Topic: Competing injured versus team responsibilites

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

I suppose the same people that decide how the team is selected in the first place.  In our present system, that would be the BOD.

This amounts to bureaucrats deciding which athletes compete over and above objective criteria. This is exactly what I have been so passionately speaking against by first attacking its moral base. The fact I predicted the logical outcome of this line of thinking should say something.

That is something that is being, and will continue to be, discussed.  Suggestions such as providing training video two-three weeks out, making 94% of your total two weeks out, etc., have been mentioned.

This amounts to the bureaucrats dictating the training regiment of individual lifters. The unintended consequences are endless and will be almost entirely negative. Why 94% versus 95, 96, or 97? Sounds arbitrary to me. What if one lifter consistently lifts 10kgs more on the platform than in training and then has an off day? Yes, because the USAW does not use force as the government does to implement its altruistic demands of self-sacrifice and bureaucratic control they have the right to do it in a free society. But, centralization doesn't work. This entire direction will reduce performance and do so in an increasing amount over the time it is practiced. Subjective criteria will inevitably drown out objective performance in competition.

Seriously?  Perhaps an Olympic gold medalist (from a different country) might get a $million.  A US medalist?  Don't think so.

It is possible but simply an extreme example of the principle I am asking you to address. If I had made the 1992 Olympic Team, my sponsor was giving me a customized, beefed up Corvette. The particular hypothetical is unimportant. If there is some amount of money or major life advantage to your son to lift, a free and rational human being would tell their son to take the opportunity. I'd have competed in the Olympic Games post shoulder surgery when I, after a couple weeks, could finally get my arms above shoulder height, for the right price. If it is honorable to refuse to sacrifice your son's future to some significant degree for the collective, it is not honorable to ask anyone to do it.

Would you have him skip it knowing that being in it would get him a $100,000 a year job?

Depends.

Not to me it doesn't. And the fact you say it does pretty much obliterates your argument IMO. If it would ever be honorable in such a situation to take the opportunity, it is never honorable to ask some one else sacrifice it.

[Mike Wittmer]

"And the fact you say it does pretty much obliterates your argument IMO. If it would ever be honorable in such a situation to take the opportunity, it is never honorable to ask some one else sacrifice it."

No, it depends on the details and specifics of the situation.  Is there anyone else ready that could lift better.  Are we talking 98%, or 10%.
As I tried to imply, we are hoping to remove "honor" from the process.  That has not worked out so well.

I think you would be a lot happier if you were chairman of the BOD or the CEO of USAW.  I encourage you to apply.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

As I tried to imply, we are hoping to remove "honor" from the process.  That has not worked out so well.

Its the typical pattern. First a scapegoat is needed, like wealthy businessmen or a lifter with a bad day, then moral judgment is pronounced for not sacrificing enough for the "common interest", and any failures are used as an excuse to regulate behavior via centralized control of bureaucrats.

I think you would be a lot happier if you were chairman of the BOD or the CEO of USAW.  I encourage you to apply.

Never. No interest whatsoever. Really, my interest in this issue is philosophical primarily. If the USAW wants to politicize its team selections it affects me not at all since I have no interest whatsoever in making any teams. My passion on the issue is only to promote individualism, rational self-interest, and to oppose altruism. My counter proposal is simply to increase incentives to the individuals for good performance in all areas of the sport and decrease incentive and support for mediocrity.

I hope you will keep us informed of the BOD's deliberations on the matter. Thanks very much.

[Mike Wittmer]

OK, Chris, I'm about ready to give up and you will win the debate.
In fact, I'll concede your philosophical points, even though it is a stretch to apply them here.

But first, let me ask how you would handle this situation: 

Next year, the team points at the world championships will count toward individual slots for the 2012 Olympic Games.  I think it is reasonable for the United States to want to send the best lifters that we have with the intention of placing as high as possible and scoring as many points as possible.

After the national championships, 13 weeks prior to the worlds, we choose 15 lifters, one for each weight class and it appears that each will place between 10th and 15th.  The system used to identify these lifters will give us the best chance to place as high as possible.  We send them all to the OTC for the summer.  Within the first month, they each tear a medial meniscus, have surgery, rehab, recover and return to training.  However, at three weeks out none are at 80% of their best lifts and it is apparent that the best any could place would be 30th, thus scoring no points. 

Our second tier, the number two ranked lifter in each weight class, has been training and they are in shape and prepared to lift and would project placings from 20th to 25th.     

Put your "bureaucrat" hat on and tell me who you would send to the world championships.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Mike, I'd send whoever met the objective qualifying criteria in the pre-determined qualifying event. I wouldn't make them all go to the OTC either. If points gained at worlds toward Olympic slots are the priority, then I would put a lot of $ in achievable but ambitious incentives for performance there and I would look to stop subsidizing mediocrity elsewhere. 

[Shaun Le Conte]

The scenario I was thinking of, hastily typed, goes something like this. It's 2011, and the US needs team points as it would likely make the difference between 2 and 3 male lifers going to the Olympics (with the 2 needing to be earned at the Pan Ams rather than gained at the Worlds).

The US sends a team of 8 men. Prior to the Worlds, but well after selection, one of the lifters likely to score points has a performance affecting injury and is much less likely to earn points.

The top three guys likely to go to the Olympics, but especially the guy in the number 3 position, are concerned about team placement and their chances of going to the O.G. They are friends with the guy that is not feeling 100% and they ask him to let somebody else compete instead at the Worlds that would probably get points for the team (and for themselves, because they are the ones most likely to go to the Olympics). They also say to the injured guy, if we get points now that preserves your chance to improve your ranking and go to the Olympics next year.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Prior to the Worlds, but well after selection, one of the lifters likely to score points has a performance affecting injury and is much less likely to earn points.

This is an unreasonable assumption. One could suffer an injury and recover in time to have a fantastic performance. And, the fitness test Mike says the BOD is considering could easily force a slightly injured lifter to go heavier than they should and make them worse.

They also say to the injured guy, if we get points now that preserves your chance to improve your ranking and go to the Olympics next year.

If they can convince the lifter it is his own rational self-interest to bow out, then its totally fine for him to do so. No bureaucracy, no centralized political control over the individual is [ever] necessary or justified, just free will and rational self interest.

[Mike Wittmer]

Mike, I'd send whoever met the objective qualifying criteria in the pre-determined qualifying event. I wouldn't make them all go to the OTC either. If points gained at worlds toward Olympic slots are the priority, then I would put a lot of $ in achievable but ambitious incentives for performance there and I would look to stop subsidizing mediocrity elsewhere.

Going to the OTC was purely hypothetical, point being they would be under the watchful eye of one individual coach and we would not have to rely on the reports from fifteen personal coaches.

You're really not helping.  Suppose they all came down with mono four weeks out?  You still advocate sending them, after all, they met the qualifying criteria at the pre-determined event.   I don't really like making them lift to a certain level two weeks out either.  My purpose in entering this discussion was to see if anyone has any ideas that could be passed on the the other board members for consideration.  You seem intent on comparing us to left wing fascists. 

So, how do the "centralized controlling bureaucrats regulate" this so as to insure that the "common interest" is achieved?