Skiing

Add Skiing to Favorites

Skiing Home

Articles

Photos

Related Sites

Fans

U.S. Ski Team Comes Up Short... again!

submitted by bryonfriedman

May 16, 2008 | 179 comments |

Email to a Friend

As they say, History repeats itself, and once again the U.S. Ski Team cannot afford to fund their athletes, including me. After one of the best seasons in the history of U.S. Skiing (2 overall World Cup Titles, 3 discipline titles, 15 World Cup wins, and 37 Podiums) the National Team, led by Alpine Coordinator Jesse Hunt, does not have the financial backing to fully fund their team. What's wrong with this picture? As of now the athletes who are not funded include Erik Schlopy, who happens to be one of our best skiers and a 3-time Olympian, 7-time National Champion, World Championship Bronze Medalist, and 3rd place overall World Cup G.S. skier...again, what's wrong with this picture? Dane Spencer, also one of our best skiers, is coming back from a near fatal injury and happens to be a 2-time Olympian and National Champion. Oddly Dane was not even named to the team, even though this was his first year back after breaking his neck and crushing his pelvis. Dane and I were both given access to train with the National Team on our own dime, which is proposed to cost between $20,000 and $30,000 for the Season. Furthermore, Jake Zamansky (currently ranked 5th in the U.S. and 54th in the World in G.S.) who earned a World Cup spot by winning the Nor Am G.S. standings has been ostracized from the U.S. Ski Team and is not even allowed to pay his way to train with the World Cup Team...once again, what's wrong with this picture? Just wait; there's more. Recently the entire Men's C-Team was told they have to pay for the competition portion of their season, which will cost each of them $10,000. The C-Team includes the best up and coming athletes in our country including Will Brandenburg, who is ranked 1st in the World for his age, and Travis Ganong, who is one of the best 4 event skiers I have seen since Bode Miller. Do I dare say it again...what's wrong with this picture?

I'll tell you what's wrong. Our organization, or "company" as upper management likes to call it, has lost site of their core values. To put it bluntly, Jesse Hunt (our Alpine Coordinator) summarized it best by saying "the organization is not going the direction of the athlete/individual." This was a direct quote that I received from Hunt when I asked for help in my recovery from my injury. If the organization is not going the direction of the individual (keep in mind skiing is an individual sport, not a team sport) then where is it going? I'll tell you where. It's going to the pockets of the upper management, specifically CEO Bill Marolt, who egregiously recorded a $300,000 bonus this season on top of his already high $700,000/year salary (up from $559,880 in 2004). That's right, over $1million dollars for the CEO of a non-profit organization that can't even afford to sufficiently fund their own athletes...that's what's wrong with this picture! (Although I cannot find this year's accounting information as of yet, I have a reliable source within the organization that backs this claim). Either way you look at it, Marolt is overpaid, and although he is entitled to a good salary due to the stellar results the Team posted this year, his athletes are suffering.

What makes the problem worse and harder to swallow; is that all of us were told by Hunt that the Ski Team is downsizing because he believed it was best for "everybody." By everybody I'm assuming he meant executives like himself and Marolt, so they could cut athletic funding yet maintain his astronomical salary for a non-profit organization *(I make this claim in light of study done in 2007 by Charity Navigator, which keeps an eye out on non-profit organizations, and found that the average salaries for non-profit executives fell around $145,270). Hunt's poor excuse for a cover-up did not resonate well with current Ski Team members, as none of them agree with his philosophy to downsize. Furthermore, every single named athlete protested Hunt's decision to cut Dane Spencer, Jake Zamansky and myself because it was unethical and downright illegal in Zamansky's case. I say illegal because Zamansky actually made the Ski Team's published criteria for his age, and is entitled to a spot on the team regardless of any individual criteria he was given. That's what's wrong with this picture!

So, to answer any questions about my position with the team here it is. I am not a named athlete, but I am able to train with the World Cup Team on my own dime, and compete for World Cup spots next season. My plan is to solidify my comeback and attend to the unfinished business I left on the hill after my injury. If you are interested in joining my comeback I welcome any and all support.

