<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:21656.wais]
OLYMPIC FAMILY--
FUNCTIONAL OR DYSFUNCTIONAL?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,
BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 9, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-81
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
21-656 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah MAXINE WATERS, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
RIC KELLER, Florida ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DARRELL ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
MIKE PENCE, Indiana DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE KING, Iowa
TOM FEENEY, Florida
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
Philip G. Kiko, General Counsel-Chief of Staff
Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana, Chairman
STEVE KING, Iowa SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
ELTON GALLEGLY, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia MAXINE WATERS, California
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California
George Fishman, Chief Counsel
Art Arthur, Counsel
Luke Bellocchi, Full Committee Counsel
Cindy Blackston, Professional Staff
Nolan Rappaport, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
JUNE 9, 2005
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in
Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman, Committee
on the Judiciary............................................... 1
The Honorable John N. Hostettler, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Indiana, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims....................... 2
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims....................... 3
WITNESSES
Mr. Jim Scherr, Chief Executive Officer, United States Olympic
Committee
Oral Testimony................................................. 7
Prepared Statement............................................. 10
Mr. Mark Henderson, Chair, Athletes' Advisory Council
Oral Testimony................................................. 13
Prepared Statement............................................. 15
Mr. Paul Hamm, 2004 Athens Olympics All-Around Champion
Oral Testimony................................................. 17
Prepared Statement............................................. 19
Mr. Thomas Burke, Vice Chair, Pan American Sports Council, USOC
Oral Testimony................................................. 21
Prepared Statement............................................. 23
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary........................... 47
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and
Claims......................................................... 47
Letter from John B. Langel, Law Offices of Ballard Spahr Andrews
& Ingersoll, LLP, to Jim Scherr, Acting Chief Executive Officer
& Chief of Sport Performance, United States Olympic Committee.. 49
Prepared Statement of Michael T. Harrigan, former Executive
Director, President's Commission on Olympic Sports............. 57
Prepared Statement of Robert F. Kanaby, Executive Director,
National Federation of State High School Associations.......... 65
OLYMPIC FAMILY--
FUNCTIONAL OR DYSFUNCTIONAL?
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security, and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:35 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John N.
Hostettler (Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Hostettler. The Subcommittee will come to order.
At this time, the Chair recognizes the Chairman of the Full
Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, for purposes of an
opening statement.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am here both to make a statement and to welcome my
constituent, Paul Hamm, who is an Olympic Gold Medalist and who
was a victim of the United States Olympic Committee's
dysfunctionality after his splendid come-from-behind victory in
the men's all around gymnastics competition in Athens.
This unexpected comeback victory was the pride of America,
and then this glorious victory turned into a horrible nightmare
for Paul Hamm.
Seeing him hung out to dry for days on the television
compelled me to come to his defense, and in doing so, I got a
personal view of the inner workings of the Olympic system and
its faults and weaknesses. And one of the reasons I'm here
today as an ex officio Member of this Subcommittee, and this is
the first opening statement that I have made at a Subcommittee
hearing since I became the Full Committee Chairman 4\1/2\ years
ago is because I want to make sure that what happened to Paul
Hamm at Athens, where he was hung out to dry and had to fend
for himself for hours and days on end, never happens again to
an American Olympic athlete who was sent by the U.S.O.C. to
compete and excel in the Olympic Games.
Paul Hamm is an Olympic champion who competed to the best
of his ability. He followed all the rules of his sport, and he
won his gold medal by doing all that is expected of an elite
athlete.
He is the perfect example of an American Olympian that
makes our country proud not only through his athletic
achievement, but also because Olympians represent this country
with honor and dignity.
And while understanding the need to handle controversies
during the games quietly and in a uniform manner, the support
system in place for an athlete should not be silent in the
controversy that involves a competitor from an aggressive and
vocal country.
This is the situation Paul Hamm found himself in for far
too long, and he was there alone.
I hope today that we find changes have been made to address
this type of situation in the future.
While the U.S. Olympic Committee has made internal reforms
to its governance structure, I strongly believe that reforms
need to be made in the organization's priorities, both
procedurally and monetarily with regard to Olympic athletes, as
well as those who are up and coming within the Olympic
Movement.
My understanding is that some of the backroom negotiations
and motives of officials that steered Mr. Hamm's experience are
commonplace within the Olympic family, and that it should be
stopped.
It has been alleged that the head of the gymnastics
national governing body, who was so absent in the defense of
Mr. Hamm, was in the process of negotiating for a job within
the Federation of International Gymnastics and was also
affiliated with the gymnastics tour that Mr. Hamm had chosen
not to join. There shouldn't even be a perception that the
actions of individuals in positions of influence are being
governed by pending job opportunities or an athlete's personal
choices about participating in profit making non-Olympic
endeavors.
Additionally, allegations have been made that too much of
the USOC's budget may be going to bonuses for high-level
officials within the organization for travel and
accommodations, for meetings of the Olympic governing structure
and increasingly larger entourages accompanying athletes to
Olympic events, rather than on Olympic athletic programs which
need the funding and programs that are designed to produce
future Olympians.
This is certainly not what most people would perceive as
representing appropriate prioritization by the Olympic
Committee, and hopefully we can get some answers today, and if
necessary address those concerns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentleman.
Today, the Subcommittee will hear testimony--excuse me--on
how well the relationships between the U.S. Olympic Committee,
Olympic athletes, and sports national governing bodies and
organizations within the Olympic family are functioning, as
well as how well the USOC itself is performing under its new,
reorganized governing structure.
There may be a need to make additional changes to the
Federal charter with regard to USOC procedures and purposes so
U.S. athletes and sports organizations are getting the support
and guidance they need.
The U.S. Olympic Committee has been a federally-chartered
organization since 1950. The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur
Sports Act, enacted in 1978, made the USOC the central
coordinating organization for Olympic and Pan American Games
sports and their athletes. The USOC's role under its charter is
to provide financial, educational, training, and medical
support systems for these athletes.
Over the last several years, the USOC has been the subject
of many scandals. There was widespread agreement that the
unwieldy managerial structure and internal politics were, in
large part, the key to these scandals.
In June 2004, the USOC appointed a new board of directors
and implemented several reforms. Today, we will be reviewing
how well both the new board and the reforms are working.
There are additional issues we will discuss today on other
suggested reforms that may better serve the interests of the
Olympic family and may have to be addressed in legislation.
One of our witnesses today, Paul Hamm, will be testifying
about his recent experience in Athens. That event brings up the
question of what role the USOC plays in the support of U.S.
Olympic athletes involved in a competitive controversy--whether
it was appropriately administered in Mr. Hamm's situation and
whether the roles should be defined differently.
The Subcommittee will also be discussing concerns expressed
about reduction of support of U.S. athletes involved in Pan
American sports, as well as concerns about inadequate fostering
of young talent through youth and school programs. These are
areas that fall within the USOC's primary responsibilities
under the Federal charter.
Additionally, the Subcommittee wants to review the USOC
international governing bodies for different sports
interaction--differences of opinion on who is best suited to
decide where recruitment funds are best spent and the ethical
standards and procedures where individual governing bodies
still exist. The USOC role with regard to these matters may
need to be defined in the USOC Federal charter.
Finally, we will be discussing USOC disbursement of funds
and how well that process works for all the Olympic family
members.
At this time, I turn now--I yield to the gentlelady from
Texas, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, for purposes of
an opening statement.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman very much. I want to
acknowledge Mr. Howard Berman, who is present and part of the
Subcommittee, and I thank the Chairman of this Committee as
well.
Mr. Hamm, let me thank you for being a great America, for
being a young person who obviously was trained well by his
parents to understand that the modus operandi for the United
States is that we never give up. And you obviously honored that
and honored the tradition and the values of America and
Americans by making us very, very proud.
I am, I guess, welcoming of the fact that your
Congressperson saw fit to get involved where others might have
thought that we were beyond our boundaries. Many times Members
of Congress are looked upon as having a narrow focus, but I
believe that our work is at home, representing our
constituents. And I'm gratified that your national issue is
brought to the world's attention by Chairman Sensenbrenner's
interest in pressing forward on your behalf.
But might I say, though you are enjoying your profile here
today, you've made a very good lawyer over there, and you won
your case. And you deserve our applause and our recognition.
Thank you very much for being here.
This is an important question, and I thank the Chairman of
the Subcommittee for holding this hearing. And I hope that we
will find at the conclusion that the witnesses representing the
Olympic Committee will stand against dysfunctionality and come
up with a reasoned response to what happened to Paul Hamm and
as well the fact that solutions are already in the mix.
The U.S. Olympic Committee was established in 1896 to
select American athletes to compete in the Olympics. The
Amateur Sports Act of 1978 provided for the recognition by the
USOC of national governing bodies and for dispute resolution.
In 1998, the act was amended by the Ted Stevens Olympic and
Amateur Sports Act, which provided for recognition of the
Athletes' Advisory Council and the National Governing Bodies
Council, NGBC, the creation of an athlete ombudsman and the
responsibility for the Paralympics Games. I would almost argue
that this is more complicated and more bureaucratic than any
Federal Government agency could ever be.
The USOC has experienced some embarrassing controversies.
In 1991 USOC President, Robert Helmick, resigned amidst
allegations of ethical misconduct. A few years later, in an
effort to win the bid to host the 2002 Olympic Winter Games,
the Salt Lake City Bid Committee was accused of offering bribes
to IOC members who were responsible for selecting the host
nation of the 2002 Games. I might imagine or might say to you
that America turned its head. We wanted the best for our
Olympians and for the Committee. And our hearts really continue
to support the efforts of the Olympic Committee. But these were
embarrassing moments.
In 2002 and early 2003, ethical questions were raised in
relation to an action by former USOC Chief Executive Officer
Lloyd Ward. The USOC Ethics Committee investigation of Mr. Ward
resulted in a ruling that Mr. Ward had committed two technical
violations of the USOC's ethics code. Simultaneously, a public
squabble between Mr. Ward and then USOC President Marty
Mankamyer brought further embarrassment to the organization and
ultimately both Ward and Mankamyer resigned.
As a result of these incidents, USOC oversight hearings
were held in 2003. This led to the establishment of the
Independent Commission on Reform of the United States Olympic
Committee.
The Independent Commission issued a report in June 2003 in
which it concluded that many of the USOC's past problems could
be traced to its large board membership.
According to the report, the size of the board of
directors--124 members--made it impossible for the organization
to operate in a coordinated way. Also nearly all USOC directors
were elected to the board by constituent groups. As elected
representatives, the directors would tend to look first to the
interest of the organization that elected them rather than to
the best interests of the Olympic--American Olympic Movement,
which I think is extremely important and has the affection of
the American people continuously.
The Commission recommended a statutory overhaul of the
USOC's governance structure. I hope, as was noted by remarks
already stated that procedurally we can look to befriending and
embracing these young athletes and providing them with the
pathway of success that they deserve and that we'll look to
building up-and-coming athletes as well, starting in early
years, because we have taken to athletics in the United States.
Girls are now playing soccer and basketball. Swimmers are
renowned. Those who engage in gymnastics--we are truly
committed. We need our Olympic Committee to be committed to us
as well.
In the 108th Congress, several bills were introduced which
would have carried out the recommendation of the Independent
Commission. In April 2004, however, the USOC implemented its
own organizational reforms. The provisions in the bills were
implemented with only minor modifications that were perceived
by the USOC as being necessary to comply with the requirements
of its charter.
The board of 123 members voted themselves out of power and
established a board of just 11 members. That's a great step in
the right direction. Other than for some minor technical
corrections and a few clarifications, the Board does not
believe that legislation is still necessary.
I will withhold my judgment on this issue. I'm looking
forward to hearing the testimony, and I'd like to see that
we've been able to sweep out our own closets and satisfy
Congress' interest, but I think we must show without a doubt,
that we will never leave our athletes abandoned as was so
evident in the case of Paul Hamm.
We will hear from Paul Hamm, the first American man to win
the Olympic Gold Medal in the gymnastics all around
competition. He scored 9.837 on the high bar to achieve an
overall score of 57.823 points, beating his closest competitor,
South Korea's Kim Tae Young, by .0123 points, the slimmest
margin for the competition in Olympic history, but he did win.
The third place bronze winner was a South Korean score by
0.49, and won the bronze medal.
A few days later, the South Korean delegation lodged a
scoring error complaint with the governing board of the sport,
the International Gymnastics Federation. They alleged that
Young's routine had received a start value of 10 during his
earlier identical performances in the team preliminaries and
finals, but only a 9.9 during the all around competition, and
that this difference of 0.1 points would have given him the
gold medal.
According to the rules for the gymnastic competition,
challenges to scoring decisions must be made before the
following rotation is complete, so the objection from the South
Korean delegation was rejected.
Mr. Hamm will testify that the USOC and the other American
organizations left him alone to deal with this dispute until it
was almost resolved.
We need to know why. And I conclude by simply saying this:
at the point where it was discovered that there was an
erroneous filing by the objection--or the objection of the
South Korean delegation, my question simply is: where was the
American Committee? Where was the defense of this athlete,
young man without counsel and without support? Where was the
vigorous argument that utilization of due process, which we
adhere to in a very strong way--what happened? And if it can be
fixed, we need to hear how and when, and we need to know that
it will never happen again. I yield back.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentlelady. Without objection,
all Members' opening statements will be made a part of the
record.
At this time, I'd like to introduce the members of our
panel, and thank you for appearing today. Jim Scherr was named
Chief Executive Officer of the United States Olympic Committee,
or USOC, in April 2005 after holding several leadership
positions within the organization. He joined the USOC staff in
November of 2000. Prior to that, Mr. Scherr served as Executive
Director of USA Wrestling from 1990 to 2000. He is a three-time
U.S. national champion and a two-time World Cup champion in
wrestling. He is a former Olympian, and also the winner of
multiple silver and bronze medals at world championship
competitions from 1986 to 1989. Mr. Scherr attended the
University of Nebraska and earned an M.B.A. degree at Northwest
University's Kellogg Graduate School of Management.
Mark Henderson is Chair of the USOC's Athletes' Advisory
Council, which is composed of Olympic, Paralympic, and Pan
American athletes elected by their peers to represent the
interests and rights of athletes within the USOC. Mr. Henderson
won an Olympic gold medal in 1996 in swimming, and he is a two-
time world champion. He won six national championships and is a
former world, American, and U.S. Open record holder. Currently
in San Francisco, Mr. Henderson designed and runs learn-to-swim
programs for underprivileged children in the city. Mark
Henderson is a vice president with J.P. Morgan Securities and
works on the Japanese Equity Trading Floor in San Francisco. He
graduated from the University of California, Berkeley, with a
Bachelor's of Science in Psychology.
Paul Hamm is the reigning Olympic All-Around Champion in
gymnastics after winning the gold medal at the 2004 Athens
Olympics. Paul was the first American male to win this honor as
was stated earlier. Paul also became the All-Around Champion at
the U.S. National Championships in 2002, 2003, 2004, and the
World Championships in 2003.
He first represented the United States at the 2000 Sydney
Olympics when he was 17 years old, and he has won many all-
around, individual, and team awards during his many years of
competing.
Paul is a student at Ohio State University, where he is
majoring in Finance.
Thomas Burke is Vice Chair of the Pan American Sports
Council, which represents seven competitive sports. He is also
president of USA National Karate-do Federation. Mr. Burke has
been very active in sports organizations nationally and
internationally, including having served as delegate to the
National Governing Body Council at the USOC.
Currently an attorney in Washington State, he is also
former General Counsel to the World Karate Federation, the Pan
American Karate Federation, and the U.S.A. National Karate-do
Federation.
Mr. Burke received his Juris Doctor from the University of
Puget Sound in Washington State.
Once again, gentlemen, thank you for being here today. You
will notice that there is a light system. Without objection,
your full written statement will be made a part of the record,
and if you can summarize within the 5-minute period, that would
be very helpful today.
