|
|||
|
|||
|
 |
|
|
U.S. OLYMPIC SWIM TRIALSJune 24, 2016Chuck WielgusOmaha, Nebraska THE MODERATOR: Please to be joined by USA Swimming Executive Director, Chuck Wielgus. He's been at the helm of USA Swimming since 1997, and part of the reason we're here today in this beautiful facility having the Olympic Trials in an indoor venue is due to Chuck's master minding. His first Trials were 2000 in Indianapolis at the Nat, what a great event, and he recognized that it could be bigger and better to grow the sport, and that started in motion why we're here today. I will turn it over to Chuck. CHUCK WIELGUS: Thanks, Scott. To use the word "master mind" I feel like there is some sort of evil force behind things. I think I would start by telling you what an honor, privilege it is for all of us who are associated with USA Swimming to be associated with this event. It was an incredible swim meet from 2000 backwards, and I think what's happened since then is that it's become a great "show" for our sport. This is our Super Bowl week, and we've approached it that way. We've had two goals from the start. Number one was to -- and this is always forefront of our mind, to have a flawless, competitive experience, competitive environment for our athletes to compete in, and that's always the default position, what's in the best interest of the athletes. It's one of the reasons why coming back to Omaha now for the third time is so beneficial, is that the athletes who have been here before and their coaches, they know where everything is, for the most part. They know where the hotel is, they know where they're going to have their meals, they know where the whirlpool is, there's no surprises and it takes all of that stress away. If you go to a new venue, it adds a whole level of stress for athletes and coaches so that's one of the main reasons why return to go Omaha is so important to us, because it benefits the athletes and the coaches. Then our second goal is to really showcase the sport and, again, athletes are front and center with their performances, but we've been able to, I think, build an experience around that, an atmosphere that has this become a legitimate, major sporting event. I think we've got a spot on the calendar. Other events now pay attention to us. The media pays attention to us, and we really appreciate that, and we talk a lot about the number of athletes we have and realistically, I don't want to get myself in trouble, but realistically the number of athletes who have a legitimate chance of making the Olympic Team is probably fewer than the number of athletes that are actually here! (Chuckles.) That's about as safe as -- but if we pick 45 to 50 -- if 45 to 50 athletes qualify to make the Olympic Team and there are 1750 athletes here, that's 1700 athletes that are going to go home -- some of those athletes will be older, they might retire, but the vast majority of those athletes are going home having had an experience that they will want to have again, so this event becomes a motivating force for them. It has a ripple affect, because of all the hometown attention that they get. I was looking the other day at a chart that showed the number of athletes in each age group. We know now because of the money and the other things that are coming into the sport that athletes are staying in it longer. Athletes are now in their late 20s, but the biggest spot on that chart, that curve is in the 16-, 17-, 18-year-old range. So there are hundreds of athletes here -- I don't know what the actual number is, so I will just say there are hundreds of athletes here who are in that pipeline and who are probably here for the first time and might have an overwhelming experience, but they're also in that group where there may be that break out, and that break-out athlete. We tell the story of swimming about Katie Ledecky who you just had the opportunity to speak with, and not too many people in Colorado Springs knew who Katie Ledecky was six, seven, eight months out, and she's blossomed like a flower at Trials, and then had an experience at the Olympic Games that was monumental. So somewhere out there is maybe that next Katie Ledecky, and that's part of the fun of the Trials, is seeing who is going to start to rise to the top and who will be that next generation of athletes. So I think I've rambled now. I'm happy to talk about the Trials as it's evolved over the years, but we could not be more proud of it as an event, and we hope to be able to continue to have this event grow and expand, but, again, with the priority always being back on what's best for the athletes. Q. Is there at all a point where you could have too much of a good thing? Where having 161 people in an event is a tipping point? CHUCK WIELGUS: Yes, there is. I think we have to be very sensitive to that. There is a fair amount of pressure -- might not be the right word but a fair amount of talk that perhaps we should move the Trials around, as a "for instance." The analogy that I've been using is that there are a bunch of guys in green jackets in Augusta, Georgia, who know exactly what they have and they protect that event with ferocity, and I look at this event the same way. It's evolved to a point where we want to protect it. It doesn't mean we don't want to make improvements, and we have a number of improvements this year, but a lot of those improvements are away from the pool. We expanded the Aqua Zone, we have a USA Swimming house, and other things that are happening that -- improving the experience for spectators, and for family members and our fans, so that's a good thing. But, Karen, you know, could this meet grow to the point where we have, you know, 2,000, 3,000 competitors? I