Damning indictment of Stephanie Hightower

I have seen this kind of uproar in other organizations and nothing really changes.

POST of the WEEK! Remember when the twitter/social media universe was screaming about Roger Goodell to resign? That was WAY bigger than this. Now it is yesterday's news and mostly forgotten.

I read that article. There is no damning indictment. It refers vaguely to disasters in her tenure and a loss of American interest without providing any specific examples of Hightower having anything to do with any of this. Doug Logan certainly didn't provide any value to the organization. Dropping NYC as the trials marathon site, causing a massive drop in interest, and championing the all-drug Olympics, among other actual mistakes, made him a short-lived disaster. Masback didn't do much to stop the drop in interest either. As for the notion that Hersh is great because the IAAF likes him, that's absurd as evidence. That is the most corrupt organization outside of FIFA and la Cosa Nostra, and with fewer family values. That Hightower wants his IAAF position is no big deal. Now ambition is a crime? That article brings nothing. And I'm not going to admit that the dq's at indoors amount to anything. The male distance runner dq'd didn't lose any podium position, while the female (Gabe G) deserved her dq royally.

two actual budgets:

http://www.usatf.org/About/Financials/Approved-Budgets/2013.aspx

Ambition is not a crime. Running roughshod over 85% of your constituents is.

Let's compare the Orange County article (anti-Hightower's behavior) and Abrahamson's article (pro-Hightower's behavior).

Before we do that, let's have the right frame of mind- There is absolutely reason to question Hightower given what happened with the IAAF nomination process, even if she has a neutral history.

jjjjjj seems to be against criticizing Hightower. On the OC criticism: "I read that article. There is no damning indictment. It refers vaguely to disasters in her tenure... "

Abrahamson, like jjjjjj, wants people to ease off Hightower. While jjjjjj says Doug Logan is the person we should all be mad at, Abrahamson suggests that Hightower's sex and age are reasons to appreciate her ability to pick herself for IAAF representative (just like Sarah Palin's sex would be a valid reason for her to vote herself as president).

Getting back to jjjjj... Let's first take a look at tricky language. jjjjjj accuses the OC article of being vague and without indictment. I hadn't read the article, and from jjjjjj's description I feared it was a fluff piece from a bleeding heart. "Vague? No indictment?", I thought to myself, "Maybe the writer just has a problem with ambitious politicians!" However, I found out that jjjjjj was, ummm, precise in his vague inaccuracy. The Orange County article refers specifically to a documented track record of self-serving leadership by Hightower. It gives specific numbers, dates, positions held, and infractions reported by a variety of sources. Contrary to what jjjjjj writes ("There is no damning indictment"), I disagree. Given what has just happened at USATF, her well-documented track-record indicates leadership behavior that is consistently harmful to the groups she serves, while consistently enhancing her own life. This, to me, is damning! The USATF might make money, US athletes may do great things, but Hightower can still have a soiled track record.

On the other hand, Abrahamson's article gives no specifics, and mocks the expressed anger of people whose votes and opinions were blatantly marginalized. Using a reference to a mockumentary movie (a genre eerily close to that of Abrahamson's article) the distinguished author asks people upset with Hightower to 'take the volume from an 11 to an 8'. Though 11 and 8 are numbers (are these the specific reasons we should support Hightower?), this is actually a tactic that scared or guilty people use to keep people who they've harmed from making a fuss. "Honey, I know I just beat you and embarrassed you in front of your friends, but could you take it down from an 11 to an 8? Daddy has to get some sleep so he can go to work in the morning." Abrahamson asks people like Lauren Fleshman - before they get angry at a person who used her friends on the board to overrule an 85% vote which derails decades of work by a well-respected leader - to consider that Hightower is a female, which means she's good for diversity. And, he reminds us, there are groups out there who support diversity (can you put 2 and 2 together?). Again, saying that she's a female is a specific piece of evidence, so we have to give Abrahamson some credit for that. But what if - gasp - Bob Hersh was Lisa Hersh? What if there were two females? Would that make Hightower's actions more palatable? This type of logic (i.e. rudimentary) is not necessary for someone as well-respected as Abrahamson.

Showing the tenacity that has made him a very respected voice to the editors of LetsRun.com (according to their homepage), Abrahamson cites even MORE evidence in favor of Hightower. (!!) According to his in-depth reporting, while Hersh is 71 (and will, believe it or not, turn 72 in the next year), Hightower is in her 50's! But Abrahamson doesn't just resort to numerology, deriving vacuous meaning from numbers. No. He nails us with facts. Abe points out that 71 is closer to the age of older people at IAAF, while 50-something is closer to the age of the 50-something generation at IAAF. He also points out that in just a few decades, it's more likely that the 50-somethings will have more responsibility at IAAF than the current 70-somethings will. I know it's abundantly clear, but Abrahamson mercilessly twists home the knife-blade, nonetheless: no matter if they are destructive, deceptive, manipulative, and self-serving, it's better to have a 50-something leading the USATF at the IAAF level. And if you have a problem with his defense-of-power arguments, Alan suggests message board posters should just keep their opinions to themselves. With this type of attitude towards the people who read his s***, no wonder he defends Hightower's behavior.