Thank you once again. Mr. Scherr, you're recognized for 5
minutes.
TESTIMONY STATEMENT OF JIM SCHERR, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE
Mr. Scherr. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here this morning. Good morning to you and to
Members of the Subcommittee.
As you know, my name is Jim Scherr, and I am the Chief
Executive Officer of the United States Olympic Committee. This
is a position I came to after having been an Olympic athlete,
the head of the National Governing Body, a member of the USOC's
former Board of Directors for almost 20 years, its Executive
Committee, and most recently, Chief of Sport Performance of the
USOC.
In short, I have considerable experience with and a multi-
dimensional perspective of the Olympic family about which you
have asked the question, ``Is it functional or dysfunctional?''
I submit to you that until recently an argument can be made
that the U.S. Olympic Committee and family was clearly
dysfunctional, but that is no longer the case; and with a
unified effort it can become the entity that Congress
originally intended it to be, what the American people expect
it to be, and, most importantly, what our Olympic, Paralympic,
and Pan American athletes need it to be.
In order to achieve these goals, there will have to be
considerable change at all levels, a process that is often
difficult and painful to undertake. But this is something we at
the USOC know first-hand because we have recently implemented
some long-needed and substantial changes ourselves.
As you know, and Ms. Jackson Lee alluded to, 2 years ago
there was a series of comprehensive examinations of the USOC's
governance and management structures conducted by Committees
within both the United States Senate and the House of
Representatives, and two separate task forces comprised of
distinguished leaders of business, law, broadcasting, and
sports reviewed those issues.
Although each operated independently, their recommendations
were, with a few minor variations, virtually identical. The
major recommendations were pretty tough for the organization to
swallow. Without hesitation, the leadership of the USOC began
implementing them in November 2003.
The major recommendation was to dissolve the unwieldy and
often conflicted 125-person board of directors and substitute
for it a streamlined, independent, and more accountable 11-
person board.
We also reduced the more than 20 committees to four, and
empowered management to make business decisions that were
previously imbued with the politics of an oversized governance
structure and one that was primarily driven by constituent
group representation.
All of this was done by the incumbents. More than 100
people involved in our former governance structure courageously
chose to vote themselves out of power in an effort to ensure a
better future for the USOC, the U.S. Olympic family and most
importantly, America's athletes.
This new board is chaired by Mr. Peter Ueberroth, one of
the most respected business, civic, and sports management
leaders in America. The new board has established governance
policies and created structures that demand accountability,
transparency, and ethical behavior in all transactions, and
they have redirected the mission of the organization back to
that which puts the interests of athletes first, and demands
the same level of excellence administrators and support
personnel--by administrators and support personnel that is
exhibited by aspiring Olympians and Paralympians we're all
dedicated to serving.
On the management side, 2 years ago, we knew we had a
significant problem on our hands with public confidence and
organizational inefficiencies. And we completed a sweeping
reorganization that dealt with those issues. We eliminated more
than 100 budgeted full-time positions, over 20 percent of the
total workforce of the USOC. The senior management, 79
directors and above, voluntarily voted to freeze their own
salaries for 2 years, substantially reduce, except for a very
small amount, any bonuses and incentive compensation available
to themselves, and significantly reduced overhead expenses,
restricted travel, and converted those savings to support for
Olympic and Paralympic and Pan American athletes. In fact, we
were able to put $3.5 million in additional support to our
athletes in Athens.
We voluntarily undertook those efforts to increase the
effectiveness of the USOC, and to send a strong message to the
public, our constituent groups, and others that we do indeed
place athletes first and that is our priority.
And I might add that--I mean it was a significant sacrifice
by us as a staff, but it did work. It changed the day and how
we were viewed by others and how our constituent groups
responded in their own efforts to support our athletes.
Our efforts during this quadrennium enabled the USOC to
enjoy its most successful 4-year period ever by all the
relevant measures, including medal counts and revenue
generation.
But we have a long ways to go. We can do better as an
Olympic Committee, and we believe we are on the path to do so.
And that's one of the reasons we're pleased to be here today.
To succeed, however, we will need to ensure that the entire
Olympic family, governing bodies, and others who affect our
athletes on their path to the Olympic Games are more effective
and more efficient and this Committee can assist us in that
process.
My comments will now move beyond the changes that have been
implemented within the USOC and will focus on the process of
working with our member National Governing Bodies, or NGBs, as
they're called in the multi-sport organizations, to help them
implement similar changes to their structures and standards.
We understand that for some of these organizations, the
process of embracing and implementing change is painful and
difficult. Nevertheless, in order for us to become a fully
functional Olympic family pulling together and servicing our
athletes, these changes must be made.
Twenty-six years ago, Congress put a system in place which
identified the USOC as the central coordinating body for
amateur sports in the United States, and they tasked--and the
USOC delegated--much of the responsibility for developing
athletes and supporting them to our national governing bodies.
That system has worked well, but in many ways, we have failed
our athletes, and our governing bodies and the USOC have to do
a better job of more efficiently supporting our athletes.
And one of our first and most important priorities we now
have is to deliver effective support to those athletes,
particularly financial support. For the USOC, our funding is
generated entirely from private sources, which stands in stark
contrast to almost every other major national Olympic
Committee, of which there are more than 200 in the world, and I
believe there are only two or three that receive no funding
from their Federal Government.
The allocation of our limited resources is our greatest
challenge. We have demands from many different sectors ranging
from our high-performance services and programs for athletes,
elite athlete health insurance, anti-doping programs, and
programs for the disabled. Our priority and our internal mantra
is to put athletes first. Accordingly, we have just doubled the
amount of financial assistance that we provided directly to
Olympic and Paralympic athletes and hopefuls. That increase in
financial support takes place July 1st.
We've also doubled the amount we spend on Elite Athlete
Health Insurance for athletes this quadrennium, increased the
amount we spend on Olympic training centers and other high-
performance services we provide to athletes, substantially
increased our funding for the fight against doping in sport to
protect our athletes and to protect their reputations, and have
substantially and more than doubled our support for elite
Paralympic athletes and their development.
We have discarded--and I think this is a very important
point--we have discarded our previous policy of giving NGBs
automatic entitlement to a certain level of annual funding.
Instead, the award of a grant and its amount will be contingent
and predicated upon a comprehensive evaluation of the NGB's
performance, programs and capabilities to serve those athletes.
In short, there will be accountability for the funds that
we provide to the national governing bodies going forward. I
believe that this process is quite similar to how this
Subcommittee and other Committees of Congress evaluate various
Executive Branch programs under their jurisdiction.
Similarly, in an effort to allow the organization to more
effectively fulfill its mission of winning Olympic and
Paralympic medals, we have revisited its program for funding
NGBs that govern sports that are only on the Pan American Games
program.
On the governance side, as a condition for affiliation
with, recognition by, and other support from the USOC, we are
also requiring that national governing bodies restructure their
board in a manner that is reflective of good governance
practices and principles contained in Sarbanes-Oxley as the
USOC has done. That will not be a process without great----
Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Scherr, could you summarize maybe for
us, and a conclusion.
Mr. Scherr. Thank you. Let me summarize on two points. One,
as it relates to progress that we have made over the past 2\1/
2\ years to change the USOC and become more effective, we have
made significant progress. We have a ways to go. We have
reformed our board. We've reformed our management practices and
our staff and how we deal with others. We need to reform and
push this reform through the national governing bodies.
As it relates to I believe what is a primary concern before
the Committee today how we supported Mr. Hamm in his attempts
to retain his medal, I believe we made mistakes in that
process. We have already admitted those mistakes. I think we
made two principal mistakes.
One, we did not communicate more clearly and more directly
with Paul Hamm early in the process.
Second, we did not support and come out publicly soon
enough in support of, or strongly enough when we did, in
support of Paul Hamm. And there was a period of 4 or 5 days
where I think both of those things could have been done more
quickly.
As it relates to Ms. Jackson Lee's remarks, there was not
an opportunity nor venue to support the retention of Paul's
medal until the Koreans actually filed their arbitrage in
accordance with arbitrage for sport; filed their grievance. And
once we did, we defended it vigorously and spent over $400,000
to defend his medal before that tribunal and were successful in
doing so.
But there was a public venue and there was a private venue
directly with Paul that was available to us that we relied on
the national governing body and the person, Bob Colorossi to
communicate directly with Paul, and we understand now that
those communications were not effective and not to the
satisfaction of Mr. Hamm, and we would have done those things
differently in hindsight.
But in the end, Paul Hamm is the Olympic champion. He has
retained his medal. And for that, we are very proud of Mr. Hamm
and his struggle, and what he has accomplished as an athlete.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Scherr follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jim Scherr
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name
is Jim Scherr and I am the Chief Executive Officer of the United States
Olympic Committee. This is a position I came to after having been an
Olympic athlete, the head of a National Governing Body, a member of the
USOC's former Board of Directors and its Executive Committee, and most
recently, Chief of Sport Performance of the USOC. In short, I have
considerable experience with and a multi-dimensional perspective of the
Olympic Family about which you have asked the question, ``Is it
functional or dysfunctional?''
I submit to you that until recently an argument can be made that
the US Olympic family was clearly dysfunctional, but that is no longer
the case, and with a unified effort it can become the entity that
Congress originally intended it to be, what the American people expect
it to be, and, most importantly, what our Olympic, Paralympic, and Pan
American athletes need it to be. In order to achieve these goals there
will have to be considerable change at all levels, a process that is
often difficult and painful to undertake. But this is something we at
the USOC know first-hand because we have recently implemented some
long-needed and substantial changes.
As you probably know, two years ago there was a series of
comprehensive examinations of the USOC's governance and management
structures conducted by committees within both the United States Senate
and the House of Representatives, and two separate task forces
comprised of distinguished leaders of business, law, broadcasting, and
sports. Although each operated independently their recommendations
were, with a few minor variations, virtually identical. The major
recommendations were pretty tough, but without hesitation the
leadership of the USOC began implementing them in November 2003.
The major recommendation was to dissolve the unwieldy and often
conflicted 125-person board of directors and substitute for it a
streamlined, independent, and more accountable 11-person board. We also
reduced the more than 20 committees to 4, and empowered management to
make business decisions that were previously imbued with the politics
of the oversized governance structure. All of this was done by the
incumbents--the more than one hundred people involved in our former
governance structure chose to vote themselves out of power in an effort
to ensure a better future for the USOC, the US Olympic family and most
importantly, America's athletes.
The new board is chaired by Mr. Peter Ueberroth, one of the most
respected business, civic, and sports management leaders in America.
This new board has established governance policies and created
structures that demand accountability, transparency, and ethical
behavior in all transactions, and they have redirected the mission of
the organization back to that which puts the interests of athletes
first, and demands the same level of excellence of administrators and
support personnel that is exhibited by the aspiring Olympians and
Paralympians we are all dedicated to serving.
On the management side, to regain the confidence of the public and
deal with the organization's inefficiencies, we have recently completed
a sweeping reorganization that involved the elimination of more than
100 budgeted full-time positions, representing more than 20% of the
total USOC workforce. The USOC's senior management voluntarily decided
two years ago to freeze the salaries of all senior positions,
substantially reduce the incentive compensation program, reduce
overhead expenses, restrict travel, and convert to cash certain assets,
all to generate more funds for the support of our Olympic, Paralympic,
and Pan American athletes. We voluntarily undertook these efforts to
increase the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the USOC, and to
send a strong message to our constituents that the USOC does in fact
place Athletes First. These efforts allowed us to make available an
additional $3.5 million in support for our athletes training for the
Athens Olympic Games, and to pursue our fight against athlete doping
which has become the world standard that other sports organizations
have been encouraged by Members of this Congress to emulate.
Our efforts during the 2001 through 2004 quadrennium enabled the
USOC to enjoy its most successful quadrennium ever by all relevant
measures, including medal counts and revenue generation. But we know we
can do even better and we believe we are on a path to do so. To
succeed, however, we will need to ensure that the entire Olympic family
is more effective and efficient.
My comments will now move beyond the changes that have been
implemented within the USOC and will focus on the process of working
with our member National Governing Bodies, or ``NGBs,'' and the multi-
sport organizations, to help them implement similar changes to their
structures and standards. We fully understand that for some
organizations, the process of embracing and implementing change is
painful. Nevertheless, in order for us to become a fully functional
Olympic family pulling together for the same goal, that is, service to
our athletes, these changes must be made.
One of the first and most important priorities we now have is to
deliver effective support to our athletes, particularly financial
support. For the USOC, our funding is generated entirely from private
sources, which stands in stark contrast to almost every other major
National Olympic Committee, the majority of which receive funding from
their respective governments. The allocation of our limited resources
is one of the greatest challenges we face, with demands from so many
sectors ranging from high performance services and programs, elite
athlete health insurance, anti-doping programs, and programs for the
disabled. Our priority, and our internal mantra, is to put ``Athletes
First.'' Accordingly, we have doubled the amount of financial
assistance that will be provided directly to Olympic and Paralympic
athletes and hopefuls. We have also doubled the amount we spend on
Elite Athlete Health Insurance for athletes, increased the amount we
spend on training centers and other high performance services we
provide to athletes, substantially increased our funding for the fight
against doping to protect athletes, and substantially increased our
support of Paralympic athletes.
We have discarded our previous policy of giving NGBs automatic
entitlement to a certain level of annual funding. Instead, the award of
a grant and its amount will be contingent upon a comprehensive USOC
evaluation of an NGB's performance and programs. I believe that this
process is quite similar to how this Subcommittee and other committees
of Congress evaluate various Executive Branch programs under their
jurisdiction. Similarly, in an effort to allow the organization to more
effectively fulfill its mission of winning Olympic and Paralympic
medals, the USOC has revisited its program for funding NGBs that govern
sports which are only on the program of the Pan American Games.
On the governance side, as a condition for affiliation with,
recognition by, and other support from the USOC, we are requiring that
NGBs restructure their board in a manner that is reflective of good
governance and Sarbanes/Oxley principles as the USOC has done. Further,
we are requiring that they adopt procedures and practices that ensure
the same level of accountability, transparency, and ethical conduct
that the USOC is demanding of itself.
When the USOC dissolved its large board nearly two years age there
was some resistance because it meant that many people, indeed, more
than one hundred, would lose their seats at the table. I believe that
some of the NGBs may be experiencing similar resistance to our efforts
to require accountability, good governance and increased support for
elite and developing athletes in their sports. I submit, however, that
these and other changes should be accepted and implemented just as the
USOC did in response to recommendations of two Congressional Committees
and the task forces that had carefully considered what would best serve
America's Olympic interests. These efforts to assist NGBs should be
applauded, not attacked, because they are in the best interests of our
athletes and the entire nation.
There is still important work that must be done before the USOC can
function with maximum efficiency and effectiveness. However, we have
come a long way in a very short period of time, and there is much about
which we are proud. We have just completed a quadrennial period that
was the most successful in the history of the USOC. America's Olympic
athletes captured 137 medals, 34 of them at the 2002 Olympic Winter
Games in Salt Lake City and 103 at the Summer Games last summer in
Athens. And matching their level of achievement were our Paralympians
who finished among the top five nations in the medal count in both Salt
Lake City and Athens. We have reformed the way the world views us in
the fight against doping in sport. We have accomplished the highest
levels of revenue generation ever. The viewership of the Athens Olympic
Games was the largest ever for a Games not based in North America and
the highest ever worldwide.
Just as important as the medal count, however, was the manner by
which America's athletes represented our country--with pride, honor and
in a manner consistent with the Olympic Ideals, which includes honest,
fair, and drug-free competition. We went to great lengths to address
with athletes negative conduct issues that had occurred in the past in
an effort to ensure they did not occur again, and they did not occur.
