How old was Heather Burroughs when they became a couple - when she was a CU athlete? The AD response is weak and pathetic. Wetmore is an old war horse who needs to retire. He's product of his times when no one paid attention and coaches ruled like kings and slept with their athletes. Yeah sure I want to send my daughter to that program.
I'm pleased the administration didn't cave and fire the coaches. This is the right outcome. People need to be allowed to make mistakes and improve, not just be canned.
A few other thoughts.
1) Is Wetmore and Burroughs' focus on "body composition" totally not needed?
I was surprised they wrote this to the team, "We believe that optimal body composition is second only to serious training in relevance to your racing results.”
I've long said that of course weight is important to distance running but in my mind weight loss in incredibly highly correlated and the natural result of "serious training." It seems to me if people are fit, they will naturally be lean enough to compete if they were meant to be an elite distance runner. Why not just focus on the training? I think the nutrition / diet stuff is vastly overrated. Unless they are eating like a complete moron, so much of it is training/genetics.
If someone isn't thin despite training hard then they likely aren't cut out for elite distance no matter what they try to do with their diet just in the same way that if I can't keep 280 pounds on m y frame, I'm not going to cut it as D1 offensive lineman no matter what I do. Nearly half of the women involved in the inquiry reported negative experiences with Wetmore and Burroughs and about the same number said they did not trust the coaches.
2) I'm stunned by the guts of the dietician. She openly admitted, she “practices performance nutrition within a Division 1 school with high-performing teams, not an eating disorder clinic.”
The dietician telling the lineman to eat 8,000 calories a day to way 330 doesn't apologize, so why should she?
3) It's said to me that according to Runner's World nearly "nearly half of the women involved in the inquiry reported negative experiences with Wetmore and Burroughs and about the same number said they did not trust the coaches."
Half the female athletes don't trust the coaches? That's not good. Period.
It says NEARLY half don't trust their coaches which seems to mean that over half of the women involved do trust their coaches.
I'm pleased the administration didn't cave and fire the coaches. This is the right outcome. People need to be allowed to make mistakes and improve, not just be canned.
A few other thoughts.
1) Is Wetmore and Burroughs' focus on "body composition" totally not needed?
I was surprised they wrote this to the team, "We believe that optimal body composition is second only to serious training in relevance to your racing results.”
I've long said that of course weight is important to distance running but in my mind weight loss in incredibly highly correlated and the natural result of "serious training." It seems to me if people are fit, they will naturally be lean enough to compete if they were meant to be an elite distance runner. Why not just focus on the training? I think the nutrition / diet stuff is vastly overrated. Unless they are eating like a complete moron, so much of it is training/genetics.
If someone isn't thin despite training hard then they likely aren't cut out for elite distance no matter what they try to do with their diet just in the same way that if I can't keep 280 pounds on m y frame, I'm not going to cut it as D1 offensive lineman no matter what I do. Nearly half of the women involved in the inquiry reported negative experiences with Wetmore and Burroughs and about the same number said they did not trust the coaches.
2) I'm stunned by the guts of the dietician. She openly admitted, she “practices performance nutrition within a Division 1 school with high-performing teams, not an eating disorder clinic.”
The dietician telling the lineman to eat 8,000 calories a day to way 330 doesn't apologize, so why should she?
3) It's said to me that according to Runner's World nearly "nearly half of the women involved in the inquiry reported negative experiences with Wetmore and Burroughs and about the same number said they did not trust the coaches."
Half the female athletes don't trust the coaches? That's not good. Period.
It says NEARLY half don't trust their coaches which seems to mean that over half of the women involved do trust their coaches.
Have you communicated with U.S. female college xc athletes much over the past 25 years? If X number of athletes formally complain, you cannot conclude the remaining silent females disagree with the females who spoke out.
2 things: 1) Yes, leanness will follow hard training, not the other way atound. But saying someone who isn't "thin" doesn't belong as an elite runner is a shaky stance. What is "thin enough?" Who decides? 2) you mention that a nutritionist would be fair and counsel a football player to eat many calories. This is true, and can also cause problems. A colleague of mine played college football and was basically encouraged to gorge every day so he could get big. At the end of his 4 years at college, he walked out the door not knowing how to fuel appropriately and has struggled with obesity ever since. I hope we move towards protecting the health of our college athletes, not just deciding who's too fat or thin, using them and discarding them after they've served a purpose.
