I'm a big supporter of our federation. Why? For the same reason I'm a big supporter of America. Even if a current administration—either administration—is tone deaf to the Idea upon which its existence is built, it's the only government we have.

Though I am a supporter of both governing bodies—USA and USAT—I would sometimes like to cause organ death or permanent mental illness to certain of those who are charged with executing governance. (Yeah, that's overkill—I would like to torture them in lesser ways, but there are no lesser ways and still have it be torture, according to our future Attorney General.)

What annoys me? Consider triathlon's national championships—not the race in any particular year, but the process for venue selection. I wrote about what a Nationals ought to look like four months ago. Apparently it didn't take. I got an email last week from a furious race organizer who informs me that our federation is demanding a $30,000 rights fee from the city where the race is staged, and USAT will retain the rights to produce the race. As to the latter demand, I have no quarrel. It's that other demand I'd like to consider.

This approach is myopic. Furthermore, since USAT has been confronted about this, and refuses to change, then it's not myopia any longer, it's stubbornness and stupidity.

The myopia persists on various levels. I would like to explore all the various tiers and levels to which this lack of vision extends.

It's myopic experientially. If you keep doing what you're doing, you'll keep getting what you're getting. This "Pay us $30k and then we'll talk" paradigm has been in effect over the last several years. We've learned what? That there are precious few cities myopic enough to join us in our myopia. Shreveport was one (2003 and 2004). Rochester, New York, was to be it in 2005. Maybe someone from Rochester called someone from Shreveport—I would if I was from Rochester. Are we surprised Rochester backed out? Are we surprised that Shreveport gave us a bad review, if that is in fact what happened? The way we've been doing these deals suggests to us that nobody gets value out of what we've constructed. USAT doesn't get any bargain, because it doesn't generate enough entries to make the event pay (we've averaged about 800 starters over the last several years, and we only get that many because we attach a lot of World Championship slots to the event). The city can't turn a profit if this is going to be the level of turnout. And the athletes don't like it when they have to race in a sub-standard venue. Which further disillusions the host city, because the athletes won't publicly praise a venue if it's a bad venue, even if it's otherwise a good city.

It's myopic politically. While on USAT's board, I suggested we rethink this process. The board unanimously agreed. I chaired a committee to do this. We located a variety of very pleasing venues. When I left the board my last words were, "I stand ready to continue working on ad hoc committees." I was not asked to serve on any. Fine. But, if the board now says, "We'd like to have visited this issue, but we're short board members and we don't have time," okay, but I would have been, and still would be, willing to aid in this process. As would many interested and savvy civilians like me. It makes no political sense for either our board or our staff to go back and continue a failed process.

It's myopic aesthetically. Our federation has one job, broadly speaking: Serve our sport. It does not serve anything to put on a Nationals in a venue that is not pleasing to those of us who'd like to race at a National Championship. If you can't execute the most basic of requirements, you need to recast the mission of the federation; or rethink your terms of service; or rethink your approach to service. I do not believe our board—very able and hard working members all—is purposely driving this policy. My hope is to alert the board that this policy is being executed anyway, and I trust our able board members can intercede before we further go down the road of repeating our mediocre history of producing our sport's signature event.

It's myopic financially. We're asking $30,000 from a city that doesn't know us from Adam. Since mostly cities thay will pony the $30k sight unseen are going to be substandard venues (regardless of the quality of the city), we'll yet again generate a substandard field. Alternatively, let's say we pick the archetypal venue—the "perfect" Nationals venue. We'll fill the race—certainly by year-two. Now, if we then go to the host city and say, "We've proven our bona fides, we'd like you to help," then no, we won't get $30k from the host. We'll get $70k, or $100k. Plus, consider this from USAT's perspective as event owner. The incremental difference in entry revenues between the historic 800 and the probable 1500—should our venue be a pleasing one—is $70,000, even after you subtract certain per-capita costs (T-shirt, timing & reg, etc.). As it is now, we're accepting $30,000 up-front in order to turn away $70,000 in years three and thereafter. Plus, instead of the event being a "lose" for everyone, it's a "win" for everyone. Instead, we're sticking with our stingy paradigm, even though we're one of the richest federations per member under the USOC banner. We, with $2.5 million in the bank, are requiring a $30,000 site fee. I can't imagine a more myopic approach than that.

It's myopic mechanically. Choose the right venue, the event is easier to stage. Start with the idea that it's a city that must pay $30,000, you don't know how good the venue will be. In fact, one element of a good venue is the ease with which the event can be staged. If it's a hard event to stage, you might have to pay $100k in city services, and after subtracting the $30k site fee you're still $70k upside down. Choose a venue that allows for an easy, clean race to stage and you might be money to the good irrespective of a site fee. Plus, there are plenty of people—certainly not just me—who'd aid the federation in a volunteer capacity should it wish to stage a first-class nationals. But there won't be a lot of hands raised in the air to volunteer if the federation doesn't inspire its members with a vision of an exciting, vibrant National Championships.

It's myopic occupationally. I don't know, I guess if I was the person tasked with putting on a Nationals I'd try to put one on that the 55,000 owners liked. There's job security in that.