event, and they do not rank in the top-3 in that event. Only one girl, Paula Moltzan, appears in the top-5 for her year in all 4 events. Of the 10 girls nominated, only 4 of them make that top-5 in three or more events.**
None of this would be all that strange if there weren't exceedingly qualified candidates on the sidelines. Lauren Samuels, for instance, skied through injuries all year and ranks in the top-5 for her year in 3 events, and is 6th in Super-G. Vanessa Berther, on the D-Team last year, also makes the top-5 in 3 events and is 6th in Downhill. Her points are in the 30's across the board, except for her 65 Downhill points. Last year she ranked 16th in the Nor-Am DH standings (her best Nor-Am rank), so you know she's got potential there. Both Samuels and Berther have experience on the ski team and would seem like natural choices to help lead the younger crew on the D-Team (as would Rose Caston, a '92 who also ranks in the top-5 in 3 events: GS, SG, and DH). It's been said by team members and staff on the inside that these girls were simply not liked by the powers that be.
Non-nominee Kaytlyn Samuelson ranks in the top-5 for '93 's in three events: 2nd in GS and SG, and 5th in DH, and she was apparently injured in February 2011, which makes her every bit as qualified (if not more so) as any of the other '93 nominees. Brittany Lathrop, the D-Team's only nomination from the class of '95, ranks in the top-5 for '95 's in 3 events: 3rd in SL and SG, and 4th in GS. However, left off the list is '95 Anna Mounsey, who also ranks in the top-5 in 3 events: 2nd in SL, and 3rd in GS and DH.
Leaving these girls off the list seems contradictory to the D-Team's mission to develop the best young athletes in the country. The math doesn't add up: see above. The athlete development track is illogical: nominating young athletes with barely less than 100 points in core events like Super-G and Slalom doesn't make sense. And unfortunately the coaches and management apparently answer to no one: their nominations reflect an unchanged decision making process from last year and meanwhile they have not been required to justify themselves to the athletes or their parents.
Again, the point here is not that any of nominated girls shouldn't have been chosen; coaches and athletes alike debate that all year, every year, with regards to the Development Team. The point is that the girls not nominated should have been nominated, and that their exclusion is both unjustified and unjustifiable, whether or not you compare them to those that are nominated.
Here's the list of nominees. It will be interesting to see who accepts, or maybe who doesn't accept, in the wake of last year's chaos:
| NAME | HOMETOWN | DATE OF BIRTH | ||
| Abby Ghent | Edwards, CO | 9/25/92 | ||
| Libby Gibson | Jamaica, VT | 12/15/94 | ||
| Katharine Irwin | Vail, CO | 6/5/94 | ||
| Lila Lapanja | Incline Village, NV | 12/3/94 | ||
| Brittany Lathrop | South Londonderry, VT | 3/20/95 | ||
| Anna Marno | Steamboat Springs, CO | 11/23/92 | ||
| Paula Moltzan | Lakeville, MN | 5/7/94 | ||
| Foreste Peterson | Berkeley, CA | 9/9/93 | ||
| Katie Ryan | Aspen, CO | 1/3/93 | ||
| Sydney Staples | Park City, UT | 2/16/93 |
*McCadam and Prado are not listed on the 2012 roster, but they are listed in other materials distributed by USSA and the US Ski Team regarding staffing for 2012.
**Due to long-term injury, Foreste Peterson does not rank in the top-5 for her age in any event. It's impossible to say for sure where she would rank had she not been injured for over a year, but if you've seen her ski, then you know she can hang with the best of the '93 's.
Photo borrowed from flickr. You can see the original here.
Just so damn sad and really, quite unacceptable behavior. But with all businesses - always trickles down from the TOP. HOW SHOCKING!
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately is only the top of the iceberg.
ReplyDeleteBeen going on for years. USST is run to support the organization and Marolt's obscene salary. Coaches get paid virtually nothing, athletes have to pay their way and yet they spend a fortune on the ridiculous Center of Excellence. Some day the FIS will go pro with factory teams and then all this will be moot.
ReplyDeleteAccepting a spot on the D team is a great way to end a promising career.
ReplyDeleteVery few J2 female athletes are mentally strong enough to withstand the exclusive hierarchy constructed by failed men who know nothing about coaching women. D Team athletes aren't handled properly, losing self-esteem and confidence, because the architects of this program never finished the design. Ski academies are the best route, until the athlete has developed skier independence and confidence within an environment designed to nurture, cultivate, and support the whole athlete. If you leave those important development stages to coaches giving ego-driven, result-oriented demands without supportive goals...well, yikes.
