# Proselytizing and the OTC



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/s...ry.html?pagewanted=1&tntemail1=y&_r=4&emc=tnt

Frankly, I think that this should have no place at the OTC, any more than a doctor, boss, or psychologist should suggest converting (to any religion), or engaging in a workplace or doctor/client relationship. Due to the power issues, it just seems *unethical.* 
It is one thing to be a Christian, it's another to impress those under your care and guidance to follow a religion at a sports training camp.

Archery may indeed have a great place at a church camp, but (coach suggested) church should not have a place at a secular archery camp.

-James


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

that link requires registration with a known anti-american organization:wink:


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

Hmm... Tried it again, worked for me. Then, I saw a popup window blocked,and enabled popups to see what it was. Then, the page stopped working. Try blocking popups, clearing cookies, and then trying the link again. That's what I'll try now.

EDIT- Works again. Perhaps this link will work better- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/sports/olympics/20archery.html?scp=2&sq=archery&st=cse


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

I am not religious but I haven't heard anything about Coach Lee that would bother me. He is a good man and I respect him and his faith


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

Jim C said:


> I am not religious but I haven't heard anything about Coach Lee that would bother me. He is a good man and I respect him and his faith


I respect him and his faith too. However, I also know many doctors would make wonderful girlfriends, boyfriends, husbands, and wives. Why shouldn't they look to their clientele as a potential dating pool?


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Folks - 

Not sure if this or any of the other posts in the original thread have anything to do with "religion" per se, and everything to do with a possible abuse of power. There's a fine line between having one's belief known and having an agenda to indoctrinate young people by means of a sporting event. If the NYTimes article is accurate, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, it paints a very black picture of the current goings on at the OTC, at least in archery. I have to admit, there was something about Lee's initial interviews that struck me as odd (sorry it's more of a feeling than something that would stand up in court) but this piece of info does concern me. Unfortunately too many people seem to have a lot of faith in Lee (pun intended), and even more unfortunate is the fact that based on what's been written here, the only way it's going to be proven one way or the other will be if he blatantly crosses the line. (Which I seriously doubt his advisors will let him do after the Times article.) 

The other part of the equation is that we (the US) have bought into the "BEST" approach hook line and sinker, if we found it's biggest proponent is another Rev Moon, it would be a pretty big embarrassment. 

Ya know there is also a fine line between pathological paranoia and healthy paranoia. It also seems a little odd to me that this has been going on for some time, and no one here mentioned it.

Viper1 out.


----------



## tjk009 (Feb 15, 2007)

*time and place....*

I grew up in state so "red" the other red states are even embarassed. Religion has a place - on Sunday (or other official day of worship) and at a church of one's choosing. The founding fathers had a pretty good idea in mind centuries ago when they decided to keep churches and governments separate. 

Faith ought to be private matter and those with it often can't help themselves and try to force their beliefs upon others. Belief in "global warming" and God are two issues which just require those leaps of faith, and neither some would say have been proven to a certainty. 

One has to wonder if Coach Lee was espousing a belief that "satanic rituals" might help athletes whether the tone, or intensity of the dissent or concern about separation of church and state would differ. I agree it has crossed a line if group bible study precedes group practice in an "official training facility". The title says it all the OTC stands for the "Olympic Training Center", it ought to be limited to just that.


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

Oh Pelleeeasse!

Tony first accuracy and the NYT are not often synonymous. I had to turn my laptop on it's side to read that article due to the anti American, anti christian left wing slant it was written with. Truly your seemingly seething dislike of Lee is clouding your vision.

So a coach and leader professing his religion and mentoring young people on the benefits of Christianity is a bad thing? Oh the horror of horrors.:mg:

BTW anyone in the U.S look at their money lately. Hmmm in God we trust......


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Scott -

Let's not make this personal. I've stated my thoughts on coach Lee and the "BEST" system before. My comments are an objective analysis, questioning certain practices that have come to light and nothing more. Sometimes you have to take things at face value and some times look deeper.