think that's too much. We actually set a goal -- and we missed it now three times in a row, but we think the right number is about 12- to 1400 athletes, and what happens is with swimmers, you put a mark down, and then they chase after it, and no matter how aggressive we think we are with setting those time standards, we got kids who meet the mark. So we will do it again in 2020, we'll try to set time standards that will get 12- to 1400 athletes qualifying, and I'm willing to bet whatever mark we set, we're going to end up with 1600 to 1800 athletes qualifying. I don't see us growing the number beyond where we are now. I think we're right at about the edge of where we want to be in terms of number of athletes. Q. I know a lot of us here in Omaha want to know, this is the third time the Trials have been here. What are the deciding factors to bring it back a fourth time in 2020? CHUCK WIELGUS: The single biggest factor related to Omaha staying as home for our Trials right now with us is the timing, and we look to our coaches to give us some indication of what's the right time between the end of Trials and the start of the Olympic Games, and that number is around thirty days; could be a little less, could be a little more, but around thirty days. They feel they have the opportunity and the athletes have the opportunity to go back to hard work and repeak at the Olympic Games. And again, the goal for our top athletes, the goal of Trials is to make the team, but the ultimate goal is to be on the podium at the Olympic Games, so those athletes have to peak for the Trials, because they become so competitive, and then they've got to go back to hard work and repeat. So we have a situation where the Tokyo dates, Rio starts August 5, Tokyo starts I think somewhere around July 20th, 25th, 24th, so it's almost two weeks earlier. So that would mean if we stay to form, we would want to push our Trials back two weeks, boom, we're right on top of the College World Series. But that's not to say that the two events can't coexist; we're coexisting today and tomorrow. It's not ideal. It's not ideal, and I think it's probably less ideal for the NCAA and for some of the folks here in Omaha than it is for us, but that's the single biggest factor that we're trying to wrestle with now and that's a big one. So we've taken the position relative to 2020 that we are -- let's get through these 2016 Trials, let's get this one in the books, and then let's talk to our coaches, see how they feel the Trials went this time, because we're a little longer. The athletes in the past have had to go straight into training camp from Trials, and now we're letting the athletes go home for a few days so the coaches might come to the conclusion that wasn't a good idea. So we need to get through the Trials, through Rio, see what our coaches feel, and then we will get into discussions with FINA, and with Omaha, about what do we do, and with the US Olympic Committee, they're part of this, and NBC, they're a part of it. And there are a lot of significant players at the table that we've got to involve in the discussion. Long-winded answer, but maybe you can pull some things out of that. Q. Chuck, a couple of your athletes that were in there commented on I guess the disappointment that -- with some of the stories that have come out about doping in various sports and in various countries. One of whom, Elizabeth Beisel, said she was not confident that the swimming competition will be clean in Rio. What are your thoughts on where things stand in swimming worldwide from a doping perspective? CHUCK WIELGUS: This comes up every single Olympic Games, we have a discussion about doping. I think there are more positive things happening now than I've seen happen in a long time. The top ten athletes in each event are now being tested at least five to seven times in and out of competition from Jan through the Games, and that's a commitment that was, in part, as a result of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency and its CEO, Travis Tygart putting pressure, talking with the leaders at FINA. USA Swimming was represented at that meeting. We certainly would want to take credit for that, but I think we're in the sidecar with the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency and their fight for clean sport, and Travis Tygart is absolutely a champion. He is probably the most clear-eyed thinker and clear-throated speaker on the subject of anti-doping in the world today, and we think he's doing an incredible job, and we support him 100%. That doesn't make everybody happy, we understand that, but we have an obligation, I believe, to fight for clean sport. I think we do what we can. It's a monumental effort. We'll never win it, because the cheaters are always a step ahead, but, again, I've seen more positive in this go-round than I've seen -- and I've been at every Olympic Games since '92 -- than I've seen in the past, and I think we have to give credit to FINA. And I know a lot of people have issues with FINA, but I think FINA has been very responsive, and I believe they are very committed, and they're taking actions to back that up. At the end of the day the IOC plays a huge role in this, and we've seen a little bit of back and forth the last few days. I thought WADA's position on backing the IAAF decision was a massive decision. That was quite a day. It was good to see the -- initially the IOC backed that up, and I hope they would stick to that. Again, we don't want our athletes to talk about this a whole lot. We want them focused on their performance. Again, it's an issue that comes up every single Olympic Games, and it always will, but I feel better now than I have in a long