The athletes interviewed WERE NOT a representative sample, they interviewed only the people the initial complainer identified.
This is from Wetmore's statement:
"The report is clear to say it is not a misconduct investigation, and the inquiry team did not undertake specific efforts to corroborate facts related to incidents or events reported by student-athletes. See page 3 of the Inquiry. Further, the report does not establish whether the referenced statements, events or incidents occurred, which are presented primarily in summary by the investigating body. See page 3 of the Inquiry. Some of these unsubstantiated characterizations of events we vehemently deny. The report notes that the witnesses interviewed were those identified or suggested by the complaining athlete. See page 6 of the Inquiry."
Agreed, but can you imagine being a top recruit and having some options and then reading this report? Why would you choose CU? I’m a parent of recruited girls (not good enough for CU), but if they were and I read this I would strongly encourage them to go elsewhere. This report is damaging and having the positive attestations of superstars like Simpson or Coburn is not sufficiently reassuring because I’d assume they were outliers in their supreme talent.
they have arguably their best ever recruiting class even during the midst of this investigation. top recruits and top transfers. they 100% knew about the investigation and committed anyway.
2 things: 1) Yes, leanness will follow hard training, not the other way atound. But saying someone who isn't "thin" doesn't belong as an elite runner is a shaky stance. What is "thin enough?" Who decides? 2) you mention that a nutritionist would be fair and counsel a football player to eat many calories. This is true, and can also cause problems. A colleague of mine played college football and was basically encouraged to gorge every day so he could get big. At the end of his 4 years at college, he walked out the door not knowing how to fuel appropriately and has struggled with obesity ever since. I hope we move towards protecting the health of our college athletes, not just deciding who's too fat or thin, using them and discarding them after they've served a purpose.
There is a double standard that exists in most (many... not all) athletic departments. They often look the other way when it comes to revenue sports (as your example illustrates) but seem to go the opposite direction non-revenue sports.
Nutrition is a huge component in sports and more so for female distance athletes. Very few athletic departments understand how critical it is or what is needed in that area. Education is key. And all programs should have a very good sports dietitian on staff. Hopefully things will go in this direction going forward.
Here's what I don't understand: Kids go to CU, Oregon, Stanford, NAU, etc. because the goal is to become an elite athlete with Olympic aspirations. To get there, they have to be dialed into everything. Body composition is a massive part of this, and that doesn't mean being "skinny". As someone mentioned earlier about the 330 pound lineman, how is that different from telling the distance runner that they need to work on their body composition?
Don't tell me body weight isn't an important part of being an elite athlete. When you have bloody papers on tracks because the Norwegians prick their ears for every workout, that tells you that the details matter. If an athlete can't handle that, then there are a million other schools they can attend where being a top level distance runner isn't the most important thing. They can also join running clubs if they want to keep going. Not everyone is cut out to be an elite runner, so parents and their kids need to make the right choice and not ruin things for the ones who know what they want and know what they are getting into.
When these stories come up, there are always a group of people who stick their noses up and say "well weight matters!" like who is arguing that weight does not matter? This is more than just asking someone to be fit. This behavior is messing with the heads of young athletes making them overthink food constantly.
The thing that struck me about Salazar-Cain was how poorly educated everyone was around female bodies. And not just how detrimental it was to the athletes, but how INCORRECT their advisement was. Salazar was instructing Cain to lose weight, and people saw that as "tough coaching". But can we admit, he was...wrong? He was wrong. Mary losing weight did not improve her performance or make. her fast. Instead it broke her body, making her frail, weak, and mentally unwell. Before she experienced the pressure. and then committed to losing weight, Mary was an exciting prospect, the best high school age runner ever. But Salazar's instruction and coaching was what broke her down.
Eating disorders as athletes become focused on their results of that and not on the training. I have seen it first hand.
Spot on. This is not talked about enough. When an athlete is suffering from an eating disorder, their mind starts to prioritize their eating and the appearance of their body/number on a scale over everything else. When I was in the throes of an eating disorder as a female collegiate runner, I felt that if I ate poorly that day, or if my weight was a couple pounds up, or my abs didn't show, that there was no point in training or racing because I'd already failed. It's not logical, but that's why it's a disorder. I felt (again illogically) that if I didn't look like Jenny Simpson I could never run well no matter what training I did. It caused severe depression and self hatred as I felt out of control of myself because I didn't have the willpower to achieve my goals. I was mentally defeated on the starting line before even starting a race.