Thanks for listening...

Bryon

Vote this post up or down:

177 Comments On: "U.S. Ski Team Comes Up Short... again!"

	1. Roger_Dorn , May 16, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	Wow. Thanks for the insight. Hopefully, word gets out and someone comes to the rescue.

	1.1. billirwin , May 27, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	How do you get the powers to be to listen? Bill Irwin Merdith N.H. 03253

	2. bryonfriedman , May 16, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	I hope so too!

	2.1. flobro2000 , May 29, 2008 \| Reply	+1 pts \| \| \|
	Byron, Bill Marolt should be strung up by his thumbs for taking such a high salary in a so called "non-profit" organization. The same thing happened with The United Way a few years ago, and execs nationally and locally were taking middle six and seven figure salaries. I as a result immediately cut off all of my corporate donations to the United Way. I only work with organizations that are run by volunteers, or ethical people with realistice salaries. Anyone can live on the median range of pay you say is the median pay for non profit execs. The team sponsors should be contacted to see if they agree with so much of their funding going towards a greedy CEO. Sean Florian Coach, Ex Racer, 20 year AO

	2.1.1. flobro2000 , May 31, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	I also forgot to add, that the United way as a result of a national uprising now has it's execs salaries more in line with what a real non profit organiztion should be. I think the main thing that needs to be done is thousands of letters need to be written in protest to the USST for allowing this to happen. The whole system is broken and has been for quite some time and it all starts from the top. There needs to be a major house cleaning in USSA and the USST, or all the athletes should revolt, pool together and start their own Ski Team and leave the USST high and dry. The way they have ridden on the athletes backs for so many years and treat them like throw away commodities is just wrong. Also the fact that an athlete is basically penalized for going to college, getting an education first and then giving the USST a go. It just doesn't happen. I think Ski Racing is one of the only sports where College is not a breeding ground for Professional Athletes. College athletes should be the teams first source for development. I could go on and on about what is wrong with US skiing, but all I can say is I think you have started something good Byron, and hopefully USSA and the USST will stand up and take notice and change their ways, or they may not be around in a few years.

	3. eschlopy , May 16, 2008 \| Reply	+5 pts \| \| \|
	just for fun, I feel compelled to illustrate an analogy between the us ski team and mutual funds considering I've heard the management refer to us athletes as "investments" more than once. if we athletes are, in the minds of the management, considered "investments", then that would conclude that each individual athlete is "stock" therefore the entire A,B, and C teams collectively form a "mutual fund". as in most mutual funds, there is a good balance between "value", "growth", and sometimes (risky funds) "penny stocks". it's up to the mutual fund manager to decide which stocks to buy, sell, or hold. it's also his job to appropriate a winning balance between these three types of stocks. if we were to assign skiers to each one of these categories it would look like this: value stocks: older skiers that have had proven results in the past, but for one reason or another have had recent struggles. as value stocks do, they bring balance to the portfolio. you know that you will get some return on the investment. it could be modest, it could be great, but it's not risky. a good mutual fund always has an appropriate number of value stocks in it's portfolio. growth stocks: younger world cup skiers who are presently skiing well. slightly riskier, but a great return on investment. similar to google or yahoo (also growth stocks) they will be media darlings and most likely more volatile than a value stock. the return is hit or miss, but over time is generally a good play and must be implemented in every portfolio. penny stocks: unproven, very young skiers showing up on the proverbial "radar". an incredibly risky proposition that sometimes yields incredible returns. unfortunately the robust returns only come from a fraction of the skiers. most mutual fund managers aren't even interested in penny stocks, but because this is skiing, and development is necessary, we have to assume that this mutual fund will invest in penny stocks. conclusion: our mutual fund manager has decided that he would like to abandon all investment reasoning and proven strategies. he essentially would like to sell all value stocks (that have yielded nice returns) and use the capital to buy penny stocks. this will put our mutual fund into a compromised state by throwing off the balance of the investment. no manager in his right mind would sell all his value stock and "bet the house" on penny stock. it just doesn't follow good investment sense, and is unnecessarily risky. so if we athletes are "investments" as the management has told us, then why doesn't our mutual fund manager apply sound investment techniques? not sure, but it would be nice for the real life investors (the athletes and sponsors) if he did.