time, but it's not -- the fight goes on, the fight goes on. Q. Chuck, a follow-up to that. Is there anything else you would like to see done, personally or at least that y'all have talked about, a step that can be taken? Obviously it seems a big flaw is that countries are sort of allowed to run these on their own, and if they're not committed to the rules swimmers -- athletes don't get suspended for positive tests or tests are covered up. What would you like, first on the doping, is there anything that you would like to see done, even if it can't be done before Rio but going forward? CHUCK WIELGUS: The number one thing that we would like to see done, and I personally would like to see done, because you put it in that context, is to have more resources be made available for investigative services. It's one of the, I think, significant shortcomings right now is that when there is information that could lead to finding an athlete or a group of athletes or even a state-sponsored program, we want to be able to share that information and also have others be able to share that information with their domestic anti-doping agency and ultimately with WADA to conduct investigations. So I think that's the number one thing, more resources need to go to that, especially internationally. You know, USADA has put more resources to it, it's still not enough and I think Travis Tygart would agree with that, but that would be a number one thing. Q. Totally unrelated. On swimsuits, and we know what happened in the late -- up to 2008, 2009, and it was scaled back, and we have the rules that are set with tech stuff. Do you see any changes coming in that realm? I know the companies would love to go back to the publicity for NASA suits and being able to unveil cutting edge technology. Do you sense that there is pressure or a move going forward to make let a little more technology back into it? What's your position on that? CHUCK WIELGUS: USA Swimming's position on that is we would not like to see that. It's not that we are opposed to science but we are -- we want the performances of athletes to be gauged on what their -- on hard work, and on what they're able to accomplish without technological aids, specifically swimsuits. There is not a whole lot you can -- it's caps, goggles and suits, you know, the swimming suit manufacturers are always pushing the envelope, and that's understandable, and then they become sponsors of governing bodies, and then governing bodies -- this is what happens in Washington, D.C., right, with our government. So we take a hard position. We would love to see guys swimming in nothing below the knees and nothing above the waist and we want to keep it there. Where the women are today, we think that's where we would like to stay. So then you start looking at the fabric of the suit and what that's made of, and we don't want that fabric to be something that provides an aid so, again, we want the performance results based on the work that the athletes do, not on a technological enhancement. Q. (No microphone.) CHUCK WIELGUS: It's there, but I think one of the advantages of taking a firm position is people know where we stand, so they don't pressure us a whole lot. So we're more concerned about the pressure that comes to others, and in particular to our international federation, FINA and the position they take. One of the things that FINA has to take into account is that if the suit manufacturers are coming out with new products and many athletes want to use those products, well there may be -- there are 208 nations within FINA. How many of those nations are in a position where they can afford to buy all that new technology for their team? So there is really a case to be made that that technology is a disadvantage to many of the FINA member nations. So we're going to look for the arguments to keep the suit situation the way it is today and thankfully in Rio we aren't facing that issue. The intention seems to be much more on the whole drug situation in Rio. Q. Chuck, you have a country in Russia where state-sponsored doping cuts across more than just track and field. You have Russian swimmers who have failed drug tests in the last four years. How strong is the will among USA Swimming and FINA to hold the Russian swimmers accountable and perhaps keep them out of Rio? CHUCK WIELGUS: I think our will is very strong, and I kinda go back to the comments I made about the need for more investigative resources. There's nothing that we can say or do right now that's going to impact what's going to happen with the Russian or Chinese swimmers. That's in the -- I mean, FINA has to deal with that, WADA has to deal with that, the doping agencies in those countries have to be part of that, and that's an issue because, you know, we don't have anti-doping agencies as strong as USADA in other countries around the world. So the when a situation arises in which there is reason to believe there might be something going on, this is when an investigation needs to occur so we are 100% of the position that where investigations need to occur they should occur. Q. The list of failed tests in and of itself is not strong enough? CHUCK WIELGUS: It's certainly strong enough to be the reason to have the investigations, investigations take place. I think I'll leave it there. THE MODERATOR: All right. Thank you, Chuck. FastScripts Transcript by ASAP Sports   |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
About ASAP Sports •
FastScripts Archive •
Recent Interviews •
Captioning •
Upcoming Events •
Contact Us
FastScripts | Events Covered | Our Clients | Other Services | ASAP in the News | Site Map | Job Opportunities | Links |
|
ASAP Sports, Inc. | T: 1.212 385 0297
|