BTW - I'm not a stockholder in thr NYTs. Their job is to sell papers. In that regard there are a lot juicer things to talk about than the OTC. Their last artical on TP was spot on, so lets give credit where credit is due. If the info turns out to be false, great. If not lets not simply turn our heads. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## bdca (Apr 9, 2007)

SBills said:


> Oh Pelleeeasse!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Suppose the leading proponent of the BEST method had been an Iranian Mullah and he called 5 time outs a day for for quiet contemplation of the Eastern Skies, how would you react? You don't even know what kind of Chritianity he is espousing?

Here a couple of pictures pulled off Google..would you want your kids being mentored on the benefits of this sect of Korean Christinsanity?????

Cya!


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Viper1 said:


> Scott -
> 
> Let's not make this personal. I've stated my thoughts on coach Lee and the "BEST" system before. My comments are an objective analysis, questioning certain practices that have come to light and nothing more. Sometimes you have to take things at face value and some times look deeper.
> 
> ...


The New York Times is an agent of satanic influence:wink: I would worry more if there is a credible report that say a Jewish or Muslim or agnostic athlete were the victim of discrimination. As to Caldwell-her selection left alot of us shaking our heads given she had zero track record for competitive archery when she was selected to that. I won't get into the whole story but I advised several people that the NAA was asking for a lawsuit selecting people based on subjective reasons and passing up a woman-for example-who had won medals in major league recurve events


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

bdca said:


> Suppose the leading proponent of the BEST method had been an Iranian Mullah and he called 5 time outs a day for for quiet contemplation of the Eastern Skies, how would you react? You don't even know what kind of Chritianity he is espousing?
> 
> Here a couple of pictures pulled off Google..would you want your kids being mentored on the benefits of this sect of Korean Christinsanity?????
> 
> Cya!


Don't be too hard on Reverend Moon-he hates commies and his son makes TOMMY GUNS:wink:


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Jim -

The obvious problem with people on the inside is that they are on the inside. That fact that some people are dismissing it so quickly also seems odd. Given the _*possibility*_ of any truth here at all, the NAA due to their full adoption of the BEST system/ksl, is going to take an incredible hit. That's a real concern. 

I honestly hope this is just some yellow journalism, and it's one of the few times I'd really LIKE to be wrong, but my gut tells me otherwise and for some of us the jury is still out.

And yeah, the fact the some people claim to have been total it's BEST or you're out sends up a number of red flags.

Viper1 out.


----------



## jwalgast (Aug 7, 2005)

My two cents:

I've worked with several professional sports teams. They all have had religious "services" before games. You could attend if you wanted to. Only one team had the coach attending. Many athletes are relgious. Watch Usain Bolt "cross" himself before and after races. 
Should a coach "force" his religion on anyone-never. Will athletes feel they need to follow their coach's religion, maybe, but they shouldn't be made to feel that way. I see how impressionable youth can be and would want follow their coach to the "end of the Earth".

I don't know Coach Lee. I've met him once in a parking lot. He seemed nice. I've seen his past results. BEST or nothing to me is no different than an NFL team running a "West Coast Offense". If that's what the coach does, then___

Sure the NYTimes has a Liberal slant. Is there a problem with USA Archery? I don't know. But I'm sure Bill O. will have something dumb to say on FOX Noise about the article soon.

The bottom line for me is that people "find religion". They do it through Rev. Moon, Jim Baker, Oral Robert Jr. and maybe even an archery coach. Should we "fear" Coach Lee and equate him subliminally to Rev. Moon-you can't be serious. As we found out this year, the majority of Olympic archers were not Resident Athetes. Yes, you can make the Olympic team and not be coached by Kisik Lee. You don't have to use the BEST method, just outshoot everyone else!

John


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

Jim C said:


> The New York Times is an agent of satanic influence:wink: I would worry more if there is a credible report that say a Jewish or Muslim or agnostic athlete were the victim of discrimination. As to Caldwell-her selection left alot of us shaking our heads given she had zero track record for competitive archery when she was selected to that. I won't get into the whole story but I advised several people that the NAA was asking for a lawsuit selecting people based on subjective reasons and passing up a woman-for example-who had won medals in major league recurve events


Well, if you can't refute the claim, you might as well try and make fun of the source. 

And as far as a credible victim of discrimination, *shrug* you never know what might drop into your lap.

-James


----------



## Steven Cornell (Mar 22, 2003)

bdca said:


> would you want your kids being mentored on the benefits of this sect of Korean Christinsanity?????