Summary:

Which article do you prefer? The article that cites a whole bunch of chair-squirming evidence against Hightower? Or the respectable article from a respectable voice that asks you to be polite, because after all, she's a she, and she's in her 50's? We know where jjjjjj stands. I guess his is the type of message board opinion Abrahamson gives two opposable thumbs up.

I have no problem with criticizing Stephanie Hightower or anyone else for actual mistakes. Initially, I read only the first page of the article and did not notice that there was a second page. On the first page there is only innuendo with no actual evidence of any wrongdoing at all. On the second page, which I just read, there is mention of three alleged actions from the 1990s, but they do not involve her tenure at USATF at all, so I stand by my statement that the article provides zero evidence that Hightower should be charged with anything at USATF. To do that, the author would have to show, for instance, that she did x, y, or z to, e.g., suppress or reduce sentences unjustly for positive drug tests, to corruptly make decisions concerning contracts, to illegally use her familial connections, to violate rules concerning democratic decisions, etc. None of this has been done by the author, which is not to say that it could not be done by someone competent. Nor has any of this been done in this thread.

I posted this comment to Alan's article but it has been "waiting on moderation" for almost a day.

Alan,

In all due respect, your article seems intellectually dishonest and, at its worst moment, hypocritical:

(1) You call for civility in the same breath as you (albeit subtly) question Lauren Fleshman's mothering? I have no idea what kind of mother Lauren is (I doubt you do either). I do know that the mothers I know (including my wife of 13 years) aren't afraid to stand up for what they feel is right even if that means defying some outdated, Victorian views about how mothers "should" speak around their children. Forgive me for being old-fashioned, but calls for civility should generally refrain from supplying mothering advice.

(2) Perhaps the most troubling of your statements is the notion that the members vote on the IAAF representative was a mere "recommendation" rather than an actual vote. You sound like an oligarchies. Is a Congressional vote just a "recommendation" to the President because he can override it? The Board of USATF--despite what you write and what they may think--is simply not an independent body who can do whatever they want. They are bound by laws--USTAF bylaws, USOC regulations and the laws of the Amateur Sports Act. Their decisions by law must reasonably reflect the views of the athletes. Moreover, in Representative Democracies, the representatives are always accountable to the electorate. I hope that when Stephanie Hightower is removed from her office at the 2015 meeting in Houston by a 2/3 vote of the delegates that you also laud the process.

To the real point, the central question is: Who is USATF? The organization spent the last year selling its members on the idea that "We"--the athletes, the members, the officials, the fans--"are USATF." How then can the same organization hear the voice of the people, pat them on the head like children and then say "ok, let the grown ups take it from here."

(3) Equally troubling is the seeming "free pass" you seem willing to extend to President Hightower because she seems poised to play a significant role in the governance of international track. How can one excuse the litany of problems that have beset USATF under her term? Your outrage about John Drummond should be directed precisely at the President of the organization who allowed a coach to retain his chair while being investigated for supplying drugs to an admitted drug cheat.

How can you be so intellectually dishonest?

You ask "why the best track and field athletes in the United States did not rise up" and have Drummond provisionally suspended? Yet, you tell those same track and field athletes that their votes are mere recommendations and then later tell them to stop "whining" about a process that nominated a person for the IAAF council that clearly wanted removed from power? In other words, your advice to the best track and field athletes is “know your place.” They should worry about the chair of the AAC but leave the leadership of track and field in the U.S. to the professionals.

Here is the message of your article: Hightower beat Bob. Get over it. Get on Board. You suggest that the member's vote was about as legitimate as an 8th grade vote for best looking girl in the class. Ok. Fine. But, here is the thing: that popularity contest demonstrated one critical point--Stephanie Hightower is an extremely unpopular President. How can she be a voice for US Track in the international community when so few people will listen to her at home?

I am sorry that folks are "whining" about what they see as a dishonest process and a disservice to the sport we all seem to still love.

Personally, I hope the whining continues, that mother’s keep dropping s-bombs and that the track fans continue to passionately work to have a bigger voice in the sport they love.

Mundus Vult Decipi

Mundus Vult Decipi wrote:

Personally, I hope the whining continues, that mother’s keep dropping s-bombs

tl;dr but Mundus wants me to swear more, will do!

Just kidding, I actually read all of that, it was well-written, thank you.

Holy false dichotomy batman!

I don't know about jjjjjjjjjjj, but I too found the article linked by the OP to be painfully lacking in substantive criticisms, certainly not warranting the title of "damning indictment", and I'm saying that as someone who dislikes Hightower and hopes she is ousted.

You know it is possible to have this opinion AND also not be a fan of Abrahamson's article?