Rumor has it that athletes who must fundraise cannot mention US Ski Team or USSA with their efforts, makes it hard to fundraise when you can't say what it is for huh? I guess the ski team doesn't want the sponsors to come to them asking why their money isn't going to the athletes....... Well, why isn't it? And if it isn't why can't you explain it in a manner that doesn't prevent the victims here, the athletes, from being able to go out and try to raise funding in a suitable manner. What a joke....... It IS an athletics based organization, no? Well their actions clearly show where it places it's priorities..... Perhaps this could make for a good blog?
ReplyDeletethe whole d-team nomination system is a joke. They should widen their base and have a larger pool of girls, instead of deciding right now who has potential and who doesn't. There may be some obvious picks, but for young girls it's hard to tell where they will go. As for now, most of the good girls are rejected from the team or never made it for these same reasons as above and now ski D1. Go figure. USST needs to figure it out, they are just wasting talent.
ReplyDeletePay peanuts you hire monkeys. Neither McCadam or Prado could develop film let alone an athlete. If I'm not mistaken Prado was a ski coach for one season as an assistant to Maioco at Squaw before being named as assistant D Team coach. Who has either of them developed and put through? No one.
ReplyDeleteJournalism 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.
ReplyDeleteIf you think any of this sounds bad you should take a look at the Canadian Development system (or lack there of).There are issues across the board from the "A" team to the, now non-existant, prospect team on both male and women's teams.
ReplyDeleteThe United States Olympic Committee grants the USST the right to create manage and promote the United States Olympic Ski and Snowboard Teams. The USST is a non-profit corporation and on its web pages they define who they are and what they are committed to do: “An Olympic sports organization dedicated to fielding the best skiing and snowboarding teams in the world. It’s clear that their goal is to win the most Olympic Medals and they did accomplish that goal in 2010. The goal remains unchanged: “Be the Best in the World”.
ReplyDeleteRational critical thinking:
It’s odd that the so much focus is on the D-TEAM selection process and no one has mentioned anything about creating athletes that can meet the performance selection criteria.
The USST world age rank performance selection bands for the all the teams are clearly stated.
Why haven’t / can’t the USSA club’s produce more female athletes that can demonstrate perform skills that meet the defined minimum criteria?
Well said. Would you be interested in putting a post together for this site? Serious question.
ReplyDeleteIt's so funny, that in a sport where success and failure are clearly defined by numbers, that such a subjective process still defines who races, and who doesn't.
ReplyDeleteIf the middle layer of coaches and staff would have their influence relegated to a small percentage of spots (maybe 10 - 20%), allowing them to excercise their hunches, instinct and favoritism in a way that doesn't define the system, only compliment it.
The fastest racers should race. You win at one level, you get to move up to the next level. You lose at one level, you get to move down until you prove yourself again.
Stats don't lie. Sometimes that don't completely represent the entire picture, but in a sport that is defined by numbers, it seems like a good place to create your behaviours, process and transparency.
I also think coaches should be measured on their degrees of success. If you're not improving the performance of your skiers, you are then in fact, failing. Continued failing should merit moving down, or out. Continue success should allow you to move up to a higher level.
Ski racing is the perfect place for a meritocricy to exist.
"It's so funny, that in a sport where success and failure are clearly defined by numbers"
ReplyDeleteThat is a bit of an assuming statement..but let's say you accept it as true, because as stated earlier, the goal for the USOC is for the USST to create olympic medal winning skiers.
Even if that were true that doesn't mean that the way to build a pipeline is necessarily by simply picking the fastest kids at each level. Sure at a higher level it may make sense, like the fastest racers at nor-ams go to europa cups, then world cups. But at a lower level the fastest kids often don't have the greatest potential to go onto become the fastest world cupper. Particularly at the younger FIS ages some kids are often bigger, stronger, luckier, or whatever and can end up scoring kids some great FIS results at some obscure race that will suddenly make them "the fastest." Or perhaps they are the "fastest" with 50 points as a J2, well there could easily be a kid with 70 points that has "more potential" as coaches say because technically he is stronger and simply needs to fix few things. These racers may have a more solid technical base and in the long run have a better opportunity to "succeed defined by numbers" as you said in the comment above.
So don't throw coach's discretion out the window, because I think a lot of the best coach's wouldn't describe ski racing as a sport "defined by the numbers"
Does: a coach with one year experience at a low-fis level at Squaw, a head coach who was demoted to the D team because of his lack of being able to get along with the his athletes, and an over-the-hill ski technician have the skills to determine who has a "more solid technical base?" Right...