I know Coach Lee and have seen him at the OTC and at tournaments.
He does not push Christianity. And by the way he does not belone to that Korean Christian community. He belongs to a Non-Donominational Church.

But anyone can see that he is a Christian. He does not hide that fact.
If someone asks to go to church with him, he will take them. When other people see that it is their choice to join in or not. That is usually what happens.

I know that he treats everyone equally.
Some times people like to give the excuse that he did not pick me or he did not listen to me because they are not a Christian. But that is just an excuse to justify themselves.

I believe that some of you would want people to practice their faith at home in the dark. That is not realistic. And our founding fathers did not intend that. They did not want the goverment picking the religion that you had to join like some middle east countries.

In the other thread someone brought up about the Purpose Driven Life book, it was more about living your life with a purpose. People of all faiths have read that book and have use the principles in their daily life. Remember the first line in the book "it not all about You."

Accepting Christ is something that one has to do on their own. It is ones choice to do that. 

Just IMHO.


----------



## pineapple3d (Oct 23, 2002)

I have read this article a few times and I think it is BS. First off I know coach Lee and I like his system. I have seen some improvement with some archers. I know he is of Christian faith and has strong believes. All the time my wife and I have spent at the training center with Brady and him we have never seen or heard him talk to archers about there faith. 
So with this said the very first paragraph is correct in this article, but one thing they failed to put into this paragraph. It was Brady's idea to get Baptized, not coach Lee. Brady had coach Lee and some other people from the OTC join him in the pool. Those people mean alot to Brady.
There is a lot wrong with this article that I'm not going into but I can tell you that while at the Olympics Brady did not go to the Olympic Chapel every morning. He visited it because he wanted to when he wanted to. 
The media can write what ever they want and they don't care who it hurts. Look how much interest this article has brought among the archery community. 
I just wanted to know why a article like this was writen in the NY Times and who the source behind it was?


----------



## hkim823 (Oct 6, 2004)

I can see how religious beliefs, especially ones that have a foundation in evangelism such as Christianity, and working in an environment where everyone from all religions are supposed to be treated equally can come into conflict. 

I do have faith that Coach Lee will be able to make objective decisions when it comes to the athletes he wants to to represent our country, but I can understand that someone in that situation may feel uncomfortable with his zeal for his love of Christ which I can't hold against him at all. I do hope that a lot of the NYT article is blown a bit out of proportion though. It's a tough situation to say the least, but it is what it is.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Brandeis_Archer said:


> Well, if you can't refute the claim, you might as well try and make fun of the source.
> 
> And as far as a credible victim of discrimination, *shrug* you never know what might drop into your lap.
> 
> -James


Is there discrimination? Yep, see it all the time in my job since I handle Title VII cases primarily

Do people take offense over trivial slights for reasons that are less than honest? All the time-that is why 95% of the cases I defend get thrown out on summary judgment.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Jim C said:


> Do people take offense over trivial slights for reasons that are less than honest? All the time-that is why 95% of the cases I defend get thrown out on summary judgment.


I'm willing to bet that those 95% don't take offense at all, they take an opportunity to pretend to be offended for the potential reward.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

So far I've been quiet on this issue. 

Disclaimer: The following is just my opinion and in no way reflects the view of this program or channel...whoops, wrong media...I mean AT.

1. I am a minister and an archer, so I do have a interest in this subject.

2. In most Christian circles, Rev. Moon is a cult leader and it is totally unfair to compare him with Coach Lee. Moon is no more Christian than the Pillsbury Dough Boy is an professinal wrestler.

3. NYT is probaly one of the most biased papers in the country, having them write a fair item, is at best nearly impossible.

4. Does religion have a place in sports. Ask the NFL when a "Hail Mary" pass is thrown, and everyone on the field is praying. :wink:

5. Seriously, many Christians, Lee included believe to live ones life reflecting their beliefs and then being ready to share their faith is their chosen method of sharing. Forcing a belief system produces no real results. That's what the worlds other religions do. 

6. I'd venture to say, that at the Olympics there is probably more "religous" athletes than you realize. Most the countries in the non-western world have a religous world view as part of their culture.

