Sandusky — a dose of good sense
In mid-August, Larry Probst, the chairman of the U.S. Olympic Committee, traveled to Berlin. He met there with International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge. The two agreed the USOC would put the proposed launch of its television network on hold.
A very few American journalists were in Berlin for the track and field championships. On extraordinarily short notice, Pat Sandusky, the Chicago 2016 bid spokesman, rounded us up for a brief news conference at which Probst asserted, “We want to work cooperatively with the IOC.”
From a communications and strategy standpoint, that was a high point – amid some very low moments over the summer and early fall – for the USOC.
And it stands now, given the announcement Wednesday that the USOC has retained Sandusky as its chief communications officer, as evidence of good sense – a quality that would not immediately appear to be robust in an assessment of USOC strategy, direction and performance throughout these past several months of 2009.
Sandusky is due to serve in the post through the Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Games. It’s not clear whether he’ll stay on past that, given the realities – that is, whether he would want to and, as well, whether whoever is in charge of the USOC by next spring would want him.
Chicago’s 2016 bid ultimately got thrown out in the first round of IOC voting. Rio de Janeiro won, in balloting that not only illustrated the IOC’s keen desire to take the Games for the first time to South America but underscored the depth of IOC disenchantment with the USOC over the botched TV launch and a variety of other disputes.
In the aftermath of the IOC’s Oct. 2 vote, the USOC’s acting chief executive, Stephanie Streeter, announced she would not seek the job on a permanent basis. A new CEO is now due on the job by the end of 2009, the USOC avowedly committed to a nationwide search for a candidate – a waste of time and money that could be better spent on the athletes it purports to serve.
The developments involving Streeter and the CEO position came as leaders of the governing bodies of U.S. Olympic sports issued a no-confidence vote in both Streeter and Probst.
Last Friday, however, the USOC board of directors voted by “overwhelming majority” – note it was not unanimous – “in support of” both Streeter and Probst.
The board’s action was hardly unexpected.
Six years ago, when the USOC’s then-chief executive, Lloyd Ward, found himself under fire, the initial reaction was very much the same – declarations of support. Two months later, Ward was gone.
If the current board hoped that last Friday’s announcement of support would put to rest the unrest triggered by Chicago’s unceremonious first-round exit – the unrest remains considerable.
If the USOC were a public institution, for instance, susceptible to Freedom of Information Act requests, it would be fascinating to see Probst’s calendars and to document just how many hours per week he devoted to USOC affairs and, moreover, how many trips he took and with how many of the IOC members he held significant meetings over the last year in connection with the Chicago 2016 campaign. Would those numbers amount to less of the IOC membership, or more?
The USOC is not susceptible to such requests. Even so, it was chartered by Congress, and oversight of the USOC remains still with Congress. Perhaps Probst’s calendars might yet pique interest there.
“I’ve never met him,” one of the 15 members on the IOC’s policy-making executive board said late last week, speaking of Probst. If asked, how many others on the IOC board would today say the same?
Chicago, it’s clear in hindsight, faced probably insurmountable odds given the emotional pull of Rio’s pitch. But the USOC, Chicago’s “partner” in the campaign, made matters that much more challenging for the bid, and while in part that’s because of the leadership decisions that led to missteps such as the July television announcement, you can’t help but wonder if it’s also because for the stretch run of the campaign the USOC operated without a chief communications officer.
Reality check: What political campaign goes the final four months before a vote without a press secretary?
That’s what the USOC did. Darryl Seibel announced in May he was leaving in early June. The USOC’s chief communications job had since gone unfilled.
Maybe the USOC would have gone ahead in July with the TV announcement no matter what. But certainly Seibel, if he had been in the job then, would have pointed out in the inevitable internal discussions beforehand the obvious drawbacks to the announcement.
The USOC’s communications strategy is so stagnant that when you click on what’s called Press Box, the USOC site for news releases, this is what it says atop the page: “pressbox, part of usolympicteam.com, official site of the 2008 U.S. Olympic Team.” Hello – 2008 is over. It’s almost 2010.
In late May, Sports Business Journal reported, the USOC had engaged Ari Fleischer, the former White House press secretary during the early years of George W. Bush’s first term, as a consultant. Putting aside for a moment the issue of whether it was a good idea for the USOC to ally itself with a figure so intimately connected to the former president, whose foreign policy remains a source of considerable controversy, Fleischer’s webpage offers this observation, “The way the press treats athletes and sports executives has become increasingly adversarial and conflict-driven.”
Which may be altogether true – but is simply not a starting premise for getting ahead in the relationship-driven Olympic community.
By contrast, Sandusky gets what works.
“I really believe in the power of the Olympic movement and I want to be involved in making the Olympic movement better at all times,” he said Wednesday, adding of the USOC gig, “This is a great opportunity.”
For the USOC, too. They hired him because he’s got insight. Would that those he’s advising actually listen.