All of the measures we have implemented--and are now asking our
family partners in the Olympic Movement to implement--are designed to
provide more tools and resources to fulfill our newly-articulated
mission, developed in consultation with and approved by an overwhelming
majority of all of our constituent organizations, which is ``to support
U.S. Olympic and Paralympic athletes in achieving sustained competitive
excellence and preserve the Olympic ideals, and thereby inspire all
Americans.'' To achieve this we are doing old things in new ways and
new things in better ways. We are trying to be more creative, and more
relevant to society as a whole, consistent with our obligations as
annunciated in the Amateur Sports Act, and in the spirit of what we
refer to as ``Olympism.'' For example, we have launched a program to
bring Paralympic sport to disabled active duty and veteran American
servicemen wounded in the Middle East and elsewhere. We have been
conducting demonstrations at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and,
working closely with the House Veterans Affairs Committee, are in the
process of establishing a more formal partnership with the Department
of Veterans Affairs so as to better serve these men and women. Since
all funds that the USOC receives come entirely from finite private
sources rather than government sources, to conduct new programs such as
this we must operate in an even more efficient manner than ever before.
Let me briefly address an issue with which Chairman Sensenbrenner
had direct involvement, specifically the challenge leveled by a Korean
gymnast to Paul Hamm's Olympic gold medal. I cannot express to you how
proud we are of what Paul was able to accomplish in Athens, and how
committed we were to defending his medal against the attacks of the
international gymnastics federation and the Korean Olympic Committee.
In the effort to get Paul to the podium in Athens, through 2004, the
USOC and USA Gymnastics provided Paul and his coaches with more than
$200,000 in direct athlete support and access to programs that cost the
USOC and USA Gymnastics more than $200,000 to deliver. This is
consistent with the type of support the USOC, in partnership with our
National Governing Bodies, provides a successful aspiring Olympian.
We were as supportive of the effort to preserve his gold medal as
we were in the effort for him to earn it. In the preservation of Paul's
medal, we expended over $400,000 and additionally committed the staff
time and attention of our legal division and other employees for over a
month. While there were issues with communications in Athens between
the USOC, the international gymnastics federation, USA Gymnastics, and
Paul that appear clearer now in the light of hindsight than they did at
the time, I can tell you we have learned a great deal from our
experience. We have implemented internal policies and practices to
address these issues in the future. To sum those up, going forward, we
are not going to rely upon others to be conduits in our communication
with athletes about issues affecting them at the Olympic Games--we are
going to involve them in a direct discussion as we attempt to manage
these issues to their benefit.
I can also tell you that the USOC has been very active in the
preservation of athletes' rights. In particular, I am a former athlete
and approach these issues from that perspective, and a number of our
management team and Board members are former athletes and have the same
perspective. In addition, since the 1998 revisions to our statute, the
USOC has had a full-time, statutorily-mandated athlete ombudsman who is
an Olympian himself and acts as a resource to athletes who bring these
matters to his attention. We have invested considerable efforts in
ensuring that all athletes are aware and able to take advantage of the
athlete ombudsman system. In addition, we have invested USOC employees
other than the athlete ombudsman in the effort to protect athlete
opportunities to compete in Olympic-related competition without undue
interference from commercial considerations or considerations other
than athlete performance. While athlete's rights issues develop and
change over time, we have made every effort to be responsive to and
communicate those changes to ensure that the rules governing athlete
participation in the events leading up to the Olympic Games are being
followed by the NGBs and other sports governing bodies. We believe that
athletes' rights are adequately protected by the existing statute, the
USOC Bylaws, and internal policy, such that no legislative change is
needed at this time.
The vision of the USOC is to `enable America's athletes to realize
their Olympic and Paralympic dreams.'' Through the achievement of these
dreams by our athletes, we can inspire our country and make important
contributions to our country, our society, and indeed, the world. I
appreciate your interest in an institution and a movement that has
meant so much to me for over 25 years first as an athlete, then as a
volunteer, and finally as an NGB and then USOC executive. I welcome
your involvement in helping us to make the Olympic Family the best it
can be.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Scherr. Mr. Henderson.
TESTIMONY OF MARK HENDERSON, CHAIR,
ATHLETES' ADVISORY COUNCIL
Mr. Henderson. Good afternoon, Chairman Hostettler, and
Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
speak to you from an athlete's perspective on the current
status of the Olympic Movement in the United States.
As the chairperson of the AAC and an athlete in the Olympic
Movement, I offer this testimony to provide an athlete's
perspective on the progress of governance reform at the USOC
and the current status of the Olympic Committee, as well as, to
express the needs of the athletes over the next quadrennium and
discuss whether Congress should revise the Ted Stevens Olympic
Amateur Sports Act for the sake of the athletes in the
movement.
First, I want to acknowledge and thank the United States
Olympic Committee Governance and Ethics Task Force and the
Senate-appointed Independent Commission, whose efforts helped
to provide both guidance and momentum to the reform process, of
which the AAC has been a strong advocate. The separate
recommendations of the USOC's task force and of the Independent
Commission to reform USOC governance shared several important
similarities which enabled the Olympic family to swiftly set
into action the governance reform process.
In April of 2004, the USOC Board voted unanimously to
approve the sweeping reforms recommended by the USOC's
Governance and Ethics Task Force, including cutting the Board
down to just 11 members from 125, as Jim mentioned.
It is only a short time since its enactment, but I believe
that the current governance reform has truly changed the USOC
from a constituent-based brand to an athlete-focused entity.
The new structure did not come without certain concerns to the
AAC in the early stages. These concerns focused on the
communication with the newly seated Board. At issue was whether
athletes' concerns would be heard in this indirect
representative structure.
In accordance with the current governance, communication
from the AAC to the USOC Board is directed through the Olympic
Liaison to the USOC Board. Reflecting the importance of
athletes in the Olympic Movement outside of competition, a
former Vice-Chair of the AAC, Chris Duplanty, was selected by
the Nominating and Governance Committee as the initial Board
Liaison. To date, this communication pipeline has functioned
effectively; the AAC has been kept informed of the Board's
current objectives and goals.
Conversely, communication from the AAC has been reliably
forwarded to the Board so that it is aware of athlete issues
and perspective. In my years of experience, this productive and
effective exchange was difficult. The newly clarified roles of
the Board members and staff and the clear communication
channels which they have been acceptant of, has enabled the AAC
to represent the athletes in the Olympic Movement in a more
progressive manner.
To that end, the AAC intends to direct its resources toward
addressing a great number of athlete-specific issues. In
addition to working to solidify the current role and maximize
effectiveness of the AAC within USOC and NGB Governance reform,
some of the relevant areas to address include: working to
improve athlete support programs such as Olympic Job
Opportunities Program and Elite Athlete Health Insurance;
advocating approval of a USOC Commercial Terms policy;
increasing awareness of Olympism and international good will
through sport; addressing the growing problem of doping in
sport through participation in anti-doping efforts;
communicating with, and considering issues related to, the
National Collegiate Athletic Association; and enhancing our own
awareness through effective communication and direct
involvement in the Olympic athlete experience and most
importantly conception of an Athletes' Bill of Rights.
A priority of the AAC is to have a leadership member
present at every Olympic and Paralympic Games to assist and
advise our athletes.
This agenda is very ambitious, but the continued success of
the Olympic Movement hinges on it. Its realization will require
input from all members of the Olympic family.
At this stage in the reform process, I strongly suggest
that the Congress not re-open the Ted Stevens Olympic Amateur
Sports Act. The governance reform has thus far proceeded
smoothly. Consideration of opening the act at such a fragile
stage of the reform process invites constituent-based debate
that has proven so damaging to this organization in the past
and can only slow progress. With an Olympic and Paralympic
Games every 2 years, such a delay can mean disaster to those
athletes currently in the system.
It is my hope that we can continue the momentum made since
the inception of our new Board and ultimately realize the
potential of the USOC to fulfill the goals of athletes and
inspire Americans.
In closing, I would like to thank Paul Hamm and his family
for taking the time to be here today. I do not have first-hand
knowledge of the events that occurred in Athens regarding Paul,
but I support his concerns and applaud his passion to see that
this does not affect another U.S. elite athlete. I extend an
open invitation to him to attend an AAC meeting and encourage
him to run for the next quad's AAC representative position.
Obviously, he would bring a lot of invaluable experience and
enthusiasm to our Council. Paul's testimony today validates the
direction the AAC is heading and the amount of time and travel
we sacrifice as volunteers. As many elite athletes understand,
learning from one's mistakes enables success.
It is my responsibility as the newly elected chair to take
the testimony heard here today, present it to the AAC, and use
the available channels to ensure this type of situation does
not happen again. Thank you for your time and I look forward to
answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Henderson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Henderson
Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and other members
of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims, thank
you for the opportunity to speak to you today from an athlete's
perspective on the current status of the Olympic Movement in the United
States. My name is Mark Henderson. I am a 1996 Olympian and Gold
Medallist in the sport of swimming, and serve as the elected
chairperson of the United States Olympic Committee Athletes' Advisory
Council (AAC). The AAC is composed of Olympic, Paralympic, and Pan-
American athletes elected by their peers to communicate the interests
and protect the rights of athletes, in cooperative support of the USOC
achieving its mission. It is truly an honor to represent and lead such
a prominent group.
As brief background, let me remind the members of the subcommittee
of the nature of the AAC, the group of which I serve as chair. The AAC
is codified in the 1998 Amendments to the Ted Stevens Olympic and
Amateur Sports Act, and is composed of one democratically elected
athlete representative from each Olympic and Pan-American Games Sport,
two Paralympic athlete representatives, one from summer sports and one
from winter sports, and six at-large members. In order to be eligible
to vote and/or serve as a representative, athletes must have
represented the U.S. at an Olympic Games, Pan American Games, or
qualifying events within the last ten years.
As the chairperson of the AAC and an athlete in the Olympic
Movement, I offer this testimony to provide an athlete's perspective on
the progress of governance reform at the USOC and the current status of
the Olympic Committee, as well as to express the needs of the athletes
over the next quadrennial and discuss whether Congress should revise
the Ted Stevens Olympic Amateur Sports Act for the sake of athletes in
the Movement.
First, I want to acknowledge the United States Olympic Committee
Governance and Ethics Task Force (USOC Task Force) and the Senate
appointed Independent Commission (Independent Commission), whose
efforts helped to provide both guidance and momentum to the reform
process, of which the AAC has been a strong advocate. Additionally, I
would like to specifically thank the former leadership of the Athletes
Advisory Council: Cameron Myler, Mary McCagg, Chris Duplanty, Rob Stull
and particularly former chairperson, Rachel Godino. You may have heard
from some of these individuals previously; their tremendous volunteer
commitment to advocating for fellow athletes and work toward improving
the health of the US Olympic Committee has been inspiring. It was an
honor to serve under them and a reassurance to know that most of them
are still involved in the Olympic Movement.
The separate recommendations of the USOC Task Force and of the
Independent Commission to reform USOC governance shared several
important similarities. Both groups recommended that the organization's
mission shift its focus to the athletes and athletic performance. Both
groups recommended that the USOC Board of Directors (USOC Board) size
be reduced dramatically to come into line with the current best
practices of good governance for organizations the size and stature of
the USOC. Both groups also recommended that the USOC take substantial
steps toward breaking down the culture of quid pro quo that had
heretofore existed at the USOC. Finally, both groups agreed that there
was a need to clarify the roles of the governance and staff functions
within the organization. Although important differences between the two
groups' recommendations exist, the major governance changes that needed
to occur were fairly evident and not disputed. In April of 2004, the
USOC board voted to approve and implement the sweeping reforms
recommended by the USOC's Governance and Ethics Task Force, cutting
itself down to just 11 members from 124.
It is only a short time since its enactment, but I believe that the
current governance reform that resulted from that April 2004 USOC Board
vote has truly changed the USOC from a constituent based brand to an
athlete-focused entity. The new structure did not come without certain
concerns to the AAC in the early stages, as any drastic change may.
These concerns focused on the communication with the newly seated
Board. Specifically at issue was whether athletes' concerns, problems,
and suggestions would be heard in an indirect representative structure,
and if the athletes' voice would be filtered, misrepresented, or
misconstrued. In accordance with the current governance, communication
from the AAC (as well as from the National Governing Bodies' and Multi-
Sport Councils) to the USOC Board is directed through the Liaison from
the Olympic Assembly to the USOC Board (Board Liaison). Reflecting the
importance of athletes in the Olympic Movement outside of competition,
a former Vice-Chair of the AAC, Chris Duplanty, was selected by the
Nominating and Governance Committee as the initial Board Liaison. To
date, this communication pipeline has functioned effectively; the AAC
has been kept informed of the Board's current objectives and goals.
Conversely, communication from the AAC has been reliably forwarded to
the Board so that it is aware of athlete issues and the athlete
perspective. In my years of experience, this productive and effective
exchange was difficult, if not impossible. In summary, the current
organization of the USOC, specifically the clear roles of the Board
members and the Staff and the clear communication channels of which
they have been acceptant, has enabled the AAC to represent the athletes
in the Olympic Movement in a more progressive manner.
This change has allowed the AAC to address its own organizational
structure toward the goal of improving efficiency and effectiveness,
and align itself with the mission of the USOC--to support the United
States Olympic and Paralympic athletes in achieving sustained
competitive excellence and preserve the Olympic ideals, and thereby
inspire all Americans. Eliminating the direct role of the AAC in USOC
Board activity has allowed for increased attention internally. It is my
hope, and that of the current AAC, that this will allow us to better
represent the athletes we serve, and to be more effective advocates on
their behalf.
To that end, the AAC intends to direct its resources towards
addressing a great number of athlete-specific issues. Thus, in addition
to working to solidify the current role and maximize effectiveness of
the AAC within USOC and NGB Governance reform, some of the relevant
areas to address include: 1. Working to improve athlete support
programs such as Olympic Job Opportunities Program and Elite Athlete
Health Insurance; 2. Advocating approval of a USOC Commercial Terms
policy; 3. Increasing awareness of Olympism and international good will
through sport; 4. Addressing the growing problem of doping in sport
through participation in anti-doping efforts; 5. Communicating with,
and considering issues related to, the National Collegiate Athletic
Association, and; 6. Enhancing our own awareness through effective
communication and direct involvement in the Olympic Athlete experience.
Although this agenda is an ambitious one, the demands of success in
this arena are great and the concerns of athletes in the Olympic
Movement are many, and, as a former athlete, I can truly say that all
help is appreciated. These far-reaching goals should reflect our
confidence that the work we do is not in vain. We believe the voice of
the athletes will be heard so that we can help to maintain competitive
excellence in international Olympic sports and represent the United
States well. Although not enough time has passed since the beginning of
the reform to guarantee long-term success, it is my opinion that at
this point the state of the USOC is strong.
In conclusion, I strongly suggest that Congress not re-open the Ted
Stevens Olympic Amateur Sports Act (``the Act''). The Act has served
the needs of the athletes effectively and, unchanged will continue to
do so. Though the governance reform has thus far proceeded smoothly,
consideration of opening the Act at such a fragile stage of the USOC
Governance reform process invites constituent based debate that has
proven so insidious to this organization in the past and can only slow
progress. With an Olympic and Paralympic Games every two-years, such a
delay can mean disaster to those athletes currently in the system. It
is my hope that we can continue the momentum made since the inception
of our new Board and ultimately realize the potential of the USOC to
fulfill the dreams of athletes and inspire Americans.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Henderson. Mr. Hamm.
STATEMENT OF PAUL HAMM, 2004 ATHENS OLYMPICS
ALL-AROUND CHAMPION
Mr. Hamm. Hello. I want to thank the Committee for inviting
me to speak about my experiences at the 2004 Olympics, and the
concerns I have about the three federations overseeing my
sport: the United States Olympic Committee, the Federation of
International Gymnastics, or FIG, and USA Gymnastics.
It is interesting that this hearing is entitled the
``Olympic Family--Functional or Dysfunctional?''
The answer is both. But throughout the controversy
surrounding my gold medal these three organizations acted in
many ways that were dysfunctional. All three bear
responsibility in the creation and continuation of the
controversy.