	4. Dewey , May 16, 2008 \| Reply	+3 pts \| \| \|
	Great read. Thanks for sharing your candid opinion with the Yard, Bryon.

	5. Diana , May 16, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	Wow, Bryon. I'm so glad you let us all in on this. Can't believe this stuff is going on. Hope you can get attention for it and make some changes happen.

	6. ConnorNolte , May 16, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	Very very interesting stuff. How in the world can he justify a $300,000 bonus when "there aren't enough funds for the athletes". Outrageous.

	6.1. bryonfriedman , May 16, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	we wonder the same thing and hope that changes are made soon

	6.1.1. davegalu , May 19, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	Bryon, As we have all pondered the situation on the non or partiality funded athletes and the relationship of this to USSA/USST budgets, I am glad to see some discussion. Knowing you as an athlete and a quality person, I can appreciate that you coming out on this is based on your ethical obligations and not just sour grapes. Gutsy! There are many of us who can ill afford to make enemies with the powers that be and have personal and professional relationships to protect, including yourself. But, given this, we still owe it to ourselves to raise good questions when we have good reason. The USST had a very successful year athletically. But, if you really look at it, Bode was independent, so take his titles, wins and WC points out of the picture. Still a very good season, and some bright spots with up and coming WC athletes, but was the depth there to justify the decisions made regarding older or return from injury athletes with proven WC results? Probably not. The message to great athletes, who have done all the right things to get to the top, and have been left unfunded is as powerful as cutting them completely. Reallocation of funding, as your thoughts reflect, is one answer to the problem. Are there a variety of ways to do this? Ideas like fund the A Team and cost share deficits with all other athletes equally, for instance. Then help those athletes in seeking outside support and sponsorships. This would tell it like it is, you make the USST you share in your funding, you make the A Team, you are fully funded. The biggest problem I see in the current funding categories is that decisions are made on individual athletes who have qualified to the same team levels. Many factors, not always athletic, can enter into these decisions. My suggestion would take the decision making on the athlete funding issue out of the subjective evaluation of each athlete and would allow equal sharing of increased funding when those cycles emerge. Putting athlete funding where it belongs within the company is perhaps the more direct route to solving this problem. On a personal note, I'm very glad to hear that you are continuing to pursue the dream that you were so close to prior to your injury. davegalusha

	8. EasternSkier , May 16, 2008 \| Reply	+1 pts \| \| \|
	I think one of the major problems with the USST is the athletes are much more intelligent than the management......Bill Marolt should listen to the athletes instead of the USSA staff. The vast majority of the athletes on the C&D teams never make it to the WC level yet we continue to spend hundreds of thousands of $$ on them while we let proven WC scoring athletes go...Chip, Dane, Libby, Caroline, etc....Can you imaging if a pro sport franchise was run like the USST. The Boston Red Sox would not have Schilling, Ortiz, Tek, etc because they are too old and past their prime...even though past their prime they are much better than anyone they have in the minors. In pro sports age does not matter...results are what counts. If a 38 year old baseball player is better than a 21 year old the 38 year old is the one that plays. US Skiing is THE ONLY sport I have ever seen where age is more important than results. To tell someone at 27 years old they are done because of age (for example, Libby Ludlow this past season) even though she is one of our top athletes in 2 events and scores consistantly in WC races is unbelievable. The USST is living in the past...this is not the 1960's when skiers retired at 21. The majority of the top male skiers are racing into their mid to late 30's with great results. Many studies have shown that male athletes peak years are from 28-35.

