U.S. Olympic Committee Coaching Ethics Code (LONG / just released)

U.S. Olympic Committee Coaching Ethics Code (LONG / just released)

Post by John Kess » Tue, 12 Sep 1995 04:00:00


The following was released this past weekend at the
USOC Coaching Symposium.  It has been adopted by the
USOC for all USOC directly supported functions
(Olympics, World University Games, Pan Ams, etc.) and
will need to be signed by all coaches participating in
events or training on site at any of the U.S. Olympic
Training Centers.  This has become the defacto national
coaching ethics standard, and they urged all
participants to work on it's adoption by wach of their
National Governing Bodies.  I know that one of the best
ways to get this information out is through all the
Olympic Family related newsgroups, so I am posting it
to all those I know of. It is not copyrighted.  For
more information/feedback, contact Dr. Tom Crawford,
USOC Coaching Director at the same street address as in
my sig file. The FAX number there is (719) 578-4817,
but they are not yet on the internet.  Soon though..
Regards to all.

UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE
COACHING ETHICS CODE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION
GENERAL PRINCIPLES          

     Principle A: Competence      
     Principle B: Integrity
     Principle C: Professional Responsibility  
     Principle D: Respect for Participants* and Dignity
     Principle E: Concern for Others' Welfare        
     Principle F: Responsible Coaching

ETHICAL STANDARDS  
     1.0  General Standards    
     1.01 Applicability of the Ethics Code  
     1.02 Boundaries of Competence
     1.03 Maintaining Expertise  
     1.04 Basis for Professional Judgements
     1.05 Describing the Nature and
          Results of Coaching Services
     1.06 Respecting Others
     1.07 Nondiscrimination
     1.08 *** Harassment
     1.09 Other Harassment
     1.10 Personal Problems and Conflicts
     1.11 Avoiding Harm
     1.12 Misuse of Coaches' Influence
     1.13 Multiple Relationships
     1.14 Exploitative Relationships
     1.15 Consultations and Referrals
     1.16 Delegation to and Supervision of Subordinates
     1.17 Fees and Financial Arrangements

     2.0  Advertising and Other Public Statements
     2.01 Definition of Public Statements
     2.02 Statements by Others
     2.03 Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements    
     2.04 Media Presentations
     2.05 Testimonials
     2.06 Recruiting  

     3.0 Training Athletes
     3.01 Structuring the Relationship
     3.02 Family Relationships
     3.03 Providing Coaching Services to
          Those Served by Other    
     3.04 *** Intimacies With Current Athletes
     3.05 Coaching Former *** Partners
     3.06 *** Intimacies With Former Athletes
     3.07 Drug-Free Sport
     3.08 *** and Tobacco
     3.09 Interruption of Services
     3.10 Terminating the Professional Relationship

     4.0  Training Supervision    
     4.01 Design of Training Programs
     4.02 Descriptions of Training Programs      
     4.03 Accuracy and Objectivity in Coaching    
     4.04 Assessing Athlete Performance
     4.05 Honoring Commitments

     5.0  Team Selection

     6.0  Resolving Ethical Issues
     6.01 Familiarity With Ethics Code
     6.02 Confronting Ethical Issues
     6.03 Conflicts Between Ethics and
           Organizational Demands
     6.04 Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations
     6.05 Reporting Ethical Violations
     6.06 Cooperating With Ethics Committees
     6.07 Improper Complaints

     7.0  Process Relating To Violation Of Code

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This Coaching Code of Ethics is the result of the work
of many people and committees. The approach, structure,
and contents of this code were inspired by the Ethical
Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct,
December 1992 (American Psychological Association, Vol.
47, No. 12, 1597-161 1). Many of the ideas for these
ethical standards were drawn from numerous other codes.
The most significant of these were developed by the
Coaching Association of Canada, The British Institute
of Sport Coaches, and the NCAA. In particular, the
USOC would like to thank:

USOC Coaching Committee, Ray Essick, Chair
USOC Ethics Oversight Committee, Harry Groves, Chair
USOC Games Preparation and Services Committee,
     Joe Kearney, Chair
USOC Training Centers Committee, Mike Jacki, Chair
USOC Vice President Michael B. Lenard
USOC General Counsel Ronald T Rowan

INTRODUCTION

COACHES ETHICS CODE

This Ethics Code is intended to provide standards of
professional conduct that can be applied by the USOC
and its member organizations that choose to adopt them.
Whether or not a coach has violated the Ethics Code
does not by itself determine whether he or she is
legally liable in a court action, whether a contract is
enforceable, or whether other legal consequences occur.
These results are based on legal rather than ethical
rules. However, compliance with or violation of the
Ethics Code may be admissible as evidence in some legal
proceedings, depending on the circumstances.