I went to Athens to compete in the sport of gymnastics for
my country, for my team, for my family, and for myself. After a
come-from-behind performance, I was awarded the gold medal in
the all-around event.
The next day one of my opponents protested the results.
Months later the highest sports court in the world, the CAS,
ruled that I was, in fact, the rightful champion.
From the day the Koreans protested until I returned home 8
days later, no one from FIG ever spoke to me about the
situation. No one from the USOC ever met with me. Bob
Colorossi, President of USAG, only spoke to me twice, to say
that nothing could change the medal standings, according to the
rules.
During these same days and without my knowledge, the USOC
and USAG entered into negotiations with the Koreans about the
disposition of my medal. Without my knowledge or consent, the
USOC and USAG spoke to the press about the notion of awarding a
second gold medal. The USOC met with the International Olympic
Committee to propose the double gold idea without discussing it
with me. The IOC rejected their proposal.
On the day I returned home, I was informed of an impending
conference call from the USOC, described to my agent, Sheryl
Shade, as a marketing call. My parents and my agent arranged to
have Tom Schreibel, Congressman Sensenbrenner's chief of staff,
participate in the call, along with my freshly hired attorney,
Kelly Crabb.
The call began by informing me of a letter from Bruno
Grandi, the President of FIG. This letter was addressed to me,
but delivered to the Korean delegation and the USOC by way of
Mr. Colorossi. It was to be released to the press.
Mr. Grandi had written that he would appreciate it if I
would give back the gold medal.
During the first part of this call I, and my complete team,
firmly believed that the USOC's intent was to convince me to do
just that. After listening to my position for the first time,
we all agreed to take a break and reconvene in an hour.
When the call resumed, the first words they said were they
had had a change of heart. This change of heart meant that
they, now, would aggressively support me, and my medal.
In Athens, the Koreans had scheduled a press conference for
the next day. Even though their other gymnasts had returned to
Korea, Yang Tae Young remained behind. It seems clear that they
fully expected to announce a change in the medal standings.
Now, actively supporting me, the USOC scheduled its own press
conference in advance of the Koreans. They denounced Grandi's
letter in the strongest terms and came out for the first time
absolutely in defense of my medal. The Koreans cancelled their
press conference.
Two days later the Koreans filed an appeal with CAS.
Originally the USOC made no offer of either legal or
financial support to defend my medal. My family was told to
start building a defense fund. It was the efforts of
Representative Sensenbrenner and others that persuaded them to
agree to pay for and mount a vigorous defense of my medal.
To this day, I cannot think of any honorable reason why the
USOC failed to support me and my medal flat out; and why they
did support the idea of double golds. Their own athlete had won
the Olympic competition fair and square, by the rules on the
field of play.
I believe that if the USOC had stepped in to vigorously
support me from the beginning of the controversy much of the
succeeding pain, expense, damage and embarrassment to sport
could have been avoided.
The same thing can be said about USA Gymnastics. I can only
speculate why USAG didn't consistently and vigorously support
me. I do know that USAG and its President, Mr. Colorossi, were
not happy that I had decided not to participate in the USAG
tour after the Olympics. At the time, Mr. Colorossi was also
seeking a position on the FIG Executive Committee.
These three groups failed to defend the basic principle of
sport: play by the rules. They also showed a disregard for the
interests of athletes. No one bothered to talk to me, but many
tried to speak for me. I believe that no one should negotiate
or represent an athlete without their prior agreement and
expressed consent. That is exactly the type of thing that
belongs in an Athlete's Bill of Rights.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hamm follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul Hamm
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Hamm. Mr. Burke.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS BURKE, VICE CHAIR,
PAN AMERICAN SPORTS COUNCIL, USOC
Mr. Burke. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If it please the
Committee, Mr. Hamm, you're a hard act to follow. You have my
congratulations, sir.
My name is Thomas Burke. I represent the Pan American
Sports within the U.S. Olympic Committee. I'm here to talk to
you about our concerns within the new Olympic structure, and I
would point out that Mr. Scherr's remarks underscore those
concerns. Throughout his entire statement, there was not a
single mention of Pan Am sport, Pan Am athlete, or Pan American
involvement as being a viable part of the movement.
That is the bottom line for us. That's our concern.
I appear before you today on behalf of all the Pan American
sports. That's bowling and karate, racket ball, roller sports,
men's softball, squash, and water skiing. The Pan American
national governing body structure has been recognized by the
U.S. Olympic Committee since the adoption of the 1978 Sports
Act, and it is included within that act.
Our athletes participate successfully in the Pan American
Games, but can only dream of participation in the Olympic
Games. We sincerely appreciate this opportunity to meet with
this Committee to discuss the concerns affecting our sports, as
well as other sport organizations within the new reorganized
Olympic Committee.
Participation of United States athletes in Olympic and
other related competitions is governed exclusively by Federal
statute. The 1978 Amateur Sports Act revised the Ted Stevens
Amateur Sports Act and established the USOC. It gives it a
monopoly for amateur sport related to Olympic competition. It
defines its role, its authorities, its responsibilities, and
its internal organization.
A non-profit amateur sport organization, which Pan American
Sports are, may be recognized by the USOC as the national
governing body. A national governing body functions as the
basic building block of the greater USOC organization. It's
what connects the grassroots programs to the elite levels of
Olympic competition.
The NGB administers its sport to be sure that its
competitions are fair, non-discriminatory, and ensures equal
participation and opportunity for participation of athletes,
coaches, and others.
As I say, the NGB is who is conducting the grassroots
level. Importantly, in the language of the Sports Act, Congress
has mandated equal treatment for all Olympic, Pan American, and
Paralympic athletes and NGB organizations. The language
functions on participation in the games--all these games.
There's no single sport in the Amateur Sports Act where
Olympic, Paralympic and Pan American are not mentioned
together.
In addition, the Congress clearly defined the purposes for
which the USOC was established. These purposes include equality
of relationship and responsibility of the USOC to athletes
competing in all of those competitions--Olympics, Paralympics,
and Pan American Games.
Whether or not the current governance structure and
internal culture of the USOC are in compliance with the Sports
Act on this and other issues is subject to question. For the
Pan American Sport NGBs and their 7.7 million active
participants it's all about an Olympic dream, and for the Pan
American sport athletes who attain elite competitive levels,
it's about fulfillment of that Olympic dream through the Pan
American Games.
For these athletes the dream is an inspirational goal not
only for themselves, but for their kids, and generations to
come.
Each athlete in the Pan American sports hopes that their
sport will be the next one moved on to the Olympic program, and
that just maybe they will be part of a future Olympics Game.
While the former Olympic Committee governance structure was
not a model of efficiency--it was burdensome--it was still
diverse and democratic. The involvement of seasoned volunteers
was a positive influence on the work of the USOC. It provided
continuity and grassroots anchoring. For all of this discussion
about how dysfunctional this big board was, and I was a part of
it for 15 years, when it got down to getting athletes on the
field and taking care of business, it was together. The
athletes, the USOC staff, the board members, everybody pulled
together for that goal.
The new governance structure of the USOC is intentionally
different. It is dedicated to efficient production of Olympic
sports heroes and medal production. It's a business model. It's
not a family one.
Diversity and compromise are not efficient. Debate is not
efficient. It involves listening to people. These are not seen
as part of the new mission of the USOC. In fact, USOC staff has
recently directed the NGB Council that it should be composed of
professionals or stakeholders in their respective sports,
limited to the executive director or presidents. Volunteer
participation is not only discouraged at this point, it's to be
eliminated from the process.
Now, we'd like to be very clear to the Committee that our
concerns are based upon current USOC policy and priority and
not personalities. The staff and officers of the USOC have
dedicated themselves in good faith to doing their mission as
they see it to be done. We believe the view is too narrow. We
believe that Congress needs to clarify the intention of the
statute and its purpose for the USOC, reminding it of its
greater responsibilities.
For us, inclusion in the Pan American Games is crucial to
the existence of our NGBs. By definition, if the sport is not
included on a Pan American Games, they lose their membership
status. Since 1995, the PASO, the regional organization, has
never excluded an Olympic sport from their play program, but
has been historically reluctant to include Pan American sports.
Our sports have lobbied vigorously and successfully for
inclusion in the 1995, '99, and 2003 Pan American Games.
Unfortunately, the program for the 2007 games in Brazil does
not include any of our Pan American sports. The Pan American
Sports Council has requested the assistance of the USOC in
changing this situation, but given the remarks I make later, we
have serious concerns about the priority which is going to be
assigned to that.
For Pan American sport athletes, inclusion in the Pan
American Games is the closest they get to the American dream.
We believe that the Amateur Sports Act honors the dreams of the
Pan American athletes as well as those who participate in
Olympic and Paralympic sport.
A source of concern to the Pan American Sport NGBs is the
new USOC mission statement contained in their recently adopted
bylaws. Section 2.1 of the USOC Bylaws state the mission shall
be to support United States Olympic and Paralympic athletes in
achieving sustained competitive excellence.
The omission from the Pan American Sport Athletes from this
mission statement is deliberate, the intention obvious.
The self-defined USOC mission does not place a priority on
anything but Olympic and Paralympic athletes and thus Pan
American sports can be slowly prioritized into extinction.
We believe this is clearly against the original
congressional intent as found in the Sports Act.
Further, section 2.2 of the current USOC bylaws provide
that the USOC Board of Directors will review and prioritize the
statutory purposes for which Congress created the USOC and will
oversee the business of the corporation to advance the mission.
The current bylaws assume an authority in the USOC Board to
replace the mandates of Congress with a self-directed system of
priorities about statutory purposes--which ones, if any, will
be followed and how they fit into the new USOC mission.
Clearly, compliance with congressional statute is optional
under the bylaws. As noted by Mr. Scherr and announced at the
recent Olympic Assembly, the USOC staff has announced that all
base funding for NGBs will be eliminated in 2006, with future
funding to be based on performance. Well and good.
If this is a reality, and the ``performance'' is based on
Olympic and Paralympic success, then the Pan American sports
are going to be excluded. And if they use any other formula for
establishing the priorities, by the terms of their mission
statement and bylaws, we're lower down the pole, and priority
has to be given to Olympic and Paralympic organizations.
Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Burke?
Mr. Burke. Yes.
Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Burke, could you summarize in
conclusion.
Mr. Burke. Absolutely.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
Mr. Burke. All this being said, the Pan American Sports are
grateful and proud to be part of the U.S. Olympic Committee. It
is a fantastic organization.
We want to be a full partner. We don't want to be the
afterthought, the ignored. We want to be there. We do our part.
I can tell you for the kids in our programs, it's as good and
as strong a dream as any Olympic sport.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burke follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas Burke
INTRODUCTION
My name is Thomas Burke. I am currently the Vice Chair of the Pan
American Sports Council. I am also the President of the United States
of America National Karate-do Federation, the National Governing Body
(``NGB'') for the sport of Karate. In my capacity as an officer of the
National Karate-do Federation, and as the Vice-Chair of the Pan
American Sports Council, I have been involved in the recent reforms of
the United States Olympic Committee. I have attended the general
meetings of the Olympic Committee and NGB Council regarding the
reorganization of the USOC, as well as the recent Olympic Assembly in
Phoenix, AZ.
I appear before you today on behalf of the following Pan American
sports and their athletes: Bowling, Karate, Racquetball, Roller Sports,
Men's Softball, Squash and Water Skiing. The Pan American National
Governing Body (NGB) structure has been recognized by the United States
Olympic Committee (USOC) since the adoption of the 1978 Amateur Sports
Act. Their athletes participate successfully in the Pan American Games
and dream of future participation in the Olympic Games.
We sincerely appreciate this opportunity to meet with the
Subcommittee to discuss the serious concerns affecting our sports, as
well as the other sport organizations within the ``new'' Olympic
Committee.
FRAMEWORK OF THE INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMUNITY
A sport's participation in the ``Olympic'' movement is based upon
membership in a hierarchy of related international organizations. The
International Olympic Committee (``IOC'') is the highest sport
authority for the Olympic Games and other sanctioned international
sporting competitions. The IOC is composed, in part, of the National
Olympic Committees (``NOC'') from over 190 participating countries on
all Continents. The role and definition of an NOC is contained in the
IOC Charter, and includes the duty to ``promote the fundamental
principles of Olympism'' at the national level. The United States
Olympic Committee is the NOC for this country.
The various NOCs are organized into continental associations. For
the Americas and the Caribbean countries, the regional organization is
the Pan American Sports Organization (``PASO''). The PASO conducts a
continental athletic competition every 4 years, the Pan American Games.
The Continental Games, including the Pan American Games, are conducted
in the year before the Summer Olympic Games and are also used as an
``Olympic Qualifier'' event for several Olympic sports. The United
States consistently participates in the Pan American Games.
UNITES STATES SPORT ORGANIZATIONS: ``THE NATIONAL GOVERNING BODY''
The participation of United States athletes in Olympic and other
related competitions is governed exclusively by federal statute. The
1978 Amateur Sports Act and the more recent Ted Stevens Amateur Sports
Act established the United States Olympic Committee, its role,
authority, responsibilities and internal organization. A non-profit
amateur sport organization which meets the requirements of the statute
may be recognized by the USOC as the NGB for a particular sport.
The NGB functions as the basic ``building block'' of the greater
USOC organization. The NGB administers its sport to be sure that its
competitions are fair, non-discriminatory, and insures equal
opportunity for participation of athletes, coaches, and others. The NGB
conducts the ``grass roots'' developmental programs, and nurtures these
athletes to the elite levels of competition.
NGB's are autonomous organizations having IRC 501(c)(3) nonprofit
status. Their responsibilities and expectations are enormous. Each NGB
controls and regulates all matters related to the governance,
development, and conduct of its sport.
Importantly, in the language of the Sport Acts, Congress has
mandated equal treatment for all Olympic, Pan American, and Paralympic
athletes and NGB organizations. The Sport Act does not create a
preference or priority of one set of sports over another. In addition,
Congress has clearly defined the purposes for which the USOC was
established. These purposes clearly provide for equality in the
relationship and responsibility of the USOC to athletes competing for
the United States in the Olympics, Paralympics, and Pan American Games.
Whether or not the current governance structure and internal culture of
the USOC are in compliance with the Act, on this and other issues, is
subject to question.
THE PAN AMERICAN SPORTS ORGANIZATIONS: WHERE THEY FIT
The ``Pan American Sports'' are a specific group of NGB
organizations within the USOC. They represent sports which have an
International Federation recognized by the IOC, evaluated by the USOC
and granted NGB status for their respective sports. In order to
maintain this NGB status a Pan American Sport must have been included
in actual competition on the program of the two past Pan American Games
and the sport must also be included on the program for the current Pan
American Games.
For the Pan American Sport NGB's and their 7.7 million active
members, it's all about the Olympic dream. And for the Pan American
Sport athletes who attain the elite competitive level, it's about the
fulfillment of the Olympic dream realized through the Pan American
Games. For these athletes, the dream is an inspirational goal not just
for themselves but also for their children and future generations. Each
athlete hopes that their sport will be the next one moved onto the
Olympic program, and that maybe, just once, they could be a part of a
future Olympic Games.
Inclusion in the Pan American Games is crucial to the existence of
the NGBs involved. By definition, if the sport is not included on the
Pan American Games program, they lose their membership status. Since
1995, the PASO has never excluded any Olympic sport, but has been
reluctant to include Pan American Sports. Our sports have lobbied
vigorously and successfully for inclusion in the 1995, 1999, and 2003
Pan American Games. Unfortunately, the program for the 2007 Games in
Brazil does not include any Pan American Sports. The Pan American
Sports Council has requested the assistance of the USOC in changing
this situation, but has serious concerns about the priority which the
USOC will assign to our request.