	8.1. bryonfriedman , May 16, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	I couldn't agree with you more. On the topic of C and D team athletes, we were told that the "organization" wanted to put more funding and support towards the development team, thus not wanting to support athletes like Dane, Caroline, Libby, and myself anymore, even though we have proven ourselves on the World Cup. Instead they want put more support towards development, however, most if not all of the D team has to pay anyway. Interesting philosophy of support...

	9. billy02 , May 16, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	It is interesting that a guy whose salary is based on the success of the athletes appears to treat them with such disdain. What does a spot on a the "A" team mean financially for any skier. What is each spot worth?

	10. bryonfriedman , May 16, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	Any athlete on the "A" team, or B and C teams for that matter are independent contractors and have to seek their own individual sponsors to get paid. The Ski Team supports athletes by providing coaching, conditioning and travel expenses. Some of the athletes get USOC (U.S. Olympic Committee) grants and Elite Athlete insurance coverage, also provided by the USOC. It's hard to decipher what each spot it worth as it depends on the level of the athlete (A-Team athletes actually cost less b/c they are given a stipend at all World Cup events which the U.S. Ski Team actually keeps).

	11. Smiley , May 16, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	I just don't understand that team-policy - they should be glad they have some good upcoming racers (esp. as skiing is not exactly a "famous sport" in the US of A) and should help them on their way to the top instead of acting like that... it just sucks that as for now only "rich kids" have a chance to make it on the team... bummer... I really hope you guys will be able to get some financial support - maybe you should try raising funds in Europe instead of the USA?

	11.1. bryonfriedman , May 16, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	At this point the ski team has done well with development programs and funding their projects, however for them to claim that they are dropping older World Cup veterans in order to fund developing athletes is ridiculous considering they are making them pay to play. The reality is the ski team bets that each athlete who is asked to pay will come up with the money and athletes rarely call their bluff.

	12. EHomey , May 16, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	I like the article. Somethings never change. One thing that bothered me all season was the US Ski Team website reporting on Bode's success after he parted ways with the organization. Partway through the season the website stopped using the phrase "ski team athlete" and switched to "American Skiers" which was probably a legal move so they could still try and be affiliated with Bode's marketability. I'm not sure of any other business that could try to gain revenue from a "product" that it no longer has an attachment to. Best of luck to you and all the other guys that are getting screwed and have to deal with stress being a full-time fundraiser and professional athlete.

	13. Pete , May 16, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	Hit 'em hard Bryon. Is this a typical story in other countries, or is this a uniquely American problem?

	13.1. southernskier , May 19, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	Sadly it happens in other countries as well. National team in NZ costs $35,000/year for A members

	14. skidude324 , May 16, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	Loved the article, had been hearing about it a little bit, but it's great to get it confirmed by a top athlete. Also, eschlopy, that's a really good point, except that the USST makes all the 'penny stocks' on the D team pretty much pay for themselves.

	14.1. bryonfriedman , May 17, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	Thanks...glad you liked it. As far as Schlopy's point, I believe he meant that "C" team were the penny stocks...not "D" team. Either way the point is not to give up on their value stocks as they have been proven to produce results.

	15. mkeuler , May 17, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	Bryon, Interesting reading your article. I was the head coach for the Nordic Jumping team last year with the Ski Team. I feel you and your teammates pain. In 2002 the US Ski Team cut all funding for development of ski jumping and only supported an A team saying "the sport is too competitive and not enough disciplines to justify supporting a mens ski jumping program ." Currently they have completely abolished the male sport from thier organization. Ski jumping is in a crisis and without those directly involved will potentially be gone for ever. Does this uphold a nonprofit organizations claim to support all ski sports especially ones that have been around the longest? I agree with you and believe the organization is totally lost and immoral in thier direction and agenda, particularly in upper management. Most of the coaches have the best intentions but thier voice is seldom heard outside of matters that are sport related. Best of luck and let me know ifI can help in any way, Mike Keuler