ReplyDeleteTo the anonymous commentator who seems to believe that the "pistenchief" is incorrect in his article, let me assure you, he is not. You are the one who is completely and totally wrong. Everything about this horrific development team that the pistenchief wrote about is correct and he/she did an excellent job depicting a small portion of this past season. Yes, there is much, much more that needs to get out. For now, he did an excellent job at opening up a door that NEEDED to be opened. The b.s. that happened this year with the Development Team was seen by some NorAm athletes who saw the abuse by the coaches, ski tech errors, mismanagement, etc., and now it is starting to get back to the parents and clubs. But more importantly (and hopefully) the sponsors and board members who back this ski team up need to see the real side of what they are contributing huge amounts of money to (or more so the staff on Facebook at the COE who get their Under Armour discounts). A whole other issue.. which I think can be written and talked about for days. However, let's try to stick to the actual events with the D team and lack of competence.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the season Seth McCadam gets to return to the Park City meetings and bitch about how all of his athletes were whiners, and he couldn't work with them. Yet 2 athletes were hurt, 1 ONLY made D Team Criteria (yet all three are upgraded to C team), and 5 girls were thrown out.. how does a coaching staff keep their jobs with these numbers? The answer is McCadam stabbed his athletes in the back, saving his own job, and throwing out the careers of 5 athletes. Worth it for the $30,000? Ego much?
I know there are hundreds of people reading these blogs and checking up on the comments.. so let's get this thing big! The only way that this backwards team will fix itself is if the people of the ski racing community raise up in arms. If we continue to sit back and let abusive and amateur staff make decisions nothing will ever change.
The D team ain't the ski team... The kids, especially the women, know what they are getting into when they accept the nomination. They know what happened to Lauren, Rose and others, over the last couple of seasons with the D team. They don't have to accept the nomination. It's expensive and of dubious value. Yet they do...
ReplyDeleteIt's true. Marolt makes a lot of money. The Center of Excellence is a questionable spend at best. However, USSA is getting a lot of things right. You can't use Whistler as the only measuring stick but it's an important one. How long they can ride that wave is anyone's guess? Likely about 4 years.
Athlete's need to understand that the D team experience is not necessarily the road to greater performance for them. However, many clubs, coaches and parents push for this achievement and consider it a major milestone in the career of the kids, if not the goal entirely. What message are we sending to these young athletes when the ski racing community, writ large, endorses this behavior by willingly offering up our best and brightest?
I don't know how, as a club coach or ED, you tell an athlete who has been nominated to the D team that it's a bad deal. I wish more would. But there has to be a clearly better alternative. If there was one, athletes would choose it.
As one parent once said to me, "It's her dream. What are you going to do?"
Aren't Ghent and Irwin the only two that made published criteria? 2 out of 10? Is it the criteria being too hard to meet? Or are the standards fine and the pool of athletes we have below those standards? If so few are meeting these published criteria are our programs at the club and regional level to blame? Is this symptomatic of the entire development system in the USA? Is it an across the board problem as not any one program is producing women athletes that are making criteria?
ReplyDeleteIn the USSA published criteria it states:
"Discretion will not be used for more than 1/3 of the Development Team, unless approved by the Head Coaches and Vice President of Athletics."
So is it the thought of the USSA that there will/should have 2/3 of the team filled by criteria? Or is it that the USSA wants to name the Team mostly by discretion?
Anyone?
First, the definition of any "Development Team" should be well established, Is it a "Race Performance Squad" or a youthful band of potentials, under the tutelage of wise experienced successful professionals that will some day stand on many podiums. The course of history could possibly reveal the derailment to what was and could have been extremely successful. Aldo the original Master Mind of USST Development (Albeit a tyrant of sorts and an extreme task master who ruled by the sword (Also died by the sword) had vision! work ethic and and most of all experience. If one looks at the history of successful female athletes Aldo new what he was cultivating, he predicted and was 100% confident in the system, he staffed the Women's Team with professional, mature and previously successful Coaches, The departure of Todd brickson is when the fall of Women's Development came crashing down. The Women's D-Team was placed in the hands of well intended coach however he lacked all the necessary qualifications to Lead and guide young Women in national and international competition, perhaps he lacked the experience to confront the top down mandates that made up the "Mission of the D-Team" I feel this coach was operating with one goal in mind; self promotion! The D-Team was merely a stepping stone to bigger and better locations. The success of each girl meant another star upon the collar the failure of each girl meant frustration, which lead to many days of failed communication, this coach created a cult like environment no girl under his coaching could find success anywhere outside of his knowledge or his word! I could go on, however slander will not bring back 6 years of inappropriate athlete management. Talk with those athletes 9 out of 10 will express their frustrating and disfunctional experience. Worse, is the leaderships failure to recognize the situation and do something about it, so there its been said John Hale failed the Team blinded by his own huge Ego he was in over his head and The USST Development Director failed to to recognize it fast enough. Has anything Changed, hopefully.
