In defense of USFCA

[oiuyt]

This was never more apparent to the average USFA member than when they took over this past summer.

Just to clarify, the USOC did NOT take over US Fencing this past summer. It didn't even take over the international programs area.

What the USOC did was take responsibility for managing the financial payments involved with participation in Beijing (not responsibility for the money -- that was still US Fencing funds -- but rather for the management of the actual payments).

-B

[MdA]

Thanks for the clarification...but I think most people get the point.

[Allen Evans]

So the argument against adopting a code of ethics is that someone might violate it?

Since you've dragged attorneys into this, lets look at this from the other side. I'm (hypothetically) a member of the USFCA that engages in unethical practices. In fact, I flaunt those practices, and I'm asked to leave the USFCA. In turn, I sue, because none of my actions impacted the USFCA directly, and "personal honor" is not a legally defined term, or, at best is poorly defined by the USFCA constitution. I ask for reinstatement and financial restitution, as well as other damages.

While I'm suing the USFCA, a number of my students sue the USFCA as well, since they felt that since I was a credentialed coach, there was an "professional standard" that the credentials implied that I did not meet.

I'm sure a legal scholar might tell me that these actions are without merit. But that's never stopped anyone from walking in a courtroom before.

Fine. Don't adopt the USOC guidelines as written. Draft something based on them that doesn't seem to harken back to pistols at dawn. Drafting standards doesn't mean that the USFCA suddenly has to establish a Commission on Doctrine of the Faith. It does mean that when someone's behavior is outlandish, there are grounds for punishing or halting the behavior.

pjsise defines his membership in terms of belonging to a professional organization. To me, this implies certain minimum and clear standards of conduct, behavior, and skills. I've never understood the reluctance of the USFCA to define clear standards and adhere to them. It's one of the reasons why the organization has a reputation of being insular and clubish. Individual members decide what's appropriate and what isn't, what's relevant and what's not. The organization isn't speaking with one voice and so no one hears what it has to say.

AE

[oso97]

After reading that document, I'm struck by something.

Why is it verboten to coach a spouse, but okay to coach one's own child? If anything, the latter relationship is more volitile, more frought with emotional involvment, and has just as much potential to harm the athlete.

[MdA]

Hmmmm...I am going to leave this one to Mr. E.

[MdA]

So the argument against adopting a code of ethics is that someone might violate it?
AE

No…the argument is that someone WILL violate it….and you can’t stop them. The worst you can do is kick them out… so they don't have to pay their membership dues anymore....not much of a punishment for the violator.

At least the USOC can ban them from the Olympics...that is a little more serious for some coaches.

….and fortunately, I don’t think there will be enough to pay all the lawyers in your example.

[noodle]

No…the argument is that someone WILL violate it….and you can’t stop them. The worst you can do is kick them out… so they stop paying their membership dues....what a punishment.

why institute any rules or punishments then

[Allen Evans]

No…the argument is that someone WILL violate it….and you can’t stop them. The worst you can do is kick them out.

It's a start.

[MdA]

why institute any rules or punishments then

….Because, every now-and-then, an organization may need to disassociate itself from someone....it's like, who is being punished more? The violator by getting kicked out or the organization if they don't kick them out?

[Allen Evans]

MdA, you seem very close to stating that the USFCA is willing to put up with unproffessional behavior for fear of losing a dues paying member. I know you don't mean that.

AE

[MdA]

MdA, you seem very close to stating that the ***** is willing to put up with unproffessional behavior for fear of losing a dues paying member. I know you don't mean that.

AE

I don't speak for them. I'm just a member, just like you....and what I meant was, the org might be punished more by letting them remain a member.

[prototoast]

No…the argument is that someone WILL violate it….and you can’t stop them. The worst you can do is kick them out… so they stop paying their membership dues....what a punishment.

If I am to believe your thousands of other posts claiming that the usfca has some value, then kicking someone out should be a loss for them. This post seems to suggest that kicking someone out will actually benefit them, which appears to undermine all of your previous claims.

[MdA]

If I am to believe your thousands of other posts claiming that the usfca has some value, then kicking someone out should be a loss for them. This post seems to suggest that kicking someone out will actually benefit them, which appears to undermine all of your previous claims.

Yes, it would wouldn't it. But, then see the OP in this thread.

...and I don't have "thousands"...look I'm only at 685

[oiuyt]

I don't speak for them. I'm just a member, just like you....

And a fairly recent past President.

And a member of the EC until 4 months ago.

You might not be the official mouthpiece of the organization, but it's not like you've been uninvolved.

Why is it verboten to coach a spouse, but okay to coach one's own child? If anything, the latter relationship is more volitile, more frought with emotional involvment, and has just as much potential to harm the athlete.

I don't know what the actual reasoning process was, but in one of the two situations you cite there's already a well-established authority/power relationship between non-equals. The addition of a professional coaching relationship does not add that to a relationship where equal standing currently exists and is important for the health and well-being of both parties.

-B

[MdA]

.....
You might not be the official mouthpiece of the organization, but it's not like you've been uninvolved.
-B

Is this another negative comment?....I can't tell anymore.

[oiuyt]

Is this another negative comment?....I can't tell anymore.

It was intended as a neutral comment.