I see NO problem in having chapel, counseling or relationships based on religion at the OTC, as long as it is not mandatory.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

target1 said:


> So far I've been quiet on this issue.
> 
> Disclaimer: The following is just my opinion and in no way reflects the view of this program or channel...whoops, wrong media...I mean AT.
> 
> ...


There ya' go... :thumbs_up


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

target1 said:


> I'm willing to bet that those 95% don't take offense at all, they take an opportunity to pretend to be offended for the potential reward.


Good point


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

Brandeis_Archer said:


> I respect him and his faith too. However, I also know many doctors would make wonderful girlfriends, boyfriends, husbands, and wives. Why shouldn't they look to their clientele as a potential dating pool?


That's a pretty cheap shot and you're not making a fair comparrison. Workplace dating isn't illegal unless sexual harrasment or coersion cn be proved. Then it's a criminal offense. Giving someone a book that was written by an evangelist isn't. Especially if it's a purely motivational book and doesn't espouse any particular religion. 

I haven't read the book in question and don't know what it says, except that one of the Dream Team archers told me that many of the things tht I say to her about goals, mental process and dealing with pressure are echoed in that book. I have spent a lot of time at the OTC working in different capacities over the past 2 years and I have never seen anyone on the Jr. Deam Team or any other program pressured into going to church or into Christian conversion.

Just to let you know, I grew up going to a First Baptist Church. I have perfect attendance pins for 12 years of perfect attendance to Sunday School and Church from the time I was 5 until I was 18. My family would find churches to go to when we were on vacation. I missed sunday school to go goose hunting after 12 years of perfect attendance and I thought my family was going to disown me. I made it back in time to go to church, but that wasn't good enough. In the past 35 years I have only darkened the doors of a church a few times other than to attend some weddings and too many funerals.

This past Easter fell in the middle of JDT Camp and I went to church because the archers invited me to go. I was a bit underdressed in blue jeans, tennis shoes and a sports shirt. We went to a Baptist church and it was big and very Baptist. The sermon was pretty good as compared to the what I remembered about Baptist sermons and I was amazed at the use of technology. BTW, not all of the archers nor all of the coaches went to church that Sunday. My wife thought it was great that I finally went to church no matter what the reason.

To dispell any myths about how much religion you need to be accepted to the JDT or RA Program. 3 of the 5 new archers selected to participate in the RA Program for 2009 didn't go to church with us that morning, nor did they go last camp either, when some of us went to a small Methodist church that meets in a PUBLIC SCHOOL gymnasium of all places!

Remember that reporters don't just report. That would be too boring. They sensationalize, trick interviewed subjects into making comments that when taken out of context sound incriminating and then just plain stretch the truth...or lie alltogether. Those people who want to think badly about someone use these type of articles to say "I told you so", when those of us who know better say, "the kid's parents ar looking for an excuse for why their child quit the team". The girl should have hung around for a while. Maybe a Buddist temple is on the list soon. JMHO


----------



## Spots_N_Dots (Nov 10, 2005)

target1 said:


> Moon is no more Christian than the Pillsbury Dough Boy is an professinal wrestler.


Now THAT's funny

Nomination for the post of the day?



target1 said:


> I see NO problem in having chapel, counseling or relationships based on religion at the OTC, as long as it is not mandatory.


Here is the problem. If it's not put directly and blatantly to the athletes that it is strictly optional, they feel pressured to conform. The person telling them is the NATIONAL HEAD COACH. I capitalize that because in their eyes, that's big and important, and stands out to them like the type. It's the old "when I say jump, you ask how high" scenario. When a coach tells you to do something, you're not supposed to question it.....like a good student.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Folks - 

I'm usually not a fan on the NY Times, but you really have to look at things objectively. Except for local town papers citing something about "native son makes good" and "man shoots neighbor/dog/washingmachine with arrow", you'll rarely see "archery" in general print from the major papers. The Times HAS taken an interest in archery as far back as the 70's. They even did a small blurb about my local club back then and heck I even got my name in the paper. Nothing sensational, just a nice little filler article. We may have even gotten a few new members from it.

I certainly don't know the whole story here and it sure sounds like the folks that do/might ain't takin', so I guess it's going to be a wait and see thing. Business as usual. 