ReplyDeleteNothing has changed as far as John Hale is concerned. He is still an egotistical SOB. His greed and concern for his wallet is beyond reproach. That's all he cares about. He is now preying on the Loveland Ski Club members. If someone crosses him he has one of his henchman Board members, (Tokarski) expel them and the family. Last year some 24 + LSC families left because of John Hale. This season is there will be further attrition. The LSC members need to wake up and smell the roses.
DeleteAlright folks, I think we may have reached the limits of productivity with our collective moaning and lamenting. Obviously there are a few different interpretations of what has gone right/wrong over the last few years, but let's get some ideas about what should be done moving forward; some ideas about the future.
ReplyDeleteSolution oriented, anyone?
Wow. This reads like a juicy tabloid! Being a former US Ski Team athlete and USSA Board Member, I cannot say that athlete development, retention, growth, and selection is a perfect process. We as American’s love to ridicule, point fingers, and grandstand about our systemic problems….in regards to ANYTHING. I challenge anyone out there…could you do a better job? If so, I encourage you build solutions and promote them. There is a vast audience that will support you, but simply whining about the COE, Marolt’s W-2, and athletic mismanagement will get you know where. We are still a national team that is dominating. Yes, we can be better organizationally, but someone has to put forth a plan and have skin in the game, that can get us there. Presently Bill has done that, and in order to change the status quo you have to unseat Mr. Marolt, given you have the wherewithal to fill his shoes. His shoes, while shiny and perhaps paid well, are still big shoes. He does have credentials that are undeniable.
ReplyDeleteMy solution has three phases. First, quit changing the entire operation every year. Build a plan and stick with it. Yes, criteria changes, budget changes, and there are oscillations in our athletic pipeline. Still, build a team, young athletes can dream about, not a doom and gloom “program” no one thinks is working. I remember being on the Western Region team when Julia and Kildow (Vonn) were coming up…in the region. Perhaps establishing stronger regional teams is a better idea than putting all our eggs in one basket with a D Team? You cannot beat regional support and the familiarity young athletes have with their “home programs”. I was forced to move to Park City to train. My first year was horrible. I returned to the regional team, and came back stronger and faster. What part of the development of a young athlete does the US Ski Team think it can do better at that age then a regional team? No much in my experience….and yes I have experience. We are not Austria. We are spread across a vast geographic region. Pulling a team together, especially at D team levels doesn’t always work.
Finally, the board of directors for the US Ski Team. The board is not an independent, autonomous, strategic board. It is one of working groups (that do function well) and “advisory positions” that are there based on the USSA bylaws, yet they are not given much authority to do anything. We all nod our heads and say yes. I failed as a board member. I was not the strong advocate I wanted to be, to see change come about that I, and the athletes I represented, desperately needed. My objectives and a strategic initiatives were “taken under consideration” but that was it. Fundamentally, the USSA Board of directors has a Principal-Agent problem. Does the board serve the member of USSA or Bill Marolt and the executives. The executives need to answer to the board…not the other way around. This agency dilemma leads to the final phase.
There are no internal controls/process at USSA. How can a coach, who is supposed to be supporting you and propelling you to success also be the person who cuts you and or modifies your funding? How impartial can he or she be? How much does speculation play a part? Heck…how much does politics play a part…which goes back to the poll on this blog…if your parents or home coach stick their neck out for you and say a few things here and there…will that not affect your ability to be chosen as the next Ski Team member?
Just a few ideas. The system isn’t perfect, but please be optimistic. There are very hard working athletes and coaches out there…and believe me, some very hard working staff at USSA that are very passionate about making sure we are “best in the world”. We share far more successes as the USSA then failures. We have come a long way. - 532815@gmail.com
Ski Racing, it's a cutthroat game, that about sums it up. When you're in everything and everyone is just so wonderful, and when you're not one of the in...............well you know the story all too well.
ReplyDeleteWOW! Obviously an angry parent who's daughter isn't cutting it on the hill. Let's see the real facts before it goes to print next time. And instead of tearing everyone apart lets try to support this team and help it become the best it can be.
ReplyDeleteAgain...Pink Floyd, brother...release your ISSUES...
ReplyDeleteIs anyone still out there? How about a Million (Hu)man March! Descend on Park City and demand our sport back!!
ReplyDelete