-B

[MdA]

......
Why is it verboten to coach a spouse, but okay to coach one's own child? If anything, the latter relationship is more volitile, more frought with emotional involvment, and has just as much potential to harm the athlete.

MdA, you seem very close to stating that the USFCA is willing to put up with unproffessional behavior for fear of losing a dues paying member. I know you don't mean that.

AE

Oso97 makes a good point here. I was hoping Mr. E would help us out.
I didn't mean we should allow gross unethical or unprofessional behavior but what about the following?

I can understand that it might not be a good idea for a woman to coach her husband on the Olympic team.... but do we really want to go after a guy who is coaching his wife on the local level?

Are you people nuts?

[oso97]

And a fairly recent past President.

And a member of the EC until 4 months ago.

You might not be the official mouthpiece of the organization, but it's not like you've been uninvolved.



I don't know what the actual reasoning process was, but in one of the two situations you cite there's already a well-established authority/power relationship between non-equals. The addition of a professional coaching relationship does not add that to a relationship where equal standing currently exists and is important for the health and well-being of both parties.

-B

True, but two other explicitly given reason for the "ban" was the effect that it has on OTHER members of the sport community (teams of which the athlete is a member of, etc) and "how it looks to outsiders" with regards to possible conflicts of interest. The parent/child relationship fails both those standards - in my view, even more than the spousal one. Its a lot easier to be objective where a spouse is concerned than with a child.

[foibles]

As Allen says, I don’t speak for the organization. I am just some guy on the “internets” that knows some stuff.

1.) Never adopt rules you can’t enforce. Any good coach knows this guideline.
2.) The USFA is financially and operationally dependent on the USOC. This was never more apparent to the average USFA member than when they took over this past summer. The USOC can survive without the USFA but I doubt that the USFA can survive without the USOC. I got my google finger working….and I noticed that most of the organizations that have adopted the USOC Coaching Ethics code are the Amateur Federations like USA Volleyball, USA Rollersports, USA Weightlifting….like USA fencing they are financially and operationally dependent on the USOC….this is a simple decision for these organizations. Not many of the independent professional coaching organizations have adopted the code.
Here is another link for those like me who can’t dl it from the USOC website
3.) Who becomes financially liable for violations of this code? Would the USOC offer funds?
4.) If a financially independent professional organization adopts this USOC code, it would have to commit a substantial amount of its resources to enforcing and investigating suspected violations. These limited funds might be better used on improving training, education, and certification which is the primary focus.
5.) It is sad that in this litigious society, organizations need to be concerned about these things and can’t simply adopt this code.
6.) I stick to my previous advice. Print it, sign it, and post it on the wall of your Salle. An organization can encourage its members to do this…but to require it means that you enforce it….and are financially liable for it.
7.) I think it is best to let the USOC assume responsibility….they may be able to afford it….and they are responsible for coaches involved directly in Olympic activities.

1. It isn't about enforcement. It's about legally distancing the USFCA from the offending coach who is already facing lawsuit. You can say... "we don't allow that kind of behavior" and pull his/ her credentials pending review.

2. If the ethics code the USFCA adopts can be described in a court as an "Industry Standard" code, that's a strong statement. Hard to imagine anything more industry standard than the United States Olympic Committee. that couldn't hurt you.

3. I wouldn't think so.

4. Again. It's not about enforcement. It's about reducing USFCA liability if a bad coach does a really bad thing.

5. Sadder still that a code should need to written out in the first place, rather than intuitively understood by all.

6. No enforcement. No financial liability. At least, I don't understand why there would be.

7. I don't understand that statement.

***
also: Why write a nearly-but-not-the-same reworded USFCA ethics code that's based off the USOC one? Is there something wrong with it? Will they send you a cease and desist for copyright infringement? If it's good enough for our Olympic coaches, why not for our other coaches?

I'm a bit new to this argument, so I apologize if I've spoken out of turn, but I fail to see why asking the USOC to allow the USFA to adopt their ethics requirements is somehow a bad thing. On the surface, it appears to fall right in step to me.

[Allen Evans]

Are you people nuts?

*sigh* Not nuts....but still curious why any organization would want to resist putting ANY objective criteria in place for any sort of behavior on the part of their membership. Especially when in terms of professional behavior, teaching, subject matter.....almost anything you could name, there are plenty of models out there to copy from that would improve the organization substantially.

It seems that any time suggestions are made to the USFCA about making it relevant there is an objection about how difficult it might be, how it can't be done in an amateur organization, and.....the list of excuses seems endless. To the rank and file (like me) it seems that the USFCA is happy to take my money and do little for me except promise to be better next year. Give me certification? I'll say it again: Being a "fencing expert" on F.net has gotten me more cred than my Prevot diploma, which would be laughable, if it wasn't so sad. Spur me to write papers on fencing or do research? I think my website is good testimony to that fact that I've been able to do that without the promise of another diploma. Put me in touch with other coaches? I do that at every NAC I attend, which I button hole coaches and ask them questions.

I'm not holding anyone personally responsible for this state of affairs -- and certainly not you, MdA -- and while I admire your loyalty, you have to admit that proselytising in the face of some of the obvious difficulties of the organization sometimes runs a little thin. I want to be a member of a professional organization that represents me as a coach. It's just that the USFCA doesn't seem to want to be that organization.

AE