Harvard woes

Entitled white boys.

Odo wrote:

walkontrackgeek wrote:

Girls get aaaalllllll the attention and the boys coached by him are pretty much ignored.

Which gender is more likely to cry?

While I agree with this sentiment to some degree, good luck finding a woman who wants to work 60-80 weeks the vast majority of the year for under 40k while giving up a family & personal life. Most of these women quit by their 30's for one reason or another. And who's to say homosexual coaches can't abuse their student athletes? I've seen it happen. But I'm willing to admit it's seemingly less likely since they are a smaller proportion of the population. Sure administrators can do a better job finding quality women to coach their women's teams, but the very nature of collegiate XC/track & field weeds most of them out - those that can already put up with the old boys club, misogyny & often being set up to fail without mentorship while moving up too quickly to fill the void of all the women just ahead of them quitting. Tell me if I'm wrong, but men are generally much more willing to sacrifice their family & personal life to work a less-than minimum wage job. It's their biological imperative misfiring. But then you get these creeps. And yes, a lot of things his colleagues have observed is less than professional...

Inside information wrote:

This is pretty baseless. First, I know first hand that Gompers and Lieberman reached out to every current athlete except the freshman who had only been on team for a few months. Eliyana Schwayder flat out lied. She was interviewed by Lieberman. This is especially troubling given that she is majoring in Evolutionary bio. Lieberman is chairman of that department. Probably not a good idea to lie about your department chair when you were actually interviewed by him for the report. The existing athletes, who have bought into this single minded system, were instructed by Wales-Dinan to go to the Crimson and lobby heavily.

When two of three athletes quit, something is seriously wrong.

I also know that currently four of the 11 athletes are injured with suspected stress fractures.

gsadgfasdfsadfasdf is likely one of those athletes who lobbied the Crimson on Wales-Dinan's behalf.

No, I have inside information that shows how shoddy this "investigation" was done. I love how you just remove agency from all the girls on the team. If they don't agree with your interpretation of the situation they must be pawns for W-D. Let's not forget these are adult women and harvard students to boot. Their words mean far more than some self-important keyboard jockey with "inside information."

Oh. You saw the report?

Inside Information wrote:

Oh. You saw the report?

Why don't you post it to vindicate yourself?

These girls have all lived privileged lives. They've each been told they are the center of the universe by Mumsie and Pop-pop and Consuela the nanny/maid, and they love having drama worthy of a Telemundo plot.

gsadgfasdfsadfasdf wrote:

Did everyone read the full article?

I find it very very hard to take allegations seriously if the former athletes won't put their names behind their words. This is not some legal matter that could leave you open to retaliation. If you feel strongly, stand behind your words, don't take cheap shots through the school newspaper.

Did YOU read the full article?

“Though only ex-athletes are included in the names below, we believe it important to note that current athletes agreed with the sentiment expressed here, but were unwilling to put their names to any note, fearing retribution,” they wrote. “Last year, athletes who communicated with the Athletics Department about the coaching staff and team culture then faced punishment from that coaching staff.”

The ex-athletes DID put their names behind their words. The current athletes didn't because they know they'll face retaliation.

At the end of the day its the coach's prerogative to make the team intense or open. If Wales-Dinan wants a nationally competitive team then he is welcome to harness the resources of Harvard and of his exceptional athletes to do that. Ivy league athletics CAN be less intense but it also CAN be just as competitive as power 5 schools.

jdsfajdgsf wrote:

Did YOU read the full article?

“Though only ex-athletes are included in the names below, we believe it important to note that current athletes agreed with the sentiment expressed here, but were unwilling to put their names to any note, fearing retribution,” they wrote. “Last year, athletes who communicated with the Athletics Department about the coaching staff and team culture then faced punishment from that coaching staff.”

The ex-athletes DID put their names behind their words. The current athletes didn't because they know they'll face retaliation.

Internal email != putting your name behind words publicly. In all the article does a good job at highlighting how people view training and running very differently. Sometimes you just aren't compatible with a coach/team, I guess.

Can someone summarize what the complaints are against the coach that they are claiming are firable offenses?

midwestern miler wrote:

Can someone summarize what the complaints are against the coach that they are claiming are firable offenses?

This is sort of the crux of the issue. There isn't much besides "he was way more intense than previous coaches and encouraged them to prioritize running over everything."

You can debate if this is the most productive thing to encourage, but plenty of programs are run like this.