This Code is intended to provide both the general
principles and the decision rules to cover most
situations encountered by coaches. It has as its
primary goal the welfare and protection of the
individuals and groups with whom coaches work. This
Code also provides a common set of values upon which
coaches build their professional work. It is the
individual responsibility of each coach to aspire to
the highest possible standards of conduct. Coaches
respect and protect human and civil rights, and do not
knowingly participate in or condone unfair
discriminatory practices.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES:

PRINCIPLE A: COMPETENCE

Coaches strive to maintain high standards of excellence
in their work. They recognize the boundaries of their
particular competencies and the limitations of their
expertise. They provide only those services and use
only those techniques for which they are qualified by
education, training, or experience. In those areas in
which recognized professional standards do not yet
exist, coaches exercise careful judgement and take
appropriate precautions to protect the welfare of
those with whom they work. They maintain knowledge of
relevant scientific and professional information
related to the services they render, and they recognize
the need for ongoing education. Coaches make
appropriate use of scientific, professional, technical,
and administrative resources.

PRINCIPLE B: INTEGRITY

Coaches seek to promote integrity in the practice of
coaching.  Coaches are honest, fair, and respectful of
others. In describing or reporting their
qualifications, services, products, or fees, they do
not make statements that are false, misleading, or
deceptive. Coaches strive to be aware of their own
belief systems, values, needs, and limitations and the
effect of these on their work. To the extent feasible,
they attempt to clarify for relevant parties the roles
they are performing and to function appropriately in
accordance with those roles. Coaches avoid improper and
potentially harmful dual relationships.

PRINCIPLE C: PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Coaches uphold professional standards of conduct,
clarify their professional roles and obligations,
accept appropriate responsibility for their behavior,
and adapt their methods to the needs of different
athletes. Coaches consult with, refer to, or cooperate
with other professionals and institutions to the extent
needed to serve the best interest of their athletes, or
other recipients of their services. Coaches' m***
standards and conduct are personal matters to the same
degree as is true for any other person, except when
coaches' conduct may compromise their professional
responsibilities or reduce the public's trust in the
coaching profession and coaches. Coaches are concerned
about the ethical compliance of their colleagues'
professional conduct. When appropriate, they consult
with colleagues in order to prevent or avoid unethical
conduct.

PRINCIPLE D: RESPECT FOR PARTICIPANTS* AND DIGNITY

Coaches respect the fundamental rights, dignity, and
worth of all participants. Coaches are aware of
cultural, individual, and role differences, including
those due to age, gender, race, ethnicity, national
origin, religion, *** orientation, disability,
language, and socioeconomic status. Coaches try to
eliminate the effect on their work of biases based on
those factors, and they do not knowingly participate
in or condone unfair discriminatory practices.

* = Participants: those taking part in sport (athletes
and their family members, coaches, officials.
volunteers, administrators, and spectators)

PRINCIPLE E: CONCERN FOR OTHERS' WELFARE

Coaches seek to contribute to the welfare of those with
whom they interact professionals. In their professional
actions, coaches consider the welfare and rights of
their athletes and other participants. When conflicts
occur among coaches' obligations or concerns, they
attempt to resolve these conflicts and to perform their
roles in a responsible fashion that avoids or minimizes
harm. Coaches are sensitive to differences in power
between themselves and others, and they do not exploit
or mislead other people during or after professional
relationships.

PRINCIPLE F: RESPONSIBLE COACHING

Coaches are aware of their professional
responsibilities to the community and the society in
which they work and live. They apply and make public
their knowledge of sport in order to contribute to
human welfare. Coaches try to avoid misuse of their
work. Coaches comply with the law and encourage the
development of law and policies that serve the interest
of sport. They are encouraged to contribute a portion
of their professional time for little or no personal
advantage.

1. GENERAL STANDARDS

These General Standards are applicable to the
professional activities of all coaches.