For Pan American Sport athletes, inclusion in the continental Games
is the closest they can get to the ``Olympic Dream.'' We believe that
the Sport Act honors the dreams of these athletes, as well as those who
participate in Olympic or Paralympic sport.
THE USOC REVISED GOVERNANCE FOCUSES ON OLYMPIC SUCCESS
While the former Olympic Committee governance structure was
burdensome, and not a model of efficiency, it was diverse and
democratic. The involvement of seasoned volunteers was a positive
influence upon the work of the USOC, providing continuity and a ``grass
roots'' anchor. When it got down to core value, there was absolute
commitment to the success of United States Olympic, Paralympic and Pan
American teams.
The new governance structure of the USOC is intentionally
different. It is dedicated to efficient production of Olympic sports
heroes and medal production. It is a ``business'' model, and not a
``family'' one. Diversity and compromise are not particularly
efficient, and are not seen as a part of the ``Mission'' of the new
USOC.
In fact, the USOC staff has directed the NGB Council that it should
only be composed of ``professionals'' in the respective sports: the
Executive Directors or Presidents. Volunteer participation is not only
discouraged, it is to be eliminated from the process.
PAN AMERICAN SPORT CONCERNS
We want to be very clear that our concerns are based upon USOC
policy and priorities, not personalities. The staff and officers of the
USOC have dedicated themselves in good faith to their ``Mission'' as
they see it. However, we believe that their views are too narrow.
Congress needs to clarify its intention and purpose for the USOC,
reminding it of its greater responsibilities.
An obvious source of concern to the Pan American Sports NGB's is
the new USOC ``Mission Statement'' contained in the new recently
adopted internal USOC bylaws. Section 2.1 of the USOC bylaws clearly
state: ``The mission of the corporation shall be: To support United
States Olympic and Paralympic athletes in achieving sustained
competitive excellence and preserve the Olympic ideals, and thereby
inspire all Americans.'' The omission of Pan American Sport athletes
from the USOC mission statement is deliberate; the intention obvious.
The self-defined USOC ``mission'' does not place a priority on anything
but Olympic and Paralympic athletes, and thus the Pan American Sports
will be slowly prioritized into extinction. This is consistent with the
practice of the USOC over the past 15 years, with the Pan American
Sports being slowly reduced from equality with Olympic Sports to
approximately 15% of the level of support.
Further, Section 2.2 of the Bylaws provides that USOC Board of
Directors will ``review and prioritize'' the statutory purposes for
which Congress created the USOC, and ``oversees the business of the
corporation to advance and achieve the corporation's mission.'' The
current Bylaws assume an authority to replace the mandates of Congress
with a self-directed system of ``priorities'' about which statutory
purposes, if any, will be followed only if they ``fit'' into the new
USOC mission. Compliance with the Congressional statute is clearly
optional under the current USOC bylaws.
The USOC staff has recently announced that all ``base funding'' for
NGBs will be eliminated in 2006, with all future funding to be based on
``performance.'' If this becomes a reality and ``performance'' is based
upon Olympic or Paralympic success then the Pan American Sports will be
completely excluded from any future funding. If any other formula is
established, the USOC mission and bylaws require that priority be given
to Olympic sports and athletes.
The Pan American Sports primary concern is not just funding; it is
our continued survival as participants in the Olympic movement. The Pan
American Sports have received minimal funding in the past, and low
priority for use of USOC Training Centers, grant opportunities, and
performance grants to our successful athletes. But we've made the
relationship work, understood our role and worked hard to develop world
class athletes. However, if the focus of the new USOC is only on
successful Olympic and Paralympic athletes then the little structure we
had will evaporate and the Pan American athletes will be easily
forgotten.
CONCLUSION
All this being said the Pan American Sports are grateful for and
proud of our relationship with the USOC. Without financial, consulting
and related resource support from the USOC, many NGBs could not
survive, including some NGB's currently on the Olympic schedule. For
the fortunate few sports that might be considered financially
independent, the related USOC resources are still invaluable. Consider
the world-class training centers, cutting edge sports science and
medical research, access to the highest levels of potential corporate
support, as well as administrative, logistical, legal and financial
guidance that can been provided by the USOC to all sports. These are
the programs that enable NGBs to focus on their mission--offering a
dream to all Americans.
We want our relationship to develop and return to full partnership
with the other sport members of the USOC. We believe that unequivocal
USOC support for inclusion of all Pan American Sports is necessary to
convince PASO to include our athletes in the 2007 Pan American Games,
to continue their dreams of success.
We respectfully request that the Committee and the Congress clarify
in legislation the status of Pan American Sports as full partners in
the United States Olympic Movement, along with Olympic and Paralympic
sport.
We are pleased and grateful for your efforts and we applaud your
commitment. Thank you again for the opportunity to share our thoughts
and concerns!
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Burke. At this time, the
Committee will move to questions, and my first question is to
you, Mr. Scherr.
It is the Subcommittee's understanding that some national
governing bodies have recently threatened to end their
relationship with the USOC because they feel that the USOC is
inappropriately exerting control over the policies and
practices of their individual organization. I guess first of
all, are you familiar with this notion and then do you disagree
with that sentiment, and, if so, why?
Mr. Scherr. Let me say I'm familiar with two cases. One is
the sport of triathlon and USA Triathlon, which had a vote
brought before their board by one board member, and any board
member can introduce a resolution and that resolution was to
sever its relationship with the USOC. Its board voted with only
one to remain with the USOC with only one person voting to
leave the USOC and that was the person who brought the motion.
That motion was brought because the USOC, in its review of
the governance practices of USA Triathlon, found a practice to
which we had an objection, which was that I believe it is any
100 members of the organization can--who sign a petition--can
stop the business of the organization and have the entire
membership of the organization, which I believe is roughly
35,000, vote on that resolution, so that included any action
the board took--hiring an executive director, making any
actions. So we asked them to change that in their provisions
because 100 people in their organization could stop the entire
activity of the governing body. This brought the one individual
of the board to tender that motion.
But their board reaffirmed at a recent meeting that I was
present in Colorado Springs that they are very happy to be part
of the Olympic Movement and voted to remain as a part of it.
The other is Modern Pentathlon, which did not vote to leave
the organization, but voted to dissolve because they had become
bankrupt, and the USOC is currently exercising directly the
responsibilities of that national governing body until we can
form a new one. And we're working closely with the
international federation to do so.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you. Mr. Hamm, since the events in
Athens, have you and your brother's relationship with the USA
Gymnastics and the USOC changed? And if so, how?
Mr. Hamm. Well, they haven't changed a great deal just
because my relationship in the past with them didn't include
that much communication, especially the USOC. Typically, if I
wasn't competing in a world or Olympic Games or an event that
involves the USOC, I would not be in contact with them.
But, for the most part, I just feel more worried about
whether or not I can trust these organizations in the future.
That's the way that I feel like our relationship has changed. I
feel that I have to be kind of on guard when I talk to them or
tell them anything in confidentiality.
Mr. Hostettler. Well, let me ask you something. And not
only yourself, but for all future athletes, is this a sentiment
that you had before Athens?
Mr. Hamm. I don't understand the question. I'm sorry.
Mr. Hostettler. Is this--did you feel that you had to be
independent of these two governing bodies in order to win a
gold medal? I mean aside from your training and what you had to
put in, what did you feel that, as an athlete, and what do you
think most athletes in your situation--what do you think most
of them believe should be the responsibility of the governing
body and the USOC to their pursuit of a medal?
Mr. Hamm. Well, as far as when athletes go over to Athens
and this is the way I felt myself is that you basically give
over complete control to these governing bodies. And you are--
and staying in the Olympic Village with USA Gymnastics
representatives, and they are the people that are taking care
of you for that time. And they are the people that are supposed
to be defending you and protecting you. There's no one else
there. You don't have contact or easy contact with outside
sources when you're in the Village. It's very difficult to even
to get in contact with family members or see family members.
So I think a lot of athletes feel that these governing
bodies are supposed to be there to protect them when they're in
the Village at the Olympics.
Mr. Hostettler. Very good. In your statement, you indicate
that your attorney was told that you needed to build a defense
fund. Were you told what the rationale for that was?
Mr. Hamm. Well, the reason to build a defense fund was told
to my attorney, Kelly Crabb, and the rationale for that was
that if I wanted to defend my medal in court, I would need
legal representation. And if I didn't have legal
representation, the possibility of losing the medal would be a
lot higher.
Mr. Hostettler. How do you relate that to the previous
statement that you made that when you give over control of your
life essentially to these governing bodies and then you're told
that you need to create a legal defense fund. How do you
resolve--it seems to be a conflict to me.
Mr. Hamm. Yes. Well, I feel that if the organizations are
there to support you and they know that you personally have won
the medal fair and square that they should legally support you
through the time in order to maintain that medal.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you. Mr. Scherr, do you feel that
that is the--it seems to me that that is the purpose of the
USOC is to represent the athlete's best interests and the USOC
today, do you believe, is understanding that mission? It seems
somewhat strange to me and as my family and I watched on TV
this episode unfold, we were very surprised that it took so
long for what we thought was the United States Olympic
Committee to say at the very outset, well, of course. Our
athlete has won the medal. Is that the case today? Is there
some culture within the USOC in its relationship to the
International Olympic Committee and governing bodies to say we
don't want to ruffle any feathers before the time has come and
so we're going to take a while to digest this or do you feel
that the sole purpose of the existence of the U.S. Olympic
Committee is to at the time of the delivery of the medal or at
the time of the announcement of the results that that is what,
as Mr. Hamm suggested, it's the field of play. That's where it
is and regardless of what another foreign country or even the
International Olympic Committee would suggest, we are going to
defend immediately the rights of our athlete? Do you feel that
that's the way it is today?
Mr. Scherr. I do feel that's the way it is, both today and
in past practice. The USOC I think in terms of our involvement
here--it's when we have an opportunity and an appropriate venue
for involvement.
The international federation runs and conducts the Olympic
competition for that sport. The national governing body has a
direct relationship and is a member organization of that
international federation. We, as a National Olympic Committee,
are a member of the IOC. We do not have a relationship,
directly or indirectly, with the international federation.
Now, there may be some politics from time to time between
the IF and its member entity, but we do not have a relationship
nor any political concerns within that IF other than in this
case, in gymnastics, for us to come out and strongly denounce
the international federation publicly prior to the conclusion
to the competition. It could have had repercussions in the
competition for Mr. Hamm and other athletes who still had an
opportunity to compete, because it is a very subjective and
judged sport. And the international federation can exert
influence.
But for us--and I'll give two examples--you know, Apollo
Ono during the Salt Lake Olympic Games and with an equestrian
we had a similar dispute over the application of the rules
during the competition. In one case, Mr. Ono was declared the
gold medal winner. The Koreans immediately filed a complaint
with the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which gave us a venue
with which to defend the medal.
During the Games themselves, we had a hearing and the Court
of Arbitration for Sport, or Mr. Ono did. We supported him,
paid his legal fees for that hearing, and he prevailed.
During the Olympic Games in Athens, an equestrian, there
was a similar situation, but another country--I believe it was
Germany--was awarded the gold medal. Our athletes weren't. it
was a clear technical violation of rules. We supported our
athletes, filed an arbitration with the Court of Arbitration
for Sport, and prevailed, and were able to earn our athletes
the medal. That was a bronze medal.
In Mr. Hamm's case, the Koreans waited until after the
conclusion of the Games to file with the Court of Arbitration
for Sport, so the hearing was not held until 2 months later.
Had they filed during the Games, we would have defended it at
the Games.
I'm sorry for the misinformation or confusion on--whomever
told Mr. Hamm that he needed to raise a defense fund was
incorrect. There was never any question in our minds in this
case that we would provide and pay for all the legal expenses
associated with the defense of Mr. Hamm's medal.
Mr. Hostettler. The protest was filed after the conclusion
of the all-around?
Mr. Scherr. The protest with the Court of Arbitration for
Sport. The protest internally in the international federation
was filed----
Mr. Hostettler. The next day?
Mr. Scherr. The next. I'm not sure exactly when that was
filed, but there were two actions at the international
federation. The Korean--well, actually, it was the same--the
Koreans filed a protest wanting to seek the results overturned.
Because they did not do so within an allotted time period
during the competition that protest the next day was denied by
FIG.
In addition, instead of just leaving it at that, the FIG
also suspended three officials who made the decision or made
the mistake during the competition that they believed to be a
mistake, and they suspended and penalized those officials for
that action.
So those two--so that set off what became a public furor
over the medal at that point in time, because the FIG admitted
publicly that they believed the officials made a mistake.
Obviously, there was--and I'm not an expert in the rules of
gymnastics--and have since been educated in that regard in how
this turned out--obviously, we believed and the Court of
Arbitration for Sport believed that the rules were applied
correctly and that Paul was the winner. But it wasn't until it
was decided in that venue that there was an opportunity for
defense other than a public defense in the press or otherwise.
Mr. Hostettler. Very good. I had just one more question. It
was mentioned in Mr. Burke's testimony, but why does the
mission statement of the USOC remove the reference to the Pan
American Sports and do you view that the mission statement has
precedence over the Federal charter for the USOC?
Mr. Scherr. I don't think it has precedence over the
Federal charter, but I think it is in concurrence and not in
conflict with the Federal charter. The existing mission
statement prior to its most current revision did not contain a
reference to Pan Am Games or Pan Am-only sports. I think it's
important to clarify for the Committee that there are 37
national governing bodies that participate in the Pan American
Games. Thirty-one of those go on and participate in the Olympic
Games and 6 are Pan Am-only sports and those are the sports
that Mr. Burke is referring to.
Those are treated exactly the same as the national
governing bodies in terms of recognition and rights within the
U.S. Olympic Committee. They are treated differently in terms
of--they are subject to the same criteria of resource
allocation, but some of those outcomes might be different than
for other national governing bodies.
Mr. Hostettler. Did I hear that there might be a new
mission statement that does include the Pan Am?
Mr. Scherr. No. The mission statement prior to its
revision, which was almost 2 years ago now, did not include Pan
Am-onlys of Pan Am Games. The new one does not either. But in
the deliberations of our Board and the vote of the Board, they
viewed the Pan American Games as a stepping stone and a
precursor to the Olympic Games and that our support with the
Pan Am Games would be subject to its role as a supporting
mechanism and training ground for the Olympic Games, and that's
why it wasn't specifically cited in the mission statement.
Mr. Hostettler. All right. Thank you. The Chair will now
recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for
questions.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me apologize that we have a vote
pending on the Floor, which doesn't give us much time. So I
will try to capture the gist of what I think this important
hearing has offered to us this morning.
First of all, let me also applaud you, Mr. Henderson, both
for your athletic prowess, but certainly for what you have
created after the fact, which is the embracing of opportunities
for young Americans who would have a number of different
obstacles maybe in front of them to be exposed to the joy, the
absolute infusion of energy that athletic participation
engenders. And so I want to thank you for that.
Let me just pose to you the first question. Is it my
understanding that you would not like to see the Ted Stevens
Act reopened? Is that my understanding?
Mr. Henderson. At this moment in time, no. I would not like
to see it reopened. I have a couple of concerns.
First of all, I'm representing a wide array of athletes,
coming from different size NGBs, with different needs. I feel
it's very important for the athletes to voice concern for me to
hear and understand all of the athletes' concern and then build
a consensus and bring that forward.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So you have not--you don't close the door
specifically, but you'd like to poll your constituency and get
a better understanding of where they'd like to go?
Mr. Henderson. That, on top of a concern that if this is
put in the legislation--what I'm concerned about is it might
need a little bit of tweaking in regards to commercial terms.
