right direction, The

Swimming Technique, Jul-Sep 2000 by Block, George

after remaining essentially dormant since 1993, last fall ICAR began to cause worry in the USA Swimming coaching community. "Stealth" hirings of a staff physiologist and biomechanist, along with proprietary research conducted for a sponsor that insisted on non-disclosure agreements for the staff, led many coaches to believe that ICAR was again headed down the same slippery slope that led to its demise in the first place.

With no institutional memory in place to prevent the mistakes of the past from reoccurring, ASCA President Pat Hogan appointed a committee to review the operation of ICAR and "recommend the optimum conditions, needs and actions to ensure adequate sports science support within USA Swimming."

The six committee members also recruited eight contributors who regularly reviewed the work of the committee, contributed specific information when needed and added suggestions of their own as well.

Almost as soon as this committee started, they realized that their focus-and that of those who preceded themwas grossly misplaced. By focusing on ICAR, they were implicitly not focusing on where "adequate sports science support" was needed in USA Swimming: the grass roots.

The "tail had been wagging the dog." ICAR should have been an offshoot of our sports science program. As it was (and is), the sports science program was an offshoot of ICAR. This argument mirrored the ongoing argument about the National Resident Team.

Instead of worrying about the National Resident Team, we should be focusing on how we build "resident teams" all over the country. The same is true for ICAR. Instead of worrying about ICAR, the focus should have been on how to build research centers all over the country as collaborations between interested clubs and universities.

Three-tiered Program

The ASCA Committee "stole" the code words from the eminently successful Australian sports science program: "coach-driven, athlete-focused, administratively-supported." Using this code while remaining focused on the grass roots, the ASCA Committee recommended a three-tiered program.

The base of the recommended new program is the Swimming Science Support Network (SSSN). This network would be built through the collaboration between USA Swimming clubs and local colleges, universities and health care professionals.

The goals of the SSSN would be two-fold. The first would be to help coaches access data that would help them make better coaching decisions. The second goal of the SSSN would be to perform research that is driven and requested by the collaborating coach in the local network.

The next tier recommended by the ASCA Committee also focused on the grass roots, but is concerned with getting raw accurate data from the grass roots to ICAR for dissemination throughout USA Swimming.

Swim science interns will develop baseline data and metrics on successful clubs that have historically developed homegrown, national swimmers. This data will be used to develop (among other things) both club and coach productivity measures. In addition to the swimming technical data, basic club management studies will be done, including structure, finance, governance and continuing education.

The third tier of the plan recommended by the ASCA Committee is the research role traditionally associated with ICAR. What makes this plan differ from the practices of the past are the requirements that all research be done based on previously determined annual research priorities; that all research be funded based on competitively submitted responses to requests for proposals; and that all research be submitted for peer-reviewed publication.

The ICAR staff would have to compete with university and private sector researchers for research dollars, guaranteeing that competitive swimming is being supported by competitive science.

The day-to-day role of the ICAR staff (and associates) would be to serve as the swimming science support network for the current national and resident team coaches.

Well-positioned

USA Swimming finds itself suddenly well-positioned to implement this program. The (new) sport development coordinators are the logical staff persons to assist in the development of local networks, as well as coordinate the efforts of each year's intern class; and Dr. Suzie Tuffey, the new director of sport science, has no ties to any particular operational model.

Even more important, Steve Roush, assistant executive director for Sport Development, has indicated his willingness to support this plan in front of the USA Swimming Board of Directors.

Coach Pete Malone, both politically astute and doggedly determined, has committed himself to the implementation of this program. In doing so, he made the critical observation that, "This has to be the priority of every candidate for the (new) Coach Vice President position (to be elected in October). We (all American coaches) should insist on this from every candidate. This has to be their mission during their term in office."

Coach Malone was right, as usual. The work of the committee will amount to nothing if the entire American coaching community isn't willing to put in just as much effort, holding the feet of their elected representative to the fire. the ICAR staff would have to compete with university and private sector researchers for research dollars, guaranteeing that competitive swimming is being supported by competitive science.