Ironically, by switching my focus to training and OFF body composition, I achieved my goals AND my own ideal running body came along with it. And if I was a few pounds up, I realized it didn't matter. I raced well in a range of weights. I was no longer out of control restricting and then binging. I fueled myself, trained hard, and the results came with that. Making weight and body composition the focus of how to be a 'good runner' can be extremely counterproductive for many people.
Here's what I don't understand: Kids go to CU, Oregon, Stanford, NAU, etc. because the goal is to become an elite athlete with Olympic aspirations. To get there, they have to be dialed into everything. Body composition is a massive part of this, and that doesn't mean being "skinny". As someone mentioned earlier about the 330 pound lineman, how is that different from telling the distance runner that they need to work on their body composition?
Don't tell me body weight isn't an important part of being an elite athlete. When you have bloody papers on tracks because the Norwegians prick their ears for every workout, that tells you that the details matter. If an athlete can't handle that, then there are a million other schools they can attend where being a top level distance runner isn't the most important thing. They can also join running clubs if they want to keep going. Not everyone is cut out to be an elite runner, so parents and their kids need to make the right choice and not ruin things for the ones who know what they want and know what they are getting into.
What part of…..
“The Inquiry Team developed substantial information to conclude that for a significant number of student-athletes who participated in this process, the CU Boulder T&F/CC program had an unhealthy environment. The student-athletes (primarily from the women’s team) who reported an unhealthy environment identified the following conditions as contributing to the team’s culture: cliquish, sink or swim, cutthroat, where student-athletes were pitted against each other, emotionally damaging, a meat grinder, isolated, with no sense of community and very little mentoring or support. This unhealthy environment contributed to an overall poor experience for approximately half of the members of the women’s team who participated in this inquiry."
….is conducive to developing champions? Seems like some champions developed despite a toxic culture and there was a lot of damage done in the process.
Eating disorders as athletes become focused on their results of that and not on the training. I have seen it first hand.
Spot on. This is not talked about enough. When an athlete is suffering from an eating disorder, their mind starts to prioritize their eating and the appearance of their body/number on a scale over everything else. When I was in the throes of an eating disorder as a female collegiate runner, I felt that if I ate poorly that day, or if my weight was a couple pounds up, or my abs didn't show, that there was no point in training or racing because I'd already failed. It's not logical, but that's why it's a disorder. I felt (again illogically) that if I didn't look like Jenny Simpson I could never run well no matter what training I did. It caused severe depression and self hatred as I felt out of control of myself because I didn't have the willpower to achieve my goals. I was mentally defeated on the starting line before even starting a race.
Ironically, by switching my focus to training and OFF body composition, I achieved my goals AND my own ideal running body came along with it. And if I was a few pounds up, I realized it didn't matter. I raced well in a range of weights. I was no longer out of control restricting and then binging. I fueled myself, trained hard, and the results came with that. Making weight and body composition the focus of how to be a 'good runner' can be extremely counterproductive for many people.
That's truly up to the individual; good point. I was a volunteer assistant coach at Northland HS in Cbus in 2016 and this also applies to HS football--as Coach Parcells (NYG) said in his autobiography guys have to be treated differently (I'm paraphrasing) based on their mental makeup. Some guys LOVE negative feedback and "chip on the shoulder" mentality--they will run for you. Others need them to feel like you're their best friend (NO sarcasm, honestly). It really is personal based on the student/athlete.
Bingo. And isn't the same true for life which is kind of why we have two parties.
Some people need a kick in the butt. Others need a pat on the back and hug. Sometimes the same person needs both just at different times.
How old was Heather Burroughs when they became a couple - when she was a CU athlete? The AD response is weak and pathetic. Wetmore is an old war horse who needs to retire. He's product of his times when no one paid attention and coaches ruled like kings and slept with their athletes. Yeah sure I want to send my daughter to that program.
You do realize Mike Smith is married to an ex-athlete as well? Mike is a new age coach. And Wetmore at least talks in his real voice.
Here's what I don't understand: Kids go to CU, Oregon, Stanford, NAU, etc. because the goal is to become an elite athlete with Olympic aspirations. To get there, they have to be dialed into everything. Body composition is a massive part of this, and that doesn't mean being "skinny". As someone mentioned earlier about the 330 pound lineman, how is that different from telling the distance runner that they need to work on their body composition?