So if we're heading into the Olympics and there is something
that an athlete comes to me and says, hey, I really feel that
this is binding me from making a solid living for myself. I
need to adjust this. It gives me the opportunity if I work with
the USOC to set up an Athlete Bill of Rights. I can adjust it
much quicker. It just takes a board meeting for that to be
passed. Whereas, legislation, as you know, might be more time
consuming.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, what I would say to you is you make
a very good point about the constant every 2-year participation
in the Olympics. I'm not--I have not conceded whether or not
legislation is needed or not needed. I do believe that an
Athlete's Bill of Rights is an important document, and I would
follow up with asking you--you've listed six points,
particularly the ones that I'm interested in working to improve
athlete support programs, and, of course, job opportunities,
which I understand many athletes flounder even in between
competition with no support, and then the Elite Athlete Health
Insurance. Are you moving toward some of these interests being
received by the USOC Committee and are you working toward some
of these goals, including the six points that you're concerned
about?
Mr. Henderson. Actually, yes. We've made considerable
movement toward achievement of a lot of those goals. I've been
in office only 4 months at this point in time. But this is the
first management that has actually showed concern--one of my
own personal concerns, which is dealing with athletes after
they retire from sport. A lot of--much more money is coming
into sport athletics at this point in time, especially Olympic
sports, and athletes are retiring at a later age, so we're
having a problem with athletes retiring in their late 20's and
30's, trying to find a job, competing with other people that
have just done internships and are applying for jobs. There are
23-, 24-year-olds used to getting a lot less income than
someone who's coming off the Olympic Movement.
The USOC family has actually worked toward the goal of
bringing together a job placement firm, an international job
placement firm, and announced that at the past Olympic Assembly
about a month ago.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me--Mr. Burke, I am not going to--I'm
going to take your testimony under advisement because I do want
to pose questions about the immediate incident. But I do
believe that hopefully Mr. Scherr will answer--if he did not,
if I did not hear him answer that in the Chairman's question--
answer again for me when there will be more cooperative
relationships with Mr. Burke's organization and what pathways
have you established. But let me just say, what I understand is
that you came in after the incident with Mr. Hamm? Is that my
understanding, Mr. Scherr?
Mr. Scherr. I was the acting or interim chief executive
officer during the Athens Olympic Games.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And were you in Athens I assume?
Mr. Scherr. I was.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. Let me just say this that with
all of the mea culpa, I still can't understand why Mr. Hamm
suffered for 8 days, returned back to the United States, and
there was no comment to the athlete, which says to me the same
problem we've had--the athletes produce for us but we don't
show them the respect they deserve. And even though he's a
young man, in essence a youngster, if you will, I cannot
imagine in that whole complexity that no one could find a way
to get a communique to him.
It also gives me concern, do we know anything about our
athletes if they were in jeopardy if you can't even communicate
to them by way of an incident that is happening, who is
communicating with them if they're in jeopardy? Who is
monitoring their comings and goings or relating to them from
the national level in their comings and goings?
The other thing is that I'd be concerned about however it
got misconstrued for a FIG letter to be going without his
notice to be asking for the medal to be given back or let's
see--I had it on here what he was asked to do--that he would
give back the medal and then some other commentary about two
medals. Absolutely an outrage.
And let me just say this: what we saw back home, that's
really the crux of it. What we saw back home was a youngster
floundering over a period of time, and the cameras were only on
the youngster, the athlete. Forgive me, Mr. Hamm, for calling
you a young person. I'm young as well.
But only on him. That whole saga. We didn't get to see an
adult-formed committee, spokesperson making a statement. Even
if you had said, we will investigate this fully, but we are in
strong support of Mr. Hamm.
And let me say this: I understand that you have an
international delicate situation. That was what your concern
was more that than anything else. What do we do about Korea? We
don't want to break both the relationship with Korea, but
importantly the other athletes that are allegedly still
participating. But I think that respect is given to those who
give respect. And if we had respected our athlete and we
respected ourselves, all the other nations would have respected
us as well.
Mr. Hostettler. The gentlelady's time has expired for now,
but we will be returning for a second round of questions. We've
got a vote on in the House----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, can I indulge you for----
Mr. Hostettler. No. I've got to go vote. So we are
recessed.
Ms. Jackson Lee. But you're not going go vote while we're
listening to the answer.
Mr. Hostettler. We are recessed.
[Recess.]
Mr. Hostettler. The Subcommittee will come to order. I
thank the panel, the witnesses for your indulgence. One of the
casualties of an early cessation of activities of the House is
a loss of Members, but I appreciate your being willing to stick
around for a while and answer a few more questions.
Mr. Scherr, with regard to the funding of the USOC, what
percentage of your funding goes to travel and bonuses, and what
percentage goes to the support of athletes and the development
of future athletes, and if I can probably be more generic, what
is your--I would like to know about the funding level of travel
and bonuses. But you might want to start out by giving an
overhead cost--administration versus.
Mr. Scherr. Yes. Let me start by saying this. About 2 years
ago, prior to the internal reformation that we undertook to
become more efficient, approximately 78 percent of our total
budget was expended on athletic programs and direct support to
national governing bodies and athletes and 22 percent on
general and administrative expenses.
Today, that number is 87 percent on athletic performance
and programming and 13 percent on administrative expenses. Our
budget, although it varies on a cycle, will be approximately
$550 million over the 4-year period. So roughly a little over
$125 million a year. And of that, looking at those percentages,
it's probably less than $20 million on administrative expenses.
Travel you'd have to separate between what is staff and
administrative travel versus what we spend to send athletes and
teams to the Olympic and Pan American Games, and I couldn't
give you a specific number on that break out, but it is a small
percentage.
As it relates to bonuses, as I mentioned earlier, directors
and above in the organization forfeited any incentive
compensation and bonuses for the past 2 years. This year, we're
instituting a very modest incentive compensation program, the
total cost of which is under $1.5 million and in excess--in
comparison to what goes on programming and athletes, it's
probably about in excess of $105 million directly to athletes
and national governing bodies and programming.
Athlete funding. The amount we spend directly on athletes,
where a check goes to an athlete from the U.S. Olympic
Committee has recently doubled. That was about 6.5 million
dollars, and will now be about $13 million, and we doubled that
as of July 1st.
Mr. Hostettler. And you've answered that question. Let me
ask you. I don't know if you mentioned this in your opening
statement, but what was the number of employees at the USOC
prior to the reorganization as opposed to the number of USOC
members on the payroll after? I know there's a lot of volunteer
activity in the USOC, but how many do you have on the payroll
today versus how many you had previously?
Mr. Scherr. When I was named interim executive director,
which was just on the heels of the resignation of Lloyd Ward
and Marty Mankamyer as our president, just at the start of our
governance reform process, there were 572 budgeted positions,
and we always have some natural positions that aren't filled at
any point in time--vacancies. And there were 550 full-time
equivalent positions at that point in time.
Today, we have 383 positions that are budgeted in full in
addition to about 20 interns that are part-time employees that
are not fully compensated.
Mr. Hostettler. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Hamm, I have
additional questions. Are you familiar with any other
individuals who have been harmed by actions or the lack of
actions by the USOC and the USAG as a matter of course, because
they did not participate in tours associated with the USAG?
Mr. Hamm. USOC wouldn't really be involved that much with
the post-Olympic tours that I participated in and also other
athletes. But I know that one of my teammates, Blaine Wilson,
was upset with the way--it was his decision to not be a
participant in the tour and actually consulted John Ruger in
the Olympic Village, who is the Athletes' Ombudsman about USA
Gymnastics' behavior regarding the tour situation.
Also, another athlete that I remember was very upset with
USA Gymnastics for the tour situation was Courtney McCool. She
wanted to participate in a tour show at her home town, and USA
Gymnastics would not allow her to do that because that was part
of a different tour, the tour that I went on.
I've had conversations with some people that have described
the situation with USA Gymnastics, talking that they felt like
they in a sense felt as if there was a gun pointed to their
head, and they had to sign these agreements in order to compete
in the Olympic Games.
So many of the athletes felt pressured into signing these
agreements even though they were not agreements that they felt
were in their best interest. And in the 2003, prior to the 2003
World Championships, many of the athletes on the men's side
were very upset with the tour agreement, and we had the whole
men's senior team sign a document that said that we were upset
with that and that we propose a different type of agreement,
and that was just shot down by USA Gymnastics.
Mr. Hostettler. And once again, the statement with regard
to analogizing it with a gun to the head was as a result of the
sentiment toward the national governing body?
Mr. Hamm. Yes.
Mr. Hostettler. And not the USOC?
Mr. Hamm. No.
Mr. Hostettler. Okay.
Mr. Scherr. Mr. Chair, can I----
Mr. Hostettler. Yes.
Mr. Scherr.--augment Mr. Hamm's answer. In general, our
bylaws and the law protect athletes' eligibility rights and
should any national governing body or any other entity threaten
their eligibility over a commercial issue, such as this tour,
we would be compelled to step in at that point in time. And in
this particular incident, once Mr. Ruger notified us of the
issues and concerns, we spoke with Mr. Colorossi, the executive
director of Gymnastics personally and through written
communication to cease any action to threaten or attempt to
deny athletes' eligibility related to these tours.
However, because of the nature of the relationship between
the governing body and services provided, there can be a
hostile situation created between athletes who go on other
tours versus those that go on the NGB's tour, and those are
something that we have great concerns about and take very
seriously.
Mr. Hostettler. Great. Thank you. Mr. Henderson, you and
Mr. Hamm both spoke about an Athlete's Bill of Rights. Could
you in broad stroke terms suggest to us what might be included
in that?
Mr. Henderson. Commercial terms would definitely be the
center of that bill. The problem that we have is that when
I'm--as I said earlier, I'm going to be representing several
different athletes from several different types of sports. So
what might be great for someone like Paul might not be so great
for someone that is in a smaller sport. An example could be
that an NGB requires an athlete to wear Nike up to the blocks
to race, and the athlete thinks--is getting paid to do that.
But in a larger sport, they're dependent more on their own
sponsors. And so if I'm requiring an athlete to wear Nike and
thinking that I'm helping him out, I'm actually not because I'm
taking more money away from him than he might get from a
competing sponsor.
So as I said earlier, if this goes in the legislation, if
an Athlete's Bill of Rights goes into legislation, I will not
have the ability to adjust it on the fly, which I will need to
do as athletes come to me and give me their concerns. What I
need to do is work within the USOC, because the communication
channels are now there for us to actually work with the new
board and to work with the USOC staff to come up with a Bill of
Rights that's fair for the athletes and then is easily
adjustable. It's easy to--it's much easier to adjust this type
of a bill by just bringing together a board meeting instead of
its legislation. You understand how long it can take.
Mr. Hostettler. Sure. Now let me get this straight. The
situation, the scenario that you gave to us earlier would that
be as result of the action of the NGB? Who would force them,
for example, to--and this just is an example I know--who would
require them to take Nike to the blocks as opposed to?
Mr. Henderson. I can give you an example because it's
intimate to me--I can give you an example in swimming. One of
the biggest problems that we have in swimming right now, which
does not affect a lot of the smaller sports is that we have an
international federation who is telling our athletes that they
have to wear the international federation sponsor on a bib over
their sweats until their name is announced behind the blocks,
and then they have to wear the sponsors on their swim caps as
well. And they said if they don't wear it, they're disqualified
from the meet and will not be allowed to swim the rest of the
meet, and this is world championships.
Mr. Hostettler. But that's not the IOC, the International
Olympic Committee, or the USOC? That's the foundation that
governs----
Mr. Henderson. No one has----
Mr. Hostettler.--international swimming?
Mr. Henderson. No one can stop our international federation
from doing this--FINA. So this is one of the athletes' concerns
that we have to address. We have to work together with the USOC
and the IOC in a political way to get them to take more
responsibility--the IOC that is--to take more responsibility
for the international federations that are governing a lot of
the big meets that our athletes are going to.
Now, the case with Paul right here is a prime example. You
have an NGB who is trying to a little bit muscle the athletes
to come on their tour to help them make money because they're
raising money to fund the grassroots athletes as well, and the
NGB. And the athletes have a competing tour that they're making
great money on as well, and trying to make a living. The USOC
stepped in and protected the athletes, and when we came--the
knowledge came to us about what was going on. So we're in the
loop. We're working together. But as Paul said, a lot of this
is dealing with the NGBs and not the USOC.
Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Hamm, could you comment on what you
might see in an Athlete's Bill of Rights?
Mr. Hamm. Some of the things that I think should be
included is that an athlete should be allowed to compete in an
unsanctioned event, which means that basically, for instance,
the tour that I competed on--or participated in was an non-
sanctioned event, which I potentially could be kicked out of
competition for.
Mr. Hostettler. By whom?
Mr. Hamm. By USA Gymnastics.
Mr. Hostettler. Okay. Okay.
Mr. Hamm. That's one thing that I think athletes should be
allowed to do.
Some of the other things that I have here that were written
by my attorney, Kelly Crabb, that are good examples. The
athlete will be directly consulted on all matters that affect
the athlete's status or standing at any games. That would be
something that would definitely need to be included. No athlete
will be compelled to join or punished for failing to join any
commercial event sponsored or promoted by any NGB. And an
independent grievance channel for an athlete needs to be
established. And what I guess that means is that, for instance,
like John Ruger and Mr. Henderson are all funded in part
through the USOC, which makes it very hard for them to have an
unbiased opinion about the situation, because they do not want
to have to put their job in jeopardy.
Mr. Hostettler. Very good. And then I just want to make one
more clarification. Mr. Burke, what were you told was the
reason behind the Pan American--the lack of notation of the Pan
Am athletes in the mission statement for the USOC?
Mr. Burke. The mission statement as it was before the new
revision or the one that was revised and included Paralympic?
Mr. Hostettler. Well, either one. Well, my question has to
do with Pan Am Games. I don't know what--I'm not concerned
about what was or what is. My understanding is they both don't
include the Pan Am, which I'm going to ask a question as to why
Paralympic was included and not Olympic. But my question right
now is Pan Am.
Mr. Burke. Certainly. Pretty much what Mr. Scherr said that
we are not considered part of--a real part of the Olympic
Movement. We're kind of a preliminary precursor to Olympic
sport, and, therefore, would not be included.
Mr. Hostettler. Okay. All right. All right. I'm sorry if
you could repeat that.
Mr. Burke. That the Pan American Sports were a precursor to
the Olympic Sport or Paralympic Sport and that we were not--our
sports were not of that same level, and so we were not included
as being part of the mission for the committee.
Mr. Hostettler. Do you find that in contrast to the Federal
charter?
Mr. Burke. I do.
Mr. Hostettler. Okay. You do. Mr. Scherr, once again, why
was the Pan Am omission in the statement? Why is the Pan Am
omission in the statement, sir?
Mr. Scherr. Let me clarify what I said earlier because I
did not say that the Pan Am Games nor the Pam Am Sports were
not part of the Olympic family or the Olympic Movement. The Pan
Am Games itself is not the competition it was 20 or 30 years
ago.
For most of the sports on the Olympic program and who
participate in the Pan American Games, it is a development
competition, where they send athletes who are not quite at the
level of the--of participating in Olympic Games as a
developmental competition.
In some cases, it's a qualifier for the Olympic Games and
they send their very best teams in order to qualify for the
Games. But for most, it's a very easy competition, and they
send developmental teams.
So it is not the main focus of the mission of the United
States Olympic Committee as decided by the membership of the
Committee, not by my self. It was a vote of our membership.
And the vote of the membership chose to prioritize our
mission and focus on the Olympic Games as well as the
Paralympic Games. The Pan American Games being in some cases a
qualifying competition for the Olympic Games is viewed as a
very important part of the business of our national governing
bodies in preparation for the Olympic Games.
There are six organizations who are on the program or who
were on the program of the Pan American Games but not on the
program for the Olympic Games. Those are the six organizations
that Mr. Burke is representing here today, not the 31 Olympic
sport organizations who participate in the Pan Am and the
Olympic Games.