Maybe I'm becoming more of a conspiracy theorist as I get older, but until proven other wise, I'll assume where there's smoke, there's some fire; therefore I wouldn't dismiss it too quickly. 

BTW - Referencing the another thread, if this is false or an exaggeration, the only group to be hurt by it would be the NYT. I'm sure they have very good lawyers, but bad press is still bad press regardless of the outcome. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Spots_N_Dots said:


> Here is the problem. If it's not put directly and blatantly to the athletes that it is strictly optional, they feel pressured to conform. The person telling them is the NATIONAL HEAD COACH. I capitalize that because in their eyes, that's big and important, and stands out to them like the type. It's the old "when I say jump, you ask how high" scenario. When a coach tells you to do something, you're not supposed to question it.....like a good student.


But that type of relationship exists at every level of every day in just about everbody's life. Teacher-Student, Doctor-Patient, Parent-Child, Cops-us, Employer-employee, coach-athlete, you get my point. 

We cannot ask everyone in any authoritative position to resign their personalities and beliefs. 

And if your dealing with KSL at the OTC, you are not some little stary-eyed child. At that level you are an adult. If you can't discern the difference, than perhaps your not ready to be there... $.02


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

Spots_N_Dots said:


> Now THAT's funny
> 
> Nomination for the post of the day?
> 
> ...


Awrite...so now you're going to tell us that in a country of freedoms; freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of no-religion, freedom from the fear of government, freedom of choice and freedom to elect idiots to public office, we have to dumb this thing down to TELLING people that they are free to make the choice to chose to NOT go to church-chaple-synagog-temple...

Well let's just make it simple, everyone go out and do your job as parents and explain to your kids that they have the choice to do as they see fit by not doing. I hope that "dumbed it down" enugh for you.

There are checks and balances at every stage of these programs. There are at least 4 JDT Coaches at a camp along with the HP manager and the RA Manager/Assistant Head Coach. For you to make these accusations is an indictment of the entire JDT and RA Staff.

At the time the young lady written about in the NYT article was at camp, the JDT Coaches were Gary Holstien, Eric Shindler, Terry Laney, Chelsie Barker, Jim Noble and Jackie Fiala. I don't think that any of these good people of strong moral fiber would have stood by and allowed any of this to happen no matter who the National Head Coach was. Your comments are an insult to them and their reputations.

Prayer is a part of sports and sporting events. A prayer is said before the event and people pray to their own God, or not. In my High School days one of the coaches would lead the team in a prayer before every practice. Not just games, but practice. I don't know what church he went too nor did I care, nor did ayone else on the team. The parents must not have cared either because they didn't complain about us praying as a team.

I have been to 3 JDT camps and we have never had a group prayer. If Dream Team archers are praying it's on their own time and by themselves, but not with Coach Lee nor any of us JDT coaches. Not in the morning nor in small groups before practice nor anywhere else.  I imagine that the atmosphere at camp is as wholesome or more so than it is around some of your households, but we're not quoting scripture and praising the lord all day. We're training.

Another thing. In the dining hall I watch almost every person, not just archers, say a prayer before beginning their meal. It isn't because any coach has coerced them into it. I don't know who they're praying to and I don't care. They pray to their own God, not Coach Lee's. That's called freedom, and we should enjoy it while we can.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

ldfalks said:


> Awrite...so now you're going to tell us that in a country of freedoms; freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of no-religion, freedom from the fear of government, freedom of choice and freedom to elect idiots to public office, we have to dumb this thing down to TELLING people that they are free to make the choice to chose to NOT go to church-chaple-synagog-temple...
> 
> Well let's just make it simple, everyone go out and do your job as parents and explain to your kids that they have the choice to do as they see fit by not doing. I hope that "dumbed it down" enugh for you.
> 
> ...


amen... :clap:


----------



## Spots_N_Dots (Nov 10, 2005)

ldfalks said:


> Awrite...so now you're going to tell us that in a country of freedoms; freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of no-religion, freedom from the fear of government, freedom of choice and freedom to elect idiots to public office, we have to dumb this thing down to TELLING people that they are free to make the choice to chose to NOT go to church-chaple-synagog-temple...
> 
> Well let's just make it simple, everyone go out and do your job as parents and explain to your kids that they have the choice to do as they see fit by not doing. I hope that "dumbed it down" enugh for you.
> 
> ...


