Banned coach hired by local junior college

I disagree. I agree he probably wouldn't encourage b squad runners to dope. However, it takes impressionable young athletes, some of them future coaches themselves, and it puts them into a position where an unabashed pusher of peds is now a potential role model. These things have the potential for creating a cycle.

I always appreciate out of the box thinking, but I think on further analysis it is wrong.

If our penalties for those we caught in institutionalized doping cannot be enforced, what is the point?

a has been wrote:

I disagree. I agree he probably wouldn't encourage b squad runners to dope. However, it takes impressionable young athletes, some of them future coaches themselves, and it puts them into a position where an unabashed pusher of peds is now a potential role model. These things have the potential for creating a cycle.

I always appreciate out of the box thinking, but I think on further analysis it is wrong.

If our penalties for those we caught in institutionalized doping cannot be enforced, what is the point?

I think you've made nothing but good points quite honestly. It shouldn't have to be on you to take action, but it would probably be a good idea to drop the AD a line as you have clearly put some thought into this and have a solid grasp on the matter.

a has been wrote:

Salazar "had ties" to Balco in the sense that he had professional relationships with some of the people involved with Balco.

T&F is a relatively small community. A lot of the top coaches know each other, might discuss ideas. I don't think Salazar having "ties" to Balco should be surprising to anybody, whether you think he is a dirty coach or think he is not a dirty coach.

I don't disagree at all. I was referencing someone earlier who was calling a coach "dirty" based on his ties to Balco. I was pointing out that if that was the standard then there were a lot of people on the list including some that are revered by many.

As far as Salazar and Nike, I obviously have no idea and will not offer s guess. However, over my many years in track and field I have learned that where there is smoke there is almost always a fire. There is a lot of smoke, so I am suspicious.

...much better that you sit in an anonymous cat bird seat and have someone else do your dirty work. If you are in the right, why not write the letter yourself? You don't want it getting back to other coaches you work with? Given that you coach hurdles at the same level, in the same geographic location and are worried about what other coaches would think of you (not Remi Korchemny), it seems you are the moral equivalent of a mouse. Shame on you for your anonymous internet witch hunt including your creative writing personal interactions, baseless factual claims and thinly veiled jealousy. When you post your name, I'll post mine and we can have a real discussion.

a has been wrote:

"Good idea about including a media rep. I'll do that. I'll have a non-track friend send the email. I'm a bit too immersed in the track community here to want anything getting back to some of the other coaches I work with since the bay area track community is pretty incestuous."

...much better that you sit in an anonymous cat bird seat and have someone else do your dirty work. If you are in the right, why not write the letter yourself? You don't want it getting back to other coaches you work with? Given that you coach hurdles at the same level, in the same geographic location and are worried about what other coaches would think of you (not Remi Korchemny), it seems you are the moral equivalent of a mouse. Shame on you for your anonymous internet witch hunt including your creative writing personal interactions, baseless factual claims and thinly veiled jealousy. When you post your name, I'll post mine and we can have a real discussion.

I'm not jealous, I've readily admitted he was an excellent coach. My contention was that excellent coach or not, he shouldn't be hired by any school to coach, since he has a lifetime ban.The coaches I work with are well aware of my stance on doping. The athletes I work with are well aware of my stance on doping. Some of the coaches I work with used to work with Remi before his ban. They have since completely severed ties with him, but it is clear they are uncomfortable about the situation and consider it a toxic matter that they don't want to be involved in at all.I'm not sure what baseless claims you are refering to. Are you forgetting that Remi pled guilty to criminal charges of distributing a PED?

At any rate, if anybody is curious, this is the email I sent to the AD, media director, and head coach. I have no idea if they will take it seriously or not. I am acquainted with the head coach and he seems like a genuine person with his athlete's interest at heart. Anyway, here is the email:

Maurice,

I noticed that Merritt college recently hired Remi Korchemny as an assistant track coach. I would just like to point out that Remi has a lifetime ban from coaching from USATF, the national governing body of track and field. I do not expect a response, I just wanted to protest this decision and ask you to reconsider.

I am well aware of the fact that he is an excellent coach. However, I do not think it appropriate that he be hired by any educational institution as a track coach. Our Junior College system provide learning opportunities to young people that would not otherwise have the opportunity to attend college. The athletics programs are an extension of this opportunity for learning and personal growth. As a local coach myself, I believe that the coaches and athletic departments have a responsibility to these students to teach skills beyond what are required to win at their sport.

The USATF website maintains a list of lifetime bans (to date there have been only 7) here:

http://www.usatf.org/About/Anti-Doping/Doping-Suspensions.aspx

While there is currently very little "teeth" to this lifetime ban, I would point out that this list is readily available and publicly disseminated.

I sympathize with the difficulty in finding good coaches, but ultimately it is my contention that hiring decisions need be based on more than just technical competency.