Those six organizations are important to the Olympic
Committee. We provide them recognition. We provide them support
and access to our training centers, and we have provided them a
guaranteed amount of funding. As with all of our 30, or
actually our 45 if you count the winners, but on the summer
side the 37 national governing bodies, none of them are
entitled to guaranteed funding any longer. It will all be
determined on our prioritized basis on a number of--set of
complex criteria and that's the manner in which we will
allocate our resources. So at the end of the day, they are part
of the Olympic Movement. They are recognize by us. It is not in
conflict with our charter to prioritize and allocate our
resources in alignment with the purposes in the act and the
goals of the Olympic Movement. They are important to us, and
they are part of our Olympic family.
Mr. Hostettler. I guess--I remember a little over 20 years
ago going to Indianapolis and watching Carl Lewis in the Pan Am
Games. Why are the Pan Am Games not what they were over 20
years ago, as you mentioned? Could it be said that over the
last few decades as part of the USOC's direction that maybe the
USOC did not give it the preeminence that----
Mr. Scherr. It really has nothing to do with our
participation. We spend far more in participating in the Pan
American Games and supporting our delegation there than we do
the Olympic Games, just because of the size of the delegation.
And we haven't reduced our support for sending a team and
participating well in those games. But the market itself and
the reality of the world's sport competition has changed.
There are so many new sports and new sport competitions and
different interests out there. The Pan American Games is not
even televised in North America any longer, because television
and the viewer don't find an interest in the competition.
And on the field of play, it is just not an important
competition for many of the athletes in terms of their
development, and that's just a matter of the fact that teams
travel around the world to other competitions now. World Cups,
world championships are so much more predominant and important
in the scheme of an athlete's development than the Pan American
Games. And the media, television, and sponsors understand that
because it's a market reality.
Mr. Hostettler. All right. Great. Mr. Henderson, you wanted
to respond?
MR. Henderson. Point of clarification on Mr. Hamm's
comment. The AAC is federally mandated entity within the USOC,
as is the 20 percent representation on any committee, including
the Board of Directors, for athletes. And so we hold three
meetings a year that we are reimbursed for by the USOC. But I'm
strictly a volunteer. I have not been paid one dime, even
though I wish I had been. Mr. Scherr or anybody at the USOC do
not have the power to fire, hire, or do anything with the AAC.
The AAC members are elected by their NGBs.
Mr. Hostettler. Elected by the NGBs?
MR. Henderson. By their peers. By their peers within the
NGB, yes.
Mr. Hostettler. But not like--is his name Colorossi--or----
Mr. Henderson. No. It has nothing to do----
Mr. Hostettler. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Texas for purposes of questions.
Ms. Jackson Lee. As I indicated when I was in the midst of
my questions, Mr. Scherr, I had some meetings that delayed me
from coming back, but I want to go back to where I was and to
allow you to answer the thrust of my questions and let me just
summarize.
I do realize that the USOC represents almost a foreign
policy face for the United States, and it also represents an
opportunity to engage internationally, and your standing in the
world and your ability to represent athletes certainly comes
about through the perceived or the world's perception of your
willingness to cooperate, collaborate and join in a united way
to present these outstanding efforts on behalf of athletes
around the world.
But it disturbed me, as I said, because it looked as if
there was no representation of Mr. Hamm, but I use him as an
example of any athlete. Certainly, during the course of that
time, there were a number of upsets, if you will. Steroid use
was being alleged. Other athletes were engaged in those
difficulties, and so I would not suggest a broad brush of
representation or involvement or engagement because there are
rules that have to be adhered to.
Now, I want to know from the time of the incident with Mr.
Hamm, have there been other than the corrective measures of
changing the board from 123, 124 to 11, what internal
procedures have been put in place in order to provide that kind
of direct response to a crisis or an incident such as that? It
had a direct relationship to the performance of the athlete
after performing in competition. It had direct relationship to
an issue that had to do with the receiving of medals and
certainly, there was not an allegation of impropriety on the
part of the athlete. So the appropriate entity, organization
should have felt very comfortable in fighting on behalf of an
American athlete.
What procedures have you put in place to totally correct
the mishandling of this incident that would give us comfort
that the reopening of the Ted Stevens Act at this point may not
be the correct approach to take, or we should be open minded.
And what approach have you taken to embrace Mr. Burke's
organization and move along some of the issues that he is
desirous of, and do you have interest or support for an
Athlete's Bill of Rights, which the USOC would adhere to in
working with the AAC?
Mr. Scherr. Just let me--I appreciate the opportunity to
respond to your question and statement of earlier, as well as
your questions now. And I believe there are three parts and
we'll take the matter with Paul Hamm and what measures we've
taken to provide corrective action.
At the onset of the issue or the controversy surrounding
his medal, we met immediately, the following day, with USA
Gymnastics. And I believe we've admitted this as a mistake and
recognize it as one. We were asked by them not to interfere and
meet directly with their athlete, because he was still in
competition and still had to compete several days later.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I'm sorry. Who asked you not to interfere?
Mr. Scherr. Mr. Colorossi and USA Gymnastics.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay.
Mr. Scherr. We asked them to convey our support for Paul in
his situation to Paul, and we kept them informed almost on an
hourly basis during the next several days as to what we were
doing and what we were hearing, both Mr. Colorossi and his
federation.
They assured us they were communicating with Paul on our
behalf. So the for the period of the 20th, 21st, and 22nd, we
assumed they were doing so.
On the 23rd and probably a little earlier, it became
apparent to us that there were issues of communication and we
had tried to meet directly with Paul on the 23rd and failed,
and were unable to track him down. And it was a chaotic
atmosphere, and I believe he was off on some appearances.
But on the 24th, we did communicate directly with Mr. Hamm
through Herman Frasier, who's our team leader for the Olympic
Team and a USOC representative to the athletes in the Village.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Is that August 24?
Mr. Scherr. Yes. Yes.
But I think the appearance that was given to the American
public because of a lack of strong public statements until the
international federation involved us and sent the letter
directly to us gave the appearance that Paul was alone, and
certainly from Paul's perspective--and we have great empathy
for what he went through, he in effect was by himself in not
understanding what USOC was doing nor what his federation was
doing.
We did not negotiate in any way with the Koreans regarding
a second gold medal. They came to us, asked for a meeting. We
took a courtesy meeting with them as another national Olympic
committee. They asked Peter Ueberroth and myself if we would go
and meet with the International Gymnastics Federation and the
IOC and request a second gold medal.
We said no we would not do that, and we did not go to a
meeting with the FIG or the IOC, either separately or with the
Korean Olympic Committee to request a second gold medal.
They also asked us if they could represent on our behalf
that we would be in favor of a second gold medal in either of
those two meetings, with the IAF or the IOC. We said no, they
cannot make any representation on our behalf.
And then they asked us what our response would be if one of
those bodies were to award a second gold medal, and we said at
that time, well, we'll take it under consideration at that
point in time if anyone awards a second gold medal.
We also subsequent to that meeting informed Mr. Colorossi
that we had met with the Korean Olympic Committee, that the
notion of a second gold medal was floated, that there might be
some action by FIG or the IOC in that regard. If there were any
requests of the USOC to consider a second gold medal, we wanted
Mr. Colorossi to assure Mr. Hamm that we would definitely speak
with him and his wishes would be taken into account prior to
any consideration of a second gold medal. But that occurrence
never happened, because, as we know, FIG and the IOC refused to
award a gold medal. Instead FIG took the action, which we
believe was a cowardly one, and they requested directly--not
directly--they requested the USOC to deliver a letter to Mr.
Hamm asking him to voluntarily return his medal, which to put
any athlete in that position is absolutely ridiculous. We, at
that point in time, contacted Paul and his family through John
Ruger, who was discussing marketing issues at that time with
Cheryl Shade, Paul's agent, and we knew could get a hold of
Paul whom we believed had returned to----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Wasn't there a conference call where the--
Mr. Hamm was given the impression that he was being asked to
give the medal back?
Mr. Scherr. I don't believe we ever gave that impression in
the call because we had--our games administrative board had met
prior to the conference call. Mr. Ueberroth and myself, the
chef de mission, and assistant chef de missions for the team
had met and decided the disposition of what we wanted to do
with the letter, which was not deliver that to Paul Hamm.
The conference call, I will say, was confusing and very
emotional in the beginning. We then reconvened and collectively
arrive at the course of action we undertook, which was to hold
a press conference, refuse to deliver the letter to Paul,
denounce the action of the FIG, and publicly declare very
strongly that Paul was indeed the rightful Olympic champion.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, let me. We could--this is a very
long recounting, and I appreciate the detail in which you're
doing so, but now focus on whether there are structures in
place to fix what was obviously broken. What, and the very fact
that we had a conference call that started off emotionally,
with the idea that you perceived or someone perceived that he
was going to be asked to give a medal back was already an
egregious, I think, breach.
But what do we have now that can interact with his chapter
or his particular association--was the athletic--or the--
sorry--the Gymnastic Association. It seems like there's a lot
of bureaucracy there.
But what is in place to have an orderly process for
athlete, for association, and for USOC if something--these
kinds of things occur on a regular basis?
Mr. Scherr. We have changed our past practice and adopted a
policy. We name a team leader for each of the teams that is our
principal liaison and communication aspect to each team. That
team leader is nominated by the national governing body. In
this case, it would be USA Gymnastics. We are informing and by
policy telling the national governing body and the team leader
that the team is responsible to the U.S. Olympic Committee.
Should there be any incidents, we expect access to the athlete
directly by a representative of the U.S. Olympic Committee,
either paid staff or volunteer representative, and we will not
rely on the national governing body for those communications in
the future. And that is now part of our policy in selecting and
directing the team leaders who are responsible for each of the
delegations in the Games.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. So that team leader now--is
that a by-law or a sort of--a structure change that's written
somewhere that we now have team leaders that associate with----
Mr. Scherr. The team leaders existed in the past, but the
policy change is different in that the team leader is
responsible to the U.S. Olympic Committee for providing access
directly to the athlete.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. Is that a written--when you say
it was before, so have their duties been reformed? Do you have
something in writing on that?
Mr. Scherr. Yes, we can deliver that to you in terms of the
policy----
Ms. Jackson Lee. I'd appreciate----
Mr. Scherr.--procedures for team leaders.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So that means that that team leader is
speaking to athletes and their coaches or and the head of the
association and obviously I'm not an expert on the structure,
but they would be speaking to the head of the gymnastic
association; is that who they're speaking to?
Mr. Scherr. The team leader is appointed by the national
governing body, approved by us, and they're the primary
communication vehicle to the coaches, the team directors, and
the athletes for all conditions of participation in the Games,
their housing in the Village, their entry into the competition,
and so on. We have in the past communicated through the team
leader. What we are doing by policy now is communicating to the
team leader that we will no longer communicate through them,
but we will communicate directly with the athlete. And they
will be responsible for making that communication possible.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay. Let me say that that is an
improvement, and I know the good intentions and good faith with
which you offer that, and I thank the Chairman for his
indulgence on this. But understand that I still don't hear a
change, a structural change in policy that would address where
Mr. Hamm found himself, and I don't want to use him as the only
example. There could be a number of other incidences that would
occur that require your swift intervention, you knowing what
you should be doing for the many obligations that you have--
one, the world arena and your relationship with the
international committee. But I'm not hearing any structure in
place that doesn't wind up with families thinking they have to
have defense funds and conference calls with misinformation.
That team leader--what is then in place that is a trouble
shooter or structure to respond to a troubled situation that
requires the U.S. AOC's involvement? I don't hear that.
Mr. Scherr. Well, there is an athlete ombudsman, who
resides in the Village, who is responsible to the Athletes
Advisory Committee. His salary is paid by the U.S. Olympic
Committee, but the athlete ombudsman is responsible to the
Athletes Advisory Committee for protecting the rights of the
athletes in eligibility issues, commercial rights issues, and
any issues regarding--in which an athlete feels aggrieved.
Athletes have access to that person. They have their phone
number in the Village. They have complete access to them.
And so, at any point in time, if an athlete feels there's
an issue, they have that avenue to go through.
As it relates to defending the athlete's medal and
eligibility, that is already I believe well protected
statutorily, and we do provide, if it's a meritorious case, we
provide--and not frivolous--we provide full funding for an
athlete's----
Ms. Jackson Lee. So what happened is just that that
communication just didn't get to this----
Mr. Scherr. It was a communication issue, and it was an
issue with timely and effective communication.
Ms. Jackson Lee. But you say you have rules in place?
Mr. Scherr. There are rules in place.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Can you just quickly answer my last two
points, which is working with the Pan American group and then
AAC in terms of the work that they're doing, particularly
focusing on an Athlete's Bill of Rights?
Mr. Scherr. As it relates to the AAC and Athlete's Bill of
Rights, I think there were three issues that were mentioned.
Athletes' eligibility rights are protected expressly in our by-
laws and the act, and any athlete who feels that they've been
improperly denied that opportunity has the ability to have that
overturned and protected legally.
So I think that is well protected.
The athletes do have their own ombudsman. It is funded by
us, but he reports to the Athletes Advisory Committee and is
responsible to the athletes, and I do not think it's conflicted
in his duties in representing the athletes. And they have an
opportunity to lodge grievances through that person.
And I think the third issue regarding commercial rights and
what they wear and whether or not there is punitive or other
measures taken at the NGB level, I think that the ombudsman and
the USOC has adequately protected in that in the past, and as
has the AAC.
I believe the last issue was in this circumstance, is there
opportunity for protection for athletes in the Games and the
communication channels. And we have approximately 700, 600 to
700 athletes in any Olympic Games, and those communication
channels are open. It would be difficult to mandate through I
think Federal legislation how and when you communicate with
each of those athletes.
But it's an issue that we take very seriously. We're very
concerned about. We know we made an error in this case, and I
think we've adequately addressed through policy and practice
how we will deal with it in the future.
As it relates to the Pan Am onlys--those seven governing
bodies--this has been an issue that we've worked on diligently
for over 4 years, obviously not to their satisfaction. And it
may not be to the satisfaction of any or all of them at the end
of this, but for us and our organization, it does come down to
a question of priority of allocation of resources and where
those resources are best spent. Can we provide complete funding
to every national governing body and still have $400,000 left
to pay for a defense fund for Mr. Hamm in defending his medal?
Maybe. Maybe not.
And it comes down to us as a very difficult decision that
you face on a daily basis. But we do take their 7 million
members and what they do very seriously, and we will work with
the Chair of the Pan Am Sports Council, Mr. Baggiano, and Mr.
Burke to resolve those differences.
They recently requested yesterday an opportunity for the
USOC to support their efforts in the Pan Am Games and Mr.
Ueberroth will take that under advisement.
So it is they are important to us. But it does boil down to
an overall resource allocation question and decision for our
organization. But we do treat them exactly in the same manner
as any other national governing body in terms of recognition
and support.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. The Chair has simply one more question or
maybe set of questions for Mr. Hamm.
Mr. Hamm, it's come to the Subcommittee's attention that
you have been drug tested over the past several quarters,
potentially an inordinate number of times. Can you testify as
to your experience with the drug testing prior to the Olympic
Games of Athens and afterwards with regard to the number of
times, the frequency of testing?
Mr. Hamm. Before the Olympics, I was probably being
tested--it depended. If it's an out-of-competition test, I
would have been tested maybe three or four times in the year by
USADA in out-of-competition test. And since the Olympics, I've
been tested I think four times and I've actually had a missed
test one time due to the fact that I wasn't around, which seems
like a lot.
And also what was interesting recently is that it doesn't
seem that these tests are being done randomly, which we are all
under the impression that they are supposed to be done
randomly. For instance, myself, my brother and a team mate of
mine that lives upstairs from me all got tested on the same
day.
So there--I don't know whether or not they're picking
people for specific reasons. My father actually was upset about
this. He called USADA, and they told him that the public
understands that it's supposed to be a random thing, but it's
not; that it's something that they have certain criteria for
and that criteria can change from period to period.
Mr. Hostettler. Now, when you said--you said out of
competition, you might be tested three or four times, and since
the Olympics, you've been tested four times. Since the
Olympics--it's been less than a year--you've been tested four
times. What would be the frequency? Would it be once a quarter
before the Olympics or once--are you out of competition--let me
ask you that. Are you out of competition now? Are you in that
timeframe?