1.01 APPLICABILITY OF THE ETHICS CODE

While many aspects of personal behavior and private
activities seem far removed from official duties of
coaching, all coaches should be sensitive to their
position as role models for their athletes. Private
activities perceived as ...

read more »

 
 
 

U.S. Olympic Committee Coaching Ethics Code (LONG / just released)

Post by S.D. Barn » Tue, 12 Sep 1995 04:00:00

(snip)

: UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE
: COACHING ETHICS CODE

Gee, maybe we can develop a United States Fencing Association
Director's Ethics Code....

sept

 
 
 

U.S. Olympic Committee Coaching Ethics Code (LONG / just released)

Post by George Edward Kolombatovic » Wed, 13 Sep 1995 04:00:00


Quote:

> : UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE
> : COACHING ETHICS CODE

> Gee, maybe we can develop a United States Fencing Association
> Director's Ethics Code....

Actually, the code for referees (not directors -- yes, I know, some people
just don't like the word "referee" and others just have trouble adapting
to anything new and others just can't remember and ...) exists in the
Rules Book.

Fortunately, we have little need of an ethics code.  One should
consider the following if there is a written ethics code for any group:

        Those that need an Ethics Code won't pay attention to it and those
        that don't need it just don't need it.

What is sad is that anyone perceives the need for one.

George Kolombatovich
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Kolombatovich                 Director of Fencing, Columbia University


 
 
 

U.S. Olympic Committee Coaching Ethics Code (LONG / just released)

Post by S.D. Barn » Thu, 14 Sep 1995 04:00:00


:       Those that need an Ethics Code won't pay attention to it and those
:       that don't need it just don't need it.

Perfectly spoken (written)!  Unfortunately this is very much the case.
It is very difficult not to become jaded about poor directing, when
one is informed that people shouldn't report or complain about
biased or incompetent directing because the director(s) in question may
be the protege of someone important in the USFA.  Indeed, I have seen
directors who change the way they are directing after a complaint has
been registered with the bout committee and an observer appointed to
that strip.

Sept

 
 
 

U.S. Olympic Committee Coaching Ethics Code (LONG / just released)

Post by George Edward Kolombatovic » Fri, 15 Sep 1995 04:00:00


Quote:

> :  Those that need an Ethics Code won't pay attention to it and those
> :  that don't need it just don't need it.

> Perfectly spoken (written)!  Unfortunately this is very much the case.
> It is very difficult not to become jaded about poor directing, when
> one is informed that people shouldn't report or complain about
> biased or incompetent directing because the director(s) in question may
> be the protege of someone important in the USFA.  Indeed, I have seen
> directors who change the way they are directing after a complaint has
> been registered with the bout committee and an observer appointed to
> that strip.

As the Chair of the USFA's Fencing Officials Commission, I would like to
make it very clear to everyone that one SHOULD report any perceived
biased presiding to me.  Any communication will be kept confidential.  
The one thing that any sport does not need is a biased referee.  

As far as incomeptence is concerned -- Every referee makes errors; the
better referees just make fewer errors.  One should always take that into
consideration.  As for a referee changing the way she or he makes a call
after a complaint, the question is: Is the referee sucumbing to presure
or is the referee paying closer attention and now making the correct
call?  (And I assure you that the fencers involved and the spectators
watching will not agree on their answers!)

George Kolombatovich

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Kolombatovich                 Director of Fencing, Columbia University

 
 
 

U.S. Olympic Committee Coaching Ethics Code (LONG / just released)

Post by S.D. Barn » Sat, 16 Sep 1995 04:00:00




: >
: > :        Those that need an Ethics Code won't pay attention to it and those
: > :        that don't need it just don't need it.
: >
: > Perfectly spoken (written)!  Unfortunately this is very much the case.
: > It is very difficult not to become jaded about poor directing, when
: > one is informed that people shouldn't report or complain about
: > biased or incompetent directing because the director(s) in question may
: > be the protege of someone important in the USFA.  Indeed, I have seen
: > directors who change the way they are directing after a complaint has
: > been registered with the bout committee and an observer appointed to
: > that strip.

: As the Chair of the USFA's Fencing Officials Commission, I would like to
: make it very clear to everyone that one SHOULD report any perceived
: biased presiding to me.  Any communication will be kept confidential.  
: The one thing that any sport does not need is a biased referee.  