Seems like there are a ridiculous number of "investigations" going on. How long does it really take to come to a conclusion in this case? Does silence mean they have not found sufficient evidence to support the complaints?

Not taking into account the ambiguous "inappropriate touching" and alleged encouragement of dangerous weight loss (which an Ivy coach has been fired for) - I don't personally believe all these people quitting is a smoking gun. I was on a team that went from 27 to about 12 runners with a coaching change - granted some of those people were cut from the team. They probably couldn't cut people from the team at Harvard, but it seems obvious the coach raised the level of required commitment to weed out the team to a smaller, more dedicated squad. I don't really like this approach to coaching and there is certainly an unpleasant side to it all, but I'm not sure you can fire the guy for it.

Inside information wrote:

This is pretty baseless. First, I know first hand that Gompers and Lieberman reached out to every current athlete except the freshman who had only been on team for a few months. Eliyana Schwayder flat out lied. She was interviewed by Lieberman.

Ms. Schwayder made her statements to a reporter using her real name. You accuse her of lying while hiding behind an alias. You do not offer any evidence or even any argument to support your claim. Why should anyone believe you over her?

And if Lieberman is the chair of her department, that makes it even less likely that she would blatantly lie to a reporter about whether he interviewed her. As you said, there would be a real cost to her if she was lying. But there is zero cost to you for lying anonymously on LRC, so guess who smart people will tend to believe? (Hint: not you.)

If the coach is telling kids to skip afternoon labs or morning classes in favor of workouts, maybe there's something there, otherwise much ado about nothing.they've three investigations and no smoking gun.

I think Patrick means well he just is very emotional and has a vast amount of enthusiasm for running, runners, and coaching. That being said it makes me sad about how young women are left feeling bad about body weight. Comments made even though the intentions are good can be interpreted negatively. Runners that are exercising x amount of hours a wk or miles need to just listen to their bodies and eat. They will become stronger and faster if emphasis is NOT placed on weight and the focus is on listening to the body. Stress fractures often have to do with a nutrition deficit especially in women. Again too much emphasis is placed on weight with collegiate running...its sad. I doubt the comment was made with bad intentions but it's just such a touchy area in our culture.

This coach is committed and in doing so has accomplished much/made many connections in a relatively short amount of time. He is young and he is learning. I hope a common ground can be found for everyone.

I am a coach of a female athlete WD actively recruited for this coming fall. I even attended the invitation-only junior day with my athlete and her family. First, I was impressed with WD stated objectives and coaching philosophy. I have stolen chunks of it and have incorporated it into my approach. Secondly, my runner chose not to pursue Harvard because of the personal feedback she received from the athletes with whom she lodged. The consistent feedback she received was that the program overshadowed everything. The feeling was, in the words of the host athletes, that since WD was not married, they were not sure if he was in a good position to fit their training into their lives--running was his entire world when it was only a part of theirs. This situation was confirmed when I asked about whether my athlete would have the opportunity to attend church Sunday mornings. The word was that regular attendance at church would not really have been a possibility.

Admittedly, this is second hand--even third hand at times--information. I share this only because I have a personal ax to grind with coaches that reduce an athlete's life to just running. Olympic champions can be husbands, fathers, students, or even chess players. I believe that, while excellence requires an uncommon commitment to one's discipline, it should define anyone. Athletics is not a career...it is an opportunity; a window that will close sooner than one wants. If it is not used to propel you into the next phase of life, then it is a waste of time. Kipsang and Gebreselaisse are businessmen, Korir and Ryun became politicians...I have a feeling that these Harvard athletes have bigger goals than track. Excellence in track and XC can definitely prepare one for great things after that window closes, but it cannot define one's being...those who fail to learn this lesson are doomed to become coaches who drive his or her athletes to achievement beyond what they were able to do.

Inside information wrote:

When two of three athletes quit, something is seriously wrong.

Actually no hun, this doesn't mean anything. Happens all the time in healthy but intense, competitive situations. This doesn't mean many of his colleagues don't think something is wrong, but not because so many have quit & half may have stress fractures. This is standard operating procedure hun. If you ladies are trying to get him fired, you're not going to get anywhere with the whole "we disagree with his philosophy & training" argument...

It should be noted that Gompers daughter currently is(was?) on the team. He is not just some concerned third party....

A bit harsh, but essentially correct. Do you think Harvard will keep the coach around if he does not produce? It is either perform or perish, the way of the real world. I find it very hard to believe that a coach would force his athletes to NOT excel academically. Ridiculous!