Thanks for your consideration,

A concerned citizen

an anonymous email also...nicely done. You have maintained the moral high ground.

That is garbage. If you were to list all the dopers from the last 10 years the list would be made up of those that were not 'cake'. They WANT to be cake so they dope. It's about being better than you are or better than you can be naturally at any level.

If he doesn't recognize he done something wrong then he is either overly conceited or possibly has some touch of psychosis. Cheating is WRONG and he done it and is not apologetic or does not recognize it. He should be nowhere near an athlete.

a never was wrote:

an anonymous email also...nicely done. You have maintained the moral high ground.

I'm not sure what you expect. I stuck to the facts. I can't see what using my name would accomplish.

This sport belongs to all of us, it is up to us all to be stewards of our own sport. Like I already said, I'm quite vocal publicly that I am strongly against PED use. If I learned one of my athletes was using PEDs, I would no longer work with them and I have made this clear.

It isn't like I am sending anonymous emails accusing him of doping his athletes. I sent an anonymous email based on only the publicly available facts just in case the AD didn't do his due diligence at the hiring process.

[quote]a has been wrote:

'I am acquainted with the head coach and he seems like a genuine person with his athlete's interest at heart.'

If this is true why not approach him and have a conversation instead of sending anonymous emails...

grow some you cowardly chicksh..t

a has been wrote:

I'm quite vocal publicly that I am strongly against PED use.

Let's see, you know the head coach, he seems genuine, you are 'quite vocal publicly'....yet you haven't mentioned this to that coach who actually works with Korchemny and given him the opportunity to respond.

You have, however, sent an anonymous email to his place of employment regarding a recent hire in his program. Classic.

I have no horse in this matter at all, but why are some putting the proof of burden on the guy making the AD aware?

The guy who cheated is the person who should be under scrutiny, no matter how it is discovered or reported.

Some of you are making it an issue of how it is reported. The ultimate issue is that a guy is banned from coaching due to cheating and is coaching.

Yes, anonymous internet posts and anonymous letters are the best way to address this matter. The moral high ground demands it.

"During their suspension period, these individuals are ineligible to participate in the activities of USATF and/or in Athletics competitions." I suppose you might convince someone to believe "or in athletics competitions" means coaching juco athletes that don't participate in USATF but I don't understand how USATF can prevent someone from gaining employment. Are there no blacklisting laws or other such laws that would prevent USATF from blacklisting these people from employment?

Cowardly Lion wrote:

Let's see, you know the head coach, he seems genuine, you are 'quite vocal publicly'....yet you haven't mentioned this to that coach who actually works with Korchemny and given him the opportunity to respond.

You have, however, sent an anonymous email to his place of employment regarding a recent hire in his program. Classic.

Let me put it into an analogy:

If I was publicly asked for a stance on child abuse, I would state that I was against it. But if one of my youth athletes showed up with injuries consistent with child abuse, I wouldn't confront that athlete's parents. Instead, I would anonymously report what I saw to the authorities. It isn't my decision what happens in that case, but I do feel an obligation to at least bring it to the attention of the people who can do something about it if they deem it appropriate.

Why wouldn't I come out an confront those parents myself and crusade publicly against them? Because it isn't my job to be in the middle of this and I would be afraid of the potential for retribution.

Why would I report it at all then if I didn't want it attached to my name? Because I feel the obligation to that athlete.

Does this make me a coward? Maybe it does in your opinion. I am ok with that. At the end of the day, I am just trying to do the best I can while not taking an unnecessary risk. Attaching my name to that would accomplish nothing and be no more effective than reporting it anonymously.

The USATF would prevent his athletes from competing in USATF championship meets.

JC athletes aren't drug tested at all. I'm sure there are plenty of athletes doping at that level.

A never was wrote:

Yes, anonymous internet posts and anonymous letters are the best way to address this matter. The moral high ground demands it.

Well, it's more than what you are doing in this given situation. At this point you are nothing more than a direct troller/baiter to the guy that is actually doing SOMETHING, even if it isn't what you agree with. In fact, you yourself are not taking the "moral high ground" because you don't even have the courage to act. Your choice is cowardice.

Oh, I see. The head coach, who you know and apparently have some respect for, may induce some kind of retribution against you for having a conversation like a man with him regarding his reasoning for working with Korchemny? ..Better that you make internet accusations and send anonymous emails.

Perhaps a real conversation with the person you know and have some respect for would shed some light on the decision and provide you with a different perspective? If you did that, maybe you wouldn't have to hide out in the dark shadows of anonymity on the internet-- unless that is really what you are all about.

You claim that you are a coach yet you aren't even able to have a conversation with a colleague who you claim to have some respect for about an issue that you are so 'publicly vocal' about. You are so vocal yet you have no voice when it comes to professional communication with a colleague about an issue that you believe is damaging to your profession. How can that be?