Mr. Hamm. Yes.
Mr. Hostettler. Okay. So what would be the timeframe prior
to the Olympics that you would be out of competition?
Mr. Hamm. Well, it's any time that you're not actually
competing.
Mr. Hostettler. Not actually competing. So World
Championships in 2003.
Mr. Hamm. If you haven't just competed in a competition,
everything is considered out of competition in a sense.
Mr. Hostettler. So the frequency is significantly higher
since the Olympic Games?
Mr. Hamm. Yes, which seems sort of strange because you
would expect it to be higher prior to the Olympics.
Mr. Hostettler. Right. Exactly. It seems to me. But what
were these criteria? Were they suggested to you as to why you
were being tested not so randomly--you and your brother?
Mr. Hamm. I have no idea. My father spoke with a
representative from USADA, and they would not admit what the
criteria were.
Mr. Hostettler. Who governs USADA?
Mr. Hamm. To my best understanding, I think they are
underneath the USOC.
Mr. Hostettler. Is that true, Mr. Scherr?
Mr. Scherr. USADA is an independent agency from the U.S.
Olympic Committee. They're funded roughly two-thirds by the
Federal Government and one-third by the USOC. But they operate
with an independent board and completely independent from the
USOC, and I believe are subject to the ONDCP for oversight.
USADA's testing protocols are completely separate, and the USOC
itself has no input into their testing protocols. They are
random. They do and can within sports profile sports, not
individuals, but sports that might be more subject to doping
than other sports. But within that, it's completely random.
There is an increase in their budget and an increase in the
total amount of tests from 2004 to 2005. But the testing is
completely random.
Mr. Hostettler. How often have gymnasts been found to have
doped?
Mr. Scherr. Well, relative to other sports, gymnasts have a
very low frequency of positive tests.
Mr. Hostettler. So given that gymnasts generally don't dope
as much, why would Mr. Hamm--why would a gymnast--why would two
gymnasts be--why would that frequency have elevated to the
extent that it has over the last few months? And I understand
they're completely independent. There's no direction at all by
USOC or who do they answer to? Who do they give that
information to?
Mr. Scherr. We sign a 4-year contract with them, and at
that point in time, their overall administration of how they
work is done contractually with the USOC. But in practice of
how they administer their tests, how they adjudicate their
tests, and how they operate is completely independent.
We have no ongoing input or communication channel into
their activities, and I think their oversight on an ongoing
basis is the board that is appointed, in part, by them and, in
part, I think by the Federal Government.
Mr. Hostettler. I want to thank all of the--thank you, Mr.
Scherr. I want to thank all the members of the panel for your
testimony today, and your help in this very important issue. It
is not only important to the Congress, but quite honestly is
important to all the American people because of our love for
the Olympics and our love for the Olympians.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, might I just make an inquiry
please?
Mr. Hostettler. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I think Mr. Scherr indicated that you will
provide me with some specifics of the policy in writing?
Mr. Scherr. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And I would greatly appreciate it. I
assume for the whole Committee, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Hostettler. Right.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And I'd also like to, as I understand it,
we haven't closed the door for possibly looking at what
potential legislative need--we haven't closed the door. We
haven't opened the door. We're remaining open and the more
information that the individual witnesses may have I would
welcome to help us to consider this very, very important issue,
and I want to thank all the witnesses, and I yield back.
Mr. Hostettler. The gentlelady is correct, and I want the
record to reflect that submissions for today's hearing will be
accepted for 2 weeks from today's date. The Subcommittee has
received many inquiries from groups and individuals interested
in submitting items for the record, and we want to ensure that
all interested parties have the opportunity to make these
submissions to the record.
The Subcommittee will be sending any additional questions
that we may have, and we would thank the members of the panel
for your timely response to those questions.
The business before the Subcommittee being complete, we are
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary
Like many, I sat enthralled watching Paul Hamm's come from behind
victory. This unexpected comeback victory was the pride of America.
Then this glorious victory turned into a horrible nightmare for Paul
Hamm. Seeing Paul Hamm hung out to dry for days on the television
compelled me to come to his defense. In doing so, I gained a personal
view of the inner workings of the Olympic system and its faults and
weaknesses.
Paul Hamm is an Olympic champion who competed to the best of his
ability, followed all the rules of his sport, and won his gold medal by
doing all that is expected of an elite athlete. He is a perfect example
of an U.S. Olympiad that makes America proud not only through their
athletic achievement but also because they represent this country with
honor and dignity. While understanding the need to handle controversies
during the Games quietly, and in a uniform manner, the support system
in place for an athlete should not be silent in a controversy that
involves an competitor from an aggressive and vocal country. This is
the situation Mr. Hamm found himself in and for far too long he was
there alone. I hope today we find that changes have been made to
address this type of situation in the future.
While the U.S. Olympic Committee has made internal reforms to its
governing structure, I think reforms need to be made in the
organization's priorities both procedurally and monetarily with regard
to Olympic athletes as well as up and coming athletes within the
Olympic family.
My understanding is that some of the backroom negotiations and the
motives of officials that steered Mr. Hamm's experience are common
place within the Olympic family, and that should be stopped. It has
been alleged that the head of the Gymnastics National Governing body,
who was so absent in defense of Mr. Hamm, was in the process of
negotiating for a job with the Federation of International Gymnastics
and also was affiliated with a gymnastic tour that Mr. Hamm had chosen
not to join. There shouldn't be even a perception that the actions of
individuals in positions of influence are being governed by pending job
opportunities or an athlete's personal choices about participating in
profit making non-Olympic endeavors.
Additionally, allegations have been made that too much of the
Olympic Committee's budget may be going to bonuses for high level
officials within the organization, for travel and accommodations for
meetings of the Olympic governing structure, and increasing larger
entourages accompanying athletes to Olympic events, rather than Olympic
athletic programs who need the funding and programs producing our
future Olympiads. This is certainly not what most people would perceive
as representing appropriate prioritization by the Olympic Committee.
Hopefully, we can get some answers today and if necessary address these
concerns.
__________
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims
The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) was established in 1896,
to select American athletes to compete in the Olympics. The Amateur
Sports Act of 1978 (the Act), provided for the recognition by the USOC
of National Governing Bodies (NGBs) and for dispute resolution. In
1998, the Act was amended by the Ted Steven's Olympic and Amateur
Sports Act, which provided for recognition of the Athletes' Advisory
Council (AAC) and the National Governing Bodies' Council (NGBC), the
creation of an Athlete Ombudsman, and responsibility for the
Paralympics Games.
The USOC has experienced some embarrassing controversies. In 1991,
USOC President Robert Helmick resigned amidst allegations of ethical
misconduct. A few years later, in an effort to win the bid to host the
2002 Olympic Winter Games, the Salt Lake City Bid Committee was accused
of offering bribes to IOC members who were responsible for selecting
the host nation of the 2002 Games. In 2002 and early 2003, ethical
questions were raised in relation to an action by former USOC Chief
Executive Officer Lloyd Ward. The USOC Ethics Committee investigation
of Mr. Ward resulted in a ruling that Mr. Ward had committed two
technical violations of the USOC's ethics code. Simultaneously, a
public squabble between Mr. Ward and then-USOC President Marty
Mankamyer brought further embarrassment to the organization, and
ultimately both Ward and Mankamyer resigned.
As a result of these incidents, USOC oversight hearings were held
in 2003. This led to the establishment of the Independent Commission on
Reform of the United States Olympic Committee. The Independent
Commission issued a report in June 2003, in which it concluded that
many of the USOC's past problems could be traced to its large Board
membership.
According to the report, the size of the USOC Board of Directors
(124 members) made it impossible for the organization to operate in a
coordinated way. Also, nearly all USOC directors were elected to the
Board by constituent groups. As elected representatives, the directors
would tend to look first to the interests of the organization that
elected them rather than to the best interests of the American Olympic
Movement. The Commission recommended a statutory overhaul of the USOC's
governance structure.
In the 108th Congress, several bills were introduced which would
have carried out the recommendations of the Independent Commission. In
April 2004, however, the USOC implemented its own organizational
reforms. The provisions in the bills were implemented with only minor
modifications that were perceived by USOC as being necessary to comply
with the requirements of its charter. The USOC Board of 123 members
voted themselves out of power and established a Board of just 11
members.
Other than for some minor technical corrections and a few
clarifications, the USOC does not believe that legislation is still
necessary. I will withhold my judgment on this issue until I have had a
chance to listen to the testimony and question the witnesses.
We also will be hearing testimony from Paul Hamm, the first
American man to win the Olympic gold medal in the gymnastics all-around
competition. He scored a 9.837 on the high bar, to achieve an overall
score of 57.823 points, beating his closest competitor, South Korea's
Kim Dea-Eun, by .012 points, the slimmest margin for the competition in
Olympic history. South Korea's Yang Tae-Young trailed Hamm's score by
.049 and won the bronze medal.
A few days later, the South Korean delegation lodged a scoring
error complaint with the governing body of the sport, the International
Gymnastics Federation. They alleged that Yang's routine had receive a
start value of 10 during his earlier identical performances in the team
preliminaries and finals but only a 9.9 during the all-around
competition, and that this difference of .1 points would have given him
the gold medal.
According to the rules for the gymnastic competition, challenges to
scoring decisions must be made before the following rotation is
complete, so the objection from the South Korean delegation was
rejected. Mr. Hamm will testify that the USOC and the other American
organizations left him alone to deal with this dispute until it was
almost resolved. I would like to know why they did not support him
sooner.
Thank you.
Letter from John B. Langel, Law Offices of Ballard Spahr Andrews &
Ingersoll, LLP, to Jim Scherr, Acting Chief Executive Officer & Chief
of Sport Performance, United States Olympic Committee
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Prepared Statement of Michael T. Harrigan, former Executive Director,
President's Commission on Olympic Sports
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Prepared Statement of Robert F. Kanaby, Executive Director,
National Federation of State High School Associations
I am Robert F. Kanaby, executive director of the National
Federation of State High School Associations (``NFHS''). The NFHS is
the national service and administrative organization for high school
athletics and fine arts programs in speech, debate and music. From its
office in Indianapolis, Indiana, the NFHS serves its 50 member state
high school athletic/activity associations, plus the District of
Columbia.
The NFHS has a strong interest in the Ted Stevens Olympic and
Amateur Sports Act and we feel compelled to provide comments of current
pertinence.
As Executive Director of the NFHS, I write to address three issues:
1. National Governing Bodies (``NGBs'') Governance
2. NGBs deference to the ``exclusive jurisdiction'' of other
organizations; and
3. United States Olympic Committee (``USOC'') Board of
Directors composition.
The underlying organization and operational philosophy for NGBs as
embodied in the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act is the
``vertical structure doctrine,'' as reflected through NGB criteria,
duties and authorities in the Act. While the ``vertical structure''
phrase is not found in the Act itself, it is prominently mentioned in
the Report of the President's Commission on Olympic Sports on which the
Act is entirely based and in the legislative history of the Act itself.
In its simplest terms, ``vertical structure'' means
organizationally that every NGB is comprised of all of the constituent
individuals and organizations that play a role in the sport. The
purpose is that the NGB should exercise a coordinating--but not an
interfering role in the case of independent organizations not
qualifying as an NGB (such as NFHS). That would include all
constituents involved in its sport.
Operationally, ``vertical structure'' means that an NGB should
coordinate the allocation of scarce resources (i.e. funds, programs,
use of facilities, personnel, etc.) among the constituents of a sport
so that a sport may advance at the levels most needed, whether those be
elite sport, intermediate sport or beginner sport development or some
combination of all. An NGB must have all constituents represented in
its governance structure in order for the NGB to accomplish these
allocations in an equitable manner.
Statutory criteria for the NGBs as embodied in the Act require an
NGB to be open in its membership to any organization involved in its
sport. And, if the organization is national in character and conducts a
national program in a sport (e.g. NFHS, NCAA, Little League, AAU,
etc.), it is entitled to DIRECT representation on the board of the
relevant NGB.
As for DIRECT representation on the NGB's Board of qualifying
independent organizations, some NGBs, with the USOC's support, have
taken the position that all such eligible organizations shall elect but
ONE of its representatives to represent all such organizations on the
NGB Board! This action is inconsistent with the letter and purpose of
the Act as found in the NGB criteria section, and makes it more
difficult for an NGB to work cooperatively with such eligible
organizations.
It is unnecessarily difficult for an NGB to achieve the intent of
accomplishment of ``vertical structure'' operationally or
organizationally by these practices. Moreover, such practices sustain
the insularity of NGBs to focus solely on elite athletes and not to
consider the allocation of resources to other serious needs of a sport
which, in the long run, will benefit the sport more.
The USOC has either been acquiescent to these practices or has
encouraged them.
Legislation is not needed to fix these problems. The principles
enumerated are already in the Act. But an Oversight Report from
Congress that clarifies Congressional intent in this and other issues
is sorely needed.
And then there is the other side of the equation: how NGBs
interfere with the internal working of independent organizations,
including members of the NFHS.
Section 220526 of the Act grants the NFHS and other similar groups
and categories ``exclusive jurisdiction'' over competitions it conducts
if participation is restricted to high school athletes or the members
of another independent organization. This position is sustained in
Section 220523 (5), Authorities of NGBs, which empowers NGBs to set
``eligibility standards for participation in competition except for
amateur athletic competition specified in Section 220526'' (underlining
added). Section 220523 (3) authorizes an NGB to ``serve as the
coordinating body for amateur athletic activity in the United States''
in that sport. Legislative history spells out clearly that in
fulfilling its coordination role, an NGB is ``not given the authority
to interfere with the internal affairs'' of organizations covered in
Section 220526. The NFHS has faced and continues to face such
``interferences'' by NGBs who wish to allow high school athletes to
train and compete on outside teams during the regularly and reasonably
scheduled high school season in a sport. Such ``interferences'' have
extended to attempts by NGB constituents in certain states to ``lobby''
their state legislatures to pass blanket legislation that would allow
high school athletes to train and compete on outside teams during the
reasonably defined high school season. Such a result would create chaos
in high school sports and, in most cases, endanger the educational
welfare of the student athlete. This is not to say that state high
school associations do not grant some exemptions to allow a student
athlete to compete ``outside'' during the high school season depending
on the athlete and the sport. The NFHS also will always grant
exemptions for ``protected competitions'' as referenced in Section
220505 (c)(5) of the Act.
It is my view that such ``blanket'' legislative initiatives violate
the ``exclusive jurisdiction'' provision of the Act and the provision
should be amended or at least clarified by Congress to eliminate such
intrusions.
Finally, to take a broader view of the ``reorganization of the
USOC'' in recent years, I would offer some words of caution. While I am
in favor of a small Board with major representation of ``independents''
on that Board, I am concerned that the Board will become too insular
from the constituents it represents, notably the athletes, NGBs, multi-
sport organizations and the other organizations that comprise the
Olympic ``family.'' Representation on the USOC Board by at least one
member of the nation's education-based sports community would be a very
good thing. That is not now true, and causes us to request
consideration of such representation.
Moreover, there is a tremendous need right now among USOC
constituents
a) they be kept informed on a much more regular basis with
changes that are taking place;
b) they be provided the opportunity for input beyond a once a
year meeting;
c) they be included in decision making when those decisions
impact their operations or organizations
Surely, the original intent of Congress in passing the 1978 Act was
to have the USOC lead in many areas; however, an equal intent was to
make the USOC accountable to Congress, the American people and the
constituents the USOC represents. Congress should look at this issue to
determine how the constituents can remain involved and informed in an
appropriate way without the need for costly face-to-face meetings by
such a large constituency. I believe the present time of reorganization
provides an excellent opportunity to seek procedures that will meet
that intent.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide these comments for the
record.
<all>