Dear USRowing Organizational Members,

Several organizations have contacted USRowing regarding the recent discussions taking place about amendment #4, its ramifications on how the team is selected, and the impact on performance. There also have been questions about the High Performance Committee, its role, and how it is constituted.

The high performance committee was created in the late 1990s as an alternative to the four existing committees that dealt with team issues. The four committees presented a cumbersome obstacle to creating timely team policy, and the HPC was formed to streamline this process. Both prior to and after the creation of the HPC, the board of directors maintained ultimate decision making authority in all matters of USRowing, including the team selection. In 2001, the HPC was redefined. The current configuration of a seven-member panel, two of whom are voted for directly by the athletes and five of whom are voted for by the board of directors, was charged with creating senior national team policy.

The membership of the current committee consists of present and past national team members. Of the seven members, two are heavyweight male sweep rowers, two are lightweight male scullers, one is a heavyweight male sculler, and two are lightweight women scullers. This was not by design, but by interest. The group represents medalists from 1980-2004. The professional staff of USRowing does not sit on this committee; however, it does provide input to the committee.

The HPC has been responsible for the evolution of selection procedures since 2001. It has been responsible for creating a stable selection process during the past four-year cycle. The committee established national selection regattas to provide domestic racing experience in small boats. It created a system of athlete support that provides funding throughout the year instead of just one check after the world championships. It also discussed the larger strategic plans of the team, how we can become more competitive internationally, and what our competition is doing to maximize their performance.

Athlete input is solicited through the athlete representatives to the HPC and the board of directors, all of whom are elected by the athletes. In addition, a public comment period for selection procedures was implemented in 2005.

The international competitive environment has changed greatly during the past 20 years. Most of the larger countries prioritize athletes into events in which they believe their strength lies and many do not field full teams to international events. Most of the larger countries also have operating budgets for their rowing programs that are twice (or more) the size of the U.S. budget, and no major rowing country selects their team boat lineups through open trials.

USRowing, under the Ted Stevens Act, is mandated to provide an opportunity for any athlete to compete in any event at the world championships. We can not decide in advance that we will limit the team to only four boats. We are allowed to provide performance measures to ensure that competitive crews represent the U.S. internationally, and the result is time standards for both trials and camp boats. We also are mandated to field the most competitive crews for competition. Our USOC funding, which accounts for 2/3 of total team funding, is based on USRowing prioritizing and presenting the most competitive boats to the world. In short, we are not just about participation; we are about competitively participating.

The argument of camp vs. trials has been taking place for more than 35 years. However, the U.S. has only engaged in a camp-only policy since 2001. Prior to that, camp boats were open to challenge or trials. Until 2004, the U.S. had not won gold in the men’s eight in 40 years or a medal of any color in the women’s eight in 20 years. We have seen recent success in other team boats as well. The 1996 men’s quad won an Olympic silver medal. This was a camp boat that was open to trials, as was the 1996 lightweight men’s four that won an Olympic bronze medal.

So, why has our recent policy been to hold camps for eights, quads and fours without challenge? The simple answer is that it is the best way to bring all of the top talent together in order to select the fastest boats. In a trials system or a challenge system, we will have talented entries. However, the winning boat may not consist of all of our best athletes and, therefore, may not really be the fastest combination possible. A trials system is much more likely to leave a talented athlete who could help our overall performance at home.

How does an athlete make it to camp and are they supported? Again, the Ted Stevens Act mandates opportunity to compete. We hold qualification events in the spring that allow any athlete to show their talent and to be invited to camp. Once at camp, selection is made through timed pieces, erg testing, seat racing -- much as you would expect in college. Supporting our athletes is a major issue. As previously stated, our competition is spending two to three times the resources to fund their athletes. We rely on the USOC to provide monthly stipends and our supporters to provide flexible jobs to allow training.

Is the system complete? No. We lack the necessary finances to support every athlete training toward the dream of being an Olympic medalist. However, we had an historic performance in Athens that has allowed us to continue to develop the other events. Our priority for 2008 includes the men's four and sculling development. We have set out on a path since 2001; it is not complete, but we are making gains.

I am asking that the organizations of USRowing allow the HPC to continue the work it began. Vote no to Amendment #4.

Sincerely,

Don Langford

USRowing President