: As far as incomeptence is concerned -- Every referee makes errors; the
: better referees just make fewer errors.  One should always take that into
: consideration.  As for a referee changing the way she or he makes a call
: after a complaint, the question is: Is the referee sucumbing to presure
: or is the referee paying closer attention and now making the correct
: call?  (And I assure you that the fencers involved and the spectators
: watching will not agree on their answers!)

: George Kolombatovich

: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: George Kolombatovich                 Director of Fencing, Columbia University

 
 
 

U.S. Olympic Committee Coaching Ethics Code (LONG / just released)

Post by S.D. Barn » Sat, 16 Sep 1995 04:00:00


: As the Chair of the USFA's Fencing Officials Commission, I would like to
: make it very clear to everyone that one SHOULD report any perceived
: biased presiding to me.  Any communication will be kept confidential.  
: The one thing that any sport does not need is a biased referee.  

Unfortunately, this isn't what happens in the majority of the cases.
Most of the people that I've talked to seem to believe that if you
complain to the bout committee, you will be perceived as a trouble
maker and the officials will be "out to get you" after that point.

: As far as incomeptence is concerned -- Every referee makes errors; the
: better referees just make fewer errors.  One should always take that into
: consideration.  As for a referee changing the way she or he makes a call
: after a complaint, the question is: Is the referee sucumbing to presure
: or is the referee paying closer attention and now making the correct
: call?  (And I assure you that the fencers involved and the spectators
: watching will not agree on their answers!)

I agree.  Every referee makes errors depending upon his skill level,
the amount of sleep he/she had the previous night, how long he/she has
been presiding that afternoon, and a thousand other factors.  In one
of the instances to which I was referring previously, the director
changed the entire way he was calling things for the remaining 3
minute interval in the D/E, after the USFA observer arrived on strip.
It's pretty bad when your opponent's friends feel that you were robbed
of a lot of touches!  I have seen directors insist that no one
can have priority if they are moving backwards (even if a
parry/riposte was made as the person stepped backwards).  Most of the
presidents out there are ethical and some are more talented than
others.  I may get frustrated because someone can't see an action, but
hey, no one is perfect.  I should make the action clearer next time.

In my years fencing, I have only registered a complaint once against a
director.  As long as they are consistent and agree to abide by the
rules (even if I don't agree with the interpretation) I have no
problem with them.  I will adapt.  (Besides, my personal opinion is
that if I was such hot shit with a weapon, it would have been a one
lighter.  Therefore I should work harder next time.)  My problem is
with those referees who know the rules and choose to disregard them
because they feel as though they are calling things the way the FIE
calls them.  The common comment is that "Yes, that is what it says in
the rulebook, but if you go watch (insert World Class FIE competition
of choice here) that's not the way they call it."

Sept

 
 
 

U.S. Olympic Committee Coaching Ethics Code (LONG / just released)

Post by George Edward Kolombatovic » Wed, 20 Sep 1995 04:00:00

Quote:


> >My problem is
> >with those referees who know the rules and choose to disregard them
> >because they feel as though they are calling things the way the FIE
> >calls them.  The common comment is that "Yes, that is what it says in
> >the rulebook, but if you go watch (insert World Class FIE competition
> >of choice here) that's not the way they call it."
>    Wasn't this sort of thing (apparently) part of why the FIE ended up
> throwing out sabre fleches - the directors (referees) weren't calling the loss
> of right-of-way when a fleche became a running attack (i.e. after the rear foot
> came down again)?  There was lots of "why don't they call that, it's right in
> the rulebook" questions here at the time, though I don't think our favorite
> rule expert was on the list then.  Perhaps he can clear that up for us.
> Anyone remember exactly which rule it was we thought should be being called?
> Andy?

No, that is not why the FIE changed the rules for sabre regarding the
forward crossing of feet.  The rule about the running attack is in the
book and it is, as all rules are, sometimes enforced.  At the highest
level of sabre, it was VERY difficult to judge when a attack into the
running attack was in time.  The top referees in the world agreed that it
was vertually impossible.  That is why the rule changed -- plus the fact
that it is much more interesting for the spectator.

Quote:
>    (Note: I don't mean to re-ignite the whole discussion over fleche,
> so let's try to stick to why they weren't calling this other rule, and if it
> gets called in foil, not that running attacks are as common).

YES.  Please -- no more about how great sabre was before they took out
the fleche or I'll start telling stories about how great sabre was before
every one was only doing the fleche!

George Kolombatovich

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Kolombatovich                 Director of Fencing, Columbia University