Link Removed
Most of the substance of the podcast link is in reference to Sean Townsend's recent facebook post. It describes what appears to be a past grievance regarding MAG senior elite sponsorship in the early 2000s and international team selection in 2004. I'm sure there are two sides to the story, but his comments don't paint a nice picture of how senior executives at USAG conducted business, nor does it portray a positive view of others at the top echelons of decision making in USAG MAG at that time. While I find MAG is highly supportive at the junior level (I proudly support a Level9 JE!), generally a positive culture (emotionally and physically) for most of the boys participating, and less than 1% of male gymnasts are going to be affected by any "corruption" at the senior elite level, I think Mr. Townsend's post brings to mind issues that will always leave USAG MAG open for criticism:
1. USAG MAG has not been successful at growing the sport, nor has it recently enjoyed international junior or senior elite success. These are the two main goals. That may leads people to wonder if all the resources being sent to a HQ office are being best put to use.
2. At the highest levels of elite there is the appearance that the personnel making team and international assignment selection decisions, creating the selection criteria, determining who judges major meets and dev camps, making JO/JE rule interpretations and exceptions, birthdate cutoffs, implementation of Tech sequence in JE, etc. are a small, tight knit group. When an organization doesn't strictly enforce stovepipes between activities that complement each other, it creates opportunities for "collusion" or "corruption". In the absence of actual collusion, they create the perception that collusion or corruption could exist, which is equally damaging. Through the rules, judging, selection process, the sport creates a model of what makes the ideal gymnast. Other countries have shown that we may not have found the right model. If there is any truth to collusion at the top, or insufficience separation of activities, you're a fool to challenge the system while you're trying to excel within it. This begs the question, how will the sport ever implement change to its current structure to save itself from itself -- only when we completely fail in international competition or there is no one left to compete except a gew gyms in Texas, California and Illinois?
3. While I'm sure nobody at USAG, particularly MAG, got into their positions to make money, they are making a living in an organization funded by those in the sport (members) and sponsors/donors, as well as USOC. It doesn't take an HR expert to know that a lot of individual and organizational behavior is driven by incentives. I think it would be refreshing to understand how much compensation (bonuses, etc.) is provided to those at USAG MAG to "grow the sport" and how many incentives exist based on how well the athletes do in international competition. It may not be a factor in MAG, but there are references and second-hand stories of raises and bonuses (certainly the hirings and firings) based on team USA performance. If international success is actually part of the incentive structure, then one would expect behavior to be driven by ensuring success on the international stage using a variety of mechanisms, some of which can be unappealing and unhealthy for the sport on a larger level.
MAG has made some great in-roads with promoting JD to retain some athletes and Boys-Excel to expand the sport, but those only work by educating coaches and gym owners -- they only work if the owner can turn a profit and coaches are willing to train those levels. I think MAG should go a step further to build the sport from its base, vice spending most of its time grooming a few elites through top-down control. Make priority #1 to grow the sport and train the coaches and gym owners on MAG...the larger the pool of athletes from ages 5-18, the better we'll eventually be in international competition. Men peak at ages 22-26, not 16-19. We don't need great Jr. Elite program...spend the money and incentives elsewhere. We have College gymnastics to build our Senior Elites (18-22). NCAA gymnastics may seem small compared to year's past, but the level of competition and athlete is better than ever and the envy of most nations. If the base level dwindles, that will dry up as well. The sport already suffers from geographic and economic bias. Geograhically, nearly XX percent of the country doesn't have a competitive men's gym within x miles, and economically it is a sport that seriously favors the middle to upper incomes due to time and training costs. This is likely to get worse unless someone stops the bleeding.
I give the people within USAG MAG the benefit of the doubt for now. My son's experience has been a life-changing positive and there is a very supportive atmosphere that you feel at the meets when every kid in the gym is rooting for their opponents and teammates to make the "big skill." My interactions as a parent have been positive, and I think USAG MAG has admirable goals, but I truly wonder if they are structured and incentivized in the best manner to obtain their stated goals.