Don't tell me body weight isn't an important part of being an elite athlete. When you have bloody papers on tracks because the Norwegians prick their ears for every workout, that tells you that the details matter. If an athlete can't handle that, then there are a million other schools they can attend where being a top level distance runner isn't the most important thing. They can also join running clubs if they want to keep going. Not everyone is cut out to be an elite runner, so parents and their kids need to make the right choice and not ruin things for the ones who know what they want and know what they are getting into.
What part of…..
“The Inquiry Team developed substantial information to conclude that for a significant number of student-athletes who participated in this process, the CU Boulder T&F/CC program had an unhealthy environment. The student-athletes (primarily from the women’s team) who reported an unhealthy environment identified the following conditions as contributing to the team’s culture: cliquish, sink or swim, cutthroat, where student-athletes were pitted against each other, emotionally damaging, a meat grinder, isolated, with no sense of community and very little mentoring or support. This unhealthy environment contributed to an overall poor experience for approximately half of the members of the women’s team who participated in this inquiry."
….is conducive to developing champions? Seems like some champions developed despite a toxic culture and there was a lot of damage done in the process.
They only interviewed 28 women, and "almost half" of them had bad things to say. The women interviewed were the ones identified by the initial complainer and presumably the only ones that might have had issues. That's 13 or less out of more than 400 athletes in their decades of coaching.
That's a darn good success rate. Any top 10 D1 women's team is going to have the same exact complaints. Look at Starliper saying Henes couldn't keep her healthy for example. When only 7 out of 20+ can make a nationals roster, it gets competitive.
That's truly up to the individual; good point. I was a volunteer assistant coach at Northland HS in Cbus in 2016 and this also applies to HS football--as Coach Parcells (NYG) said in his autobiography guys have to be treated differently (I'm paraphrasing) based on their mental makeup. Some guys LOVE negative feedback and "chip on the shoulder" mentality--they will run for you. Others need them to feel like you're their best friend (NO sarcasm, honestly). It really is personal based on the student/athlete.
Bingo. And isn't the same true for life which is kind of why we have two parties.
Some people need a kick in the butt. Others need a pat on the back and hug. Sometimes the same person needs both just at different times.
Being held accountable and setting goals, expectations and demanding excellence does not equal a toxic environment. You can have a rigorous program, but one that is supportive. Being supportive doesn’t mean anything goes. I don’t know what really goes on at CU, but I’m saying that you can have an accomplished program that few or none would accuse of being toxic. It’s possible and should be the goal.
They only interviewed 28 women, and "almost half" of them had bad things to say. The women interviewed were the ones identified by the initial complainer and presumably the only ones that might have had issues. That's 13 or less out of more than 400 athletes in their decades of coaching.
That's a darn good success rate. Any top 10 D1 women's team is going to have the same exact complaints. Look at Starliper saying Henes couldn't keep her healthy for example. When only 7 out of 20+ can make a nationals roster, it gets competitive.
Yes, I agree. I don’t know if the CU culture is toxic and this report does not reflect a representative sample of athletes so it’s far from conclusive, though not super encouraging either. My point was a broader one, that a toxic work environment should not be confused with a rigorous one and you can achieve great things as a coach without being a jerk or encouraging jerky behavior in others and on the team and grinding up many of your athletes.
Bingo. And isn't the same true for life which is kind of why we have two parties.
Some people need a kick in the butt. Others need a pat on the back and hug. Sometimes the same person needs both just at different times.
Being held accountable and setting goals, expectations and demanding excellence does not equal a toxic environment. You can have a rigorous program, but one that is supportive. Being supportive doesn’t mean anything goes. I don’t know what really goes on at CU, but I’m saying that you can have an accomplished program that few or none would accuse of being toxic. It’s possible and should be the goal.
Every competitive XC program is going to have someone say it is a toxic environment. When only 7 make the squad to win a National Championship and there are 10-20 others who want their spot, guess what happens? When Henes decides to run certain girls at Regionals and different girls at Nationals, do you really think the girls left off that team are happy? Don't be so naive to think all the other athletes are just happy to be cheerleaders.
Just because that small percentage of the total says it is toxic does not mean it was. That word is a buzz word and student-athletes know it. I would guess that a fairly high percentage of the ones that complained also did not perform that well.