I started to post a reply to Target1, but I'm glad AT is having problems this time. I think Target1 can get the message I was going to say from what I tell you.

These kids are just that. I would expect that Khatuna, Vic, Butch, or Jenny can discern the difference, and know their place in their own practice of their faith, what ever it may be. Not all of the archers under the umbrella of the head coach have been out in life long enough to know their place. Brady is 19, when he started, he would have been 17. That's either High School, or just fresh out. Many of the RA's are even younger than that, and in fact some are probably still in high school. That is the age they are; they follow. That's their job in life. They have been programed to follow orders and learn from their peers. Heck, ALL the Dream Team is at that age. 

What, you don't think it's appropriate for Lee, when inviting his students to services, to say "if you don't want to, that's ok, I'm just offering"? In fact, don't you think it's probably a good idea, especially IF he's been called on it before? Is it too much to let your students know that something that is organized for the team is purly optional? Look at who you're talking about when you say coaching staff. Even Guy was baptized under Lee's program according to Lee's own web page.

Like I said before. Those folks are there to follow the coach in his archery teachings. Not all of the people involved are in a place in their lives where they are free to make their own decisions as to what they can do. They can only express what they wish could happen, and it's still up to their parrents to make it happen.

I happen to know that there is some "pressure" towards religion within the program. I will not say how I know, nor what the incodent was. I won't say these things becasue I'm not sure if the "pressure" exists to actually practice or not. The incodent I am aware of could have carried the intent to share, but the recipient of this act didn't see it that way, from my understanding.

So don't tell me that everyone should know. You're taking KIDS into the program intentionally. Act like you're aware of it.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

target1 - 



> And if your dealing with KSL at the OTC, you are not some little stary-eyed child.


No, you're not. I'd assume you're already pretty disciplined and someone who wants the gold at all costs - that might even be worse than being a starry-eyed child. Pissing off the (head) coach is something that "kids" are taught not to do from day one. That's where the pressure comes from. Is it common? Of course it is. Is it right, and does it have a place at that level? Sounds like you’ve already answered that.

Now, I don't know any of these people, but I have had dealings with HR depts of major corporations. If an extra-circular activity even begins to make ANY employee feel "uncomfortable", it's investigated immediately and if there's any validity to it, a cease and desist order is given, and if not adhered to, termination follows. It's one of the few areas in corporate Amercia that's not negotiable. 

Of course it’s not a problem, if you agree with the extra-circular activity.

Anywho, there are very few people here who can actually make a difference, so this is little more than idle chit-chat and we're back to wait and see what happens next.

Viper1 out.


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

I have been to two training camps at the OTC and numerous tournaments around the world with Coach Lee. While we may differ greatly on the direction of the sport of archery we hold the very same belief in Jesus as our Savoir.

I have attended one "church service" at the Flood with a group from the OTC. That group included Coach Lee. I happened to over hear one of the RA's say they were going and I asked if I could join him. That turned into an invitation to anyone else who wanted to go. Coach Lee was one that then also choose to come along. I believe Tyler M., Vic, Jenny, Mandy and Lindsey P. came as well. I don't think any of the other RA's came that night. 

The point being that this was after training hours. This is where these folks live. This is where they spend their lives. You can not separate your believes and spiritual practices from the environment. When you live in such close confines training 6 days a week with the same people there are going to be overlaps.

If someone wants to make a news story out of that, so be it. I believe it's just another anti stiring the pot. Our system has been tested quite extensively lately and I can assure you that Coach Lee doesn't have the ability to name teams. If there were grounds for discrimination it could only be in the amount of time Coach Lee spends with each athlete. From what I've seen a person's religious beliefs has had no bearing on how much time Coach Lee spends with them.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

Spots_N_Dots said:


> I started to post a reply to Target1, but I'm glad AT is having problems this time. I think Target1 can get the message I was going to say from what I tell you.
> 
> These kids are just that. I would expect that Khatuna, Vic, Butch, or Jenny can discern the difference, and know their place in their own practice of their faith, what ever it may be. Not all of the archers under the umbrella of the head coach have been out in life long enough to know their place. Brady is 19, when he started, he would have been 17. That's either High School, or just fresh out. Many of the RA's are even younger than that, and in fact some are probably still in high school. That is the age they are; they follow. That's their job in life. They have been programed to follow orders and learn from their peers. Heck, ALL the Dream Team is at that age.
> 
> ...