	16. bryonfriedman , May 17, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	Mike....thanks for sharing, I had no idea about the ski jumping crisis. Yet another reason why things need to change at USSA. I would love to talk to you about some ideas I have that could potentially help the Nordic Jumping team. Drop me a line...Bryon

	17. skiparent , May 18, 2008 \| Reply	+1 pts \| \| \|
	I wonder what they would do if all of you went the way of Bode - wouldn't be much of a salary for Hunt or Marolt who seem to be the ones profiting the greatest. As a parent of a young skier who is trying to make the team, I was aware of some of this but this is absolutely ridiculous. So after the most successful year ever we downsize. Ridiculous, corrupt etc.

	17.1. bryonfriedman , May 19, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	To clarify, it's not Hunt who is profiting in this situation, it's Marolt.

	18. skichick63 , May 18, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	I like "skiparent's" idea -- Why don't all you guys band togeth one big Team America, govern and coach yourselves. I think there are enough people out there who would LOVE for you to succeed. Barb

	18.1. bryonfriedman , May 19, 2008 \| Reply	+1 pts \| \| \|
	Believe me this has crossed our minds many times and I truly believe it has potential.

	19. RacingFan , May 18, 2008 \| Reply	+2 pts \| \| \|
	I agree, breakaway from the team structure, create your own team with your own staff, spread the word and I believe it would actually catch the attention of the general public; not going to be easy though and I don't see it succeeding unless everyone is in on doing it, i.e. even Ligety and Vonn, which could be really asking them to do a lot but you would know their thoughts about this much more then we do

	20. 999999 , May 19, 2008 \| Reply	+1 pts \| \| \|
	There are many problems with the USST and the way they handle their finances. Simply put those in power are greedy and do not want to give away hundreds of thousands of potentially dollars to their athletes when it could be a down payment for a house in Maui. The USST has the best skiers in the nation and if they band together and protest the structure of the organization they could force serious changes. Without the athletes USSA would fail to exist, it does not go both ways, without USSA and the USST we would find other means.

	21. Gstephenson , May 19, 2008 \| Reply	+1 pts \| \| \|
	Bryon- Very interesting, and as you say history repeats itself. I heard the same lines a while back and I couldn't agree with you more. I had now idea that Merolt makes as much as he does. Personally I don't get it, a CEO is running his compnay out of cash and is having to sell off its key investments to survive, yet he is getting a bonus for such behavior. I think USSA needs to grab a couple of basic business books and learn how to manage their investment portfollio. Any way, best of luck and just look at guys like Patrick Jarbin who have been cut by their governing bodies only to come back with some of the best results of their careers.

	22. mitchwf , May 19, 2008 \| Reply	+1 pts \| \| \|
	All of this is even more egregious in light of the $35 million + "Center for Excellence". Wonder why you skiers couldn't do it yourselves. The sport isn't completely different for the athlete than tennis. Athletes go to races they qualify for and work up to higher circuits. (Though you need to train together for hill space etc.) The wheel was invented by Bode Miller last year. I think you could use his model and get going as a confederation of athletes and tap into sponsors and donors that way. If you use the web, it probably wouldn't be any more time consuming than fundraising for yourselves separately. The only problem would be if the national organization "owns" the starting slots for the various international series. I would give $ to support the break-away. I get fund solicitation all the time from USSA. I won't give them a penny because of grandiose expenses like the "center" and incomprehensible "athlete management" decisions. Good luck to all of you, Mitch

	22.1. bryonfriedman , May 19, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	Mitch...thanks for your support and ideas on the matter. I like break-away concept but it takes time, organization, and most important, money. Perhaps it can be done in a couple years?

	23. Tired1 , May 19, 2008 \| Reply	+1 pts \| \| \|
	Didn't Bode once offer to take other racers on to Team America?

	23.1. bryonfriedman , May 19, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	There really hasn't been a lot of communication with Bode and Team America and it's an added cost to him to bring on more racers. Team America would be a great route to pursue but I'm guessing you would have to bring your own sponsors along with you.

