CU investigation finds body composition testing negatively impacted a "significant number" of athletes but Wetmore keeps his job

LetsRun.com wrote:

The full 82-page report is out but Wetmore and Burroughs and the dietician keep their job.

Here is a lengthy RW article recapping it.

Link:www.runnersworld.com/news/a44272887/co...

Here is the 82 page report.

Link:hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/files/cu-bou...

Moving forward, teams still can do "sum-of-seven" testing but there will be limitations.

RW wrote:

In the athletic department’s summary of the findings, officials announced that while sum-of-seven testing will resume at the university, they’ll enact enhanced policies to increase support for athletes.
The updated guidelines specify that, among other safeguards, athletes must meet with a team physician and mental health professional before opting into testing, and that any deemed high-risk won’t be permitted to opt in. Those who do undergo testing will undergo regular check-ins with mental health practitioners and physicians. Students from certain sports, including the men’s and women’s cross-country and women’s track and field programs, won’t be allowed to undergo testing in their first year post-high school. Coaches won’t have access to body composition, weight, or similar data, and an annual review of the testing program will be conducted by “academic and medical professionals with strong research backgrounds."

eye roll wrote:

Gentleman Savage wrote:

Don't forget that prior to joining NOP, the Gouchers were training under Wetmore as pros through the 2004 OT. Adam being chronically injured and underperforming in that time certainly isn't a coincidence.

Agree. Also Cobourn left pretty suddenly to be coached by her now husband, which strikes me as a pretty big risk to take for someone who was already very successful. Looks like a lot of former CU women went to Boss as well. Maybe there's nothing to it but my read on that situation is they wanted a coach who had a similar program (since he was a CU alum himself) but without some of the outdated baggage or perhaps other toxic elements that they weren't happy with at CU.

This also happened with my program. Most of the people who went on to some other coach chose one that had been part of the program. I can agree with that sentiment. I felt that my former coach's written program/philosophy was objectively solid, but that the environment he created and having to interact with him was not. For example, my training went a lot better during a period where I had an internship that had me training on my own with only a weekly email exchange as interaction.

Another thing I'd say to the women defending all of this... it's possible to acknowledge that something that wasn't awful for you personally might not have been a great choice. My program had similar accusations of irresponsible body comp/medical stuff and eating disorders. I didn't have those problems while in college and I felt that the information that was delivered was useful and scientifically accurate. However I could see how other athletes with existing eating disorders would twist that info in their mind.

If you are working with track athletes (both male and female) you need to accept that most of them have an eating disorder and tailor your content appropriately. The way men have their eating disorders socialized is different and often comes off as orthorexia (objective is "optimal health"/obsession with health not being skinny). This is probably because the idealized male body type in society isn't that of a track runner. So being told to gain weight is like permission to go back towards the ideal. If most of the CU men's team was being told they were underweight that's basically a neon sign saying that many of them had eating disorders even if they don't want to accept that. It's true that running a lot will make you thin, but to get that thin you need to be intentionally ignoring hunger cues, which is a hallmark of disordered eating.