Oh, by the way, every JDT camp that I have been to, there was at least 1 of the archer's parents, who are not coaches, at the camp observing training. Maybe they're in on the conspiracy. This time there will be more, along with some of the archers' coaches. There's nothing secret going on here. Parents are in attendance at every camp from wake-up to bed time at every camp that I have been to. Before that parents were in attendance too, and a couple of them were also JDT coaches.

You're acting as if America's youth are nothing but a bunch of mindless sheep willing to blindly follow any authority figure that presents him/herself. You couldn't be further from correct. We've got 17 and 18 year-old men and women whacking terrorists in Iraq and Afganistan. We call them servicemen and servicewomen. If they were Dream Team archers or RA's _you_ would be calling them servicekids. Everyone is well aware that these archers are young people, teenagers who are in their formative years. So far there haven't been any adults apply for a position on the Jr. Dream Team. 

The conspiracy you are looking for doen't exist. If you have proof of something then go through the proper channels and get something done about it. Otherwise, trying the case in the court of internet opinion is just doing nothing except unfairly tarnishing good peoples' reputations.


----------



## Spots_N_Dots (Nov 10, 2005)

I did not state, and perhaps it is important for me to do so, that I am not particularly overly religious, nor anti. I'm your typical middle-of-the-road Christian.

For those that wish to practice, then by all means do so. I am not advocating in any way limiting or eliminating any spiritual activity at the OTC or within the program, and I have no problem with anyone's beliefs. I just feel it is important that this subject remain up to the individuals, and that they understand. That is all. :wink:


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Pete -

You just made a very good point. 



> While we may differ greatly on the direction of the sport of archery *we hold the very same belief in Jesus as our Savoir*.


If that weren't the case with a given athlete, or if the athlete actually thought that christianity was down right silly (there are such people you know), things would be a little different. 

Kinda like being the only guy on the line with a red riser when everyone else has a blue one. Whether you're very good or not, you'll stick out like a sore thumb, even if it does make it easier to find your bow...

Ya know, there's a reason I usually stay of of the "religion" forums - too much emotion for my blood pressure ....

Viper1 out.


----------



## Spots_N_Dots (Nov 10, 2005)

ldfalks said:


> Oh, by the way, every JDT camp that I have been to, there was at least 1 of the archer's parents, who are not coaches, at the camp observing training. Maybe they're in on the conspiracy. This time there will be more, along with some of the archers' coaches. There's nothing secret going on here. Parents are in attendance at every camp from wake-up to bed time at every camp that I have been to. Before that parents were in attendance too, and a couple of them were also JDT coaches.
> 
> You're acting as if America's youth are nothing but a bunch of mindless sheep willing to blindly follow any authority figure that presents him/herself. You couldn't be further from correct. We've got 17 and 18 year-old men and women whacking terrorists in Iraq and Afganistan. We call them servicemen and servicewomen. If they were Dream Team archers or RA's _you_ would be calling them servicekids. Everyone is well aware that these archers are young people, teenagers who are in their formative years. So far there haven't been any adults apply for a position on the Jr. Dream Team.
> 
> The conspiracy you are looking for doen't exist. If you have proof of something then go through the proper channels and get something done about it. Otherwise, trying the case in the court of internet opinion is just doing nothing except unfairly tarnishing good peoples' reputations.


Then perhaps I should apply. If I play with the Cadets, I could probably make myself look prety good.







oh, wait a minute! The DT web page says it's for archers between the ages 12 to 18.......I feel like I've been invited to the prom and left at the doorstep 


By the way, our solders and servicemen are following orders, and doing their job as prescribed. They are cooking X number of meals, filling out all the paperwork as required, and fighting enemies as ordered (among many other jobs). Not because they want to go over there and just shoot at someone. They are doing their job as they are instructed and as they volenteered to do. Where do you think the "when I say jump, you ask how high" phrase came from anyway? I'm proud of those brave men and women doing one of the most thankless and dangerous jobs on behalf of the US, so please don't insult them.