	24. Tadams , May 19, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	Thanks for getting the word out Byron! As a former US Ski Team member I would be a big supporter of change within the upper management of USSA. I have never been fond of Marolt's tactics and for proven veteran athletes to be cut is very upsetting to hear. These athletes have dedicated their lives to this sport and have made so many sacrifices along the way. I think it is a very tough way to end a career when there is still the desire to compete at that level. It is a tough life and especially if an athlete is struggling to regain form after injury and less than stellar results. Good luck to you all and hopefully your best results are yet to come. T

	25. icccllc , May 19, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	It's a very sad day when the CEO makes that kind of money from success of other athletes that he will no longer fund specifically when they get hurt from the sport the CEO earns from, I will evaluate my money spent with usst going forward unless I read that there are changes being made to fund in a way that it is about the athlete not managment. That kind of money for the CEO of a none profit is insulting to the athletes of the US Ski team. What are we saying, put your life on the line and if you get hurt, well will see then what we can do for ya. I can only hope that those athletes no longer being funded succeed, by the way will you be able to use the CENTER OF EXCELLENCE IF YOU SUCCEED.

	26. troywatts , May 19, 2008 \| Reply	+2 pts \| \| \|
	Byron, thanks for your candid insight. It really reminds me of the old adage, the more things change, the more they stay the same. My personal experience with the team is similar so I'll share it. (disclaimer: I am not bitter, and must sincerely acknowledge that the organization is in far better straights now than back then. However...). In 1988-89 I was on the technical A team. Ironically, I remember Schlopy as one of the younger development athletes at the time... Schonhauer was the CEO then and he came to watch our summer dryland at the high school track in his… Ferrari. Seriously. Anyway, I had just made the '89 World Championships when I suffered a broken leg in competition that January.. A Europa Cup GS in France as I recall. A gruesome one, for sure, but not quite as gnarly as yours, Byron! Anyway, I'm out for a while. Post surgery, I enroll in classes at CU, train my ass off, etc. During my convalescence I was called maybe two or three times by either my coach or by the organization, or even a trainer! When I came back (too early) to racing, I had been demoted to the B team. Hey, at least I was still on the team, but honestly, I was underperforming big time. I just didn't have it. And so began the not so long, very strange process of the USST organizational athlete-ectomy. It's hard to describe, but when you get the subliminal "thumbs down" at every turn it's pretty tough to keep that level of commitment up where it needs to be, trying to be a part of an organization that tacitly allows you to be there but whose actions say that they really don't want you there. Any idiot can see this type of writing on the wall. This situation seems pretty analogous to the present "you can be here but have to pay your way" mentality. I wonder how many coaches and CEO's would stick (indeed, while risking their lives and futures) around under such terms? Exactly! Fortunately for me, there was a kickass protour at the time to which we could matriculate, which at least provided a nice personal closure process for me at the time. Unfortunately for you guys, until your level of endorsement allows you to fund your own personal Team AmeriKa, the present organizational regime has for all intents and purposes a monopoly on the vehicle to reach the highest levels of competition. As such, one would hope that the playing field be really, really level and consistent in terms of the size of the team, funding, etc. rather than the moving target it seems to have become. Why? So that, oh, I don't know, the human beings upon whose backs the organization rides might be able to plan their lives out in a dignified way and to accommodate for the injurious eventualities inherent in the sport, particularly for you speed guys. To address one of your points more specifically, Byron, from a longitudinal perspective, in retrospect, at least from what I've observed, it seems like the team tends to be counterintuitively well-funded in terms of development and team size when it isn't performing well at the international level, and is constricted when the team as a whole is competing very well. Worse, and speaking in terms of the organizational culture, the message here is one where the athletes are not valued but are, dare I say, commodified? Back to your stables where you belong, people! The same people are running the show now that were back then. It's amazing in terms of perspecive. The athlete, you, has one career and one only. The coach, exec., and admin. see them come and go, and it seems like the individual is devalued in the process. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot that the current organization has done, is doing, and will do very very well. BUT, as soon as such an organization detaches from the core value of our sport (indeed, of the United States Bill of Rights?!?), regarding holding the individual in high esteeem, that the end justifies the means and all of that other crap, there needs to be a philosophical audit, bigtime. BTW, what's with Zemansky. Does his tattooed body fall short of the branding that the organization has decided it needs to project? If he's met the objective criteria and is still being refused admission, he needs to talk to a lawyer. And you guys need an athlete's guild that every racer joins when they get their USSA card.

	26.1. bryonfriedman , May 19, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	Thanks Troy...I appreciate you sharing your story, amazing how things haven't changed much isn't it. I will agree with you that the Ski Team has grown in a positive direction since late 80's and early 90's, but there is always room for improvement and I urge USSA to abide by their own core values (as posted on www.ussa.org). Team the Loyalty Integrity Respect Perseverance Accountability

	27. caitciccone , May 19, 2008 \| Reply	+1 pts \| \| \|
	wow, really glad that an article was finally written, nicely said! Someone forwarded this onto me and said they thought i might like it! I blows me away..... caitlin

	28. troywatts , May 19, 2008 \| Reply	0 pts \| \| \|
	Bryon: I think the only strategy that has a chance in hell of working would be to strip the team's ability to choose who the athlete's sponsors are. In other words, if you are not on the team, you should be able to completely be a free agent. If you or any other athlete who still has talent at the international level is indeed marketable (let's face it some of you guys and gals are still pretty handsome and make us want to buy stuff), you should be absolutely free to pursue sponsorship in order to support your career if the USST chooses to pass you over. It's called FREE AGENCY. You should talk to some of the other players union reps in other professional sports to get the lay of the land... Clearly, such a circumstance would be extrememely unpopular with the team's sponsors, who justifiably want that exclusive public perception as being "IT" on all things USA that race with skis. Nevertheless, there is a legal argument to be made here that might prove to be a win-win in the long run... Glad to discuss it offline.

	29. goodtimes , May 19, 2008 \| Reply	+1 pts \| \| \|
	To add to the silliness consider the salaries of the coaches working for the USST. While Mr. Marolt apparently takes home $1 million/year the majority of his alpine coaches make less than $45K/year. Some D-Team coaches make less than $30K/year. In general the World Cup, or "A-Team" coaches fare a little better but not always, and not by much. Some assistant coaches on the World Cup make little more than $40K/year. Just informed speculation here (with some pretty solid inside knowledge) but I would be shocked if more than two coaches make six figures, that being the head men's and women's coaches, and they may not even make that. All but a select few get any sort of performance bonus. The bonuses that are occasionally doled out to coaches are seldom if ever more than 10%. These coaches and their overworked and equally underpaid/underappreciated team managers are the ones busting their butts day in and day out on the hill and in the gym to help the athletes succeed. They spend 200-250 days each year travelling, neglecting family and friends, all for the love of the athletes and the sport of ski racing. Sure it's a choice to coach for the USST but... Big picture, this lack of compensation reflects a complete lack of respect for the coaching staff and their efforts. It is a big part of why so many good coaches leave the team just as they are beginning to gain enough experience to truly contribute. There are some great people working for the USSA and USST who face many of the same challenges and frustrations as the athletes. I would just like to help people understand the huge difference between the apparent greed of the upper tier at USSA and the thankless devotion of many of its coaches and staff. Also, in my opinion Jesse Hunt is a good man in a tough spot. You may not agree with his policies, he may make big mistakes, but don't question his motives. He has made huge sacrifices for the USST, and he has certainly not done so in pursuit of the almighty peso. Let's make sure we don't put the coaches, or Mr. Hunt, in the same boat with Mr. Marolt and some of his Vice Presidents (he's not the only one pulling down big dollars while the athletes are left high and dry).

29.1. bryonfriedman , May 19, 2008 |