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

Spots_N_Dots said:


> Not because they want to go over there and just shoot at someone. They are doing their job as they are instructed and as they volenteered to do. Where do you think the "when I say jump, you ask how high" phrase came from anyway? I'm proud of those brave men and women doing one of the most thankless and dangerous jobs on behalf of the US, so please don't insult them.


I retired from the Army, and I didn't insult them, I insulted you. I know they volunteered, as did I in 1974 just after turning 18. In those days maybe times were just different, but we were taught to NOT blindly follow orders (remember Lt. Cally). We were taught to think about it a minute and figure out if you _really needed to jump or not_. Not that you were being insubordinate, but understanding the reasons behind orders was part of training to be a future leader...something that might be necessary when your boss got hisself shot or blowed up. I engouraged my soldiers to ask _why_ and if there was time I would explain. If there wasn't time I would explain later. The command style of coaching that you imply we use doesn't exist at these camps.


----------



## Spots_N_Dots (Nov 10, 2005)

ldfalks said:


> I retired from the Army, and I didn't insult them, I insulted you. I know they volunteered, as did I in 1974 just after turning 18. In those days maybe times were just different, but we were taught to NOT blindly follow orders (remember Lt. Cally). We were taught to think about it a minute and figure out if you _really needed to jump or not_. Not that you were being insubordinate, but understanding the reasons behind orders was part of training to be a future leader...something that might be necessary when your boss got hisself shot or blowed up. I engouraged my soldiers to ask _why_ and if there was time I would explain. If there wasn't time I would explain later. The command style of coaching that you imply we use doesn't exist at these camps.


That's just it. I'm not saying it's a command type of instruction.....it's an implied instruction, and it's based off of where these people are in their lives.



> No, you're not. I'd assume you're already pretty disciplined and someone who wants the gold at all costs - that might even be worse than being a starry-eyed child. Pissing off the (head) coach is something that "kids" are taught not to do from day one. That's where the pressure comes from. Is it common? Of course it is. Is it right, and does it have a place at that level? Sounds like you’ve already answered that.





> Kinda like being the only guy on the line with a red riser when everyone else has a blue one. Whether you're very good or not, you'll stick out like a sore thumb, even if it does make it easier to find your bow...


Viper makes two great points. Can you see that?

By the way, I don't get insulted easily.


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

Spots_N_Dots said:


> That's just it. I'm not saying it's a command type of instruction.....it's an implied instruction, and it's based off of where these people are in their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The point made of sharing religious belief was just that. There was no implication of trying to impress those beliefs onto anyone else.

Only an implied instruction? Then where does the "...just ask how high" comment fit in?

First you say that the archers are easily swayed and are not intelligent enough to realize they can say no, or that there is no need to say yes even if they haven't been told that they can not say yes even though they aren't asked to participate, but then you say that there is an implied instruction that they have to go to church and comply with someone else's religious beliefs to stay on the squad. If they aren't smart enough to know that they don't have to comply then how will they be smart enough to know that there is even an implied, not stated, instruction that they have to comply with some nebulous requirement to take up a religion.

The arguement that "no one told them they had to go, but they thought they had to because no one told them that they didn't have to" just doesn't hold up. I think today's parents are educating their children better than that. Besids, these are very intelligent young people, even the _younger_ members of the squads. You shouldn't be insulting them like this. They make these teams today based on level of performance and potential not on deep their religious faith is or what diety they worship.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Hummm -

OK - looks like this has become a private converstaion, guess I'll step out. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## Mr. Black Magic (Sep 13, 2007)

Interestingly enough. I've been through dozens of teachers, used or worked with more coaches than I would care to remember, even dealt with the police on an occasion or two.

Couldn't tell you even one of their religious beliefs!

You've got yourself's a nice big issue there and any half witted secondary school superintendent could point it out to you and fix it pronto.

BUT as you're salivating over some mystical gold medal's sometime in the future carry on tossing common sense out the window.

I'm sure the end will justify the means:wink:


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

ldfalks said:


> That's a pretty cheap shot and you're not making a fair comparrison. Workplace dating isn't illegal unless sexual harrasment or coersion cn be proved. Then it's a criminal offense. Giving someone a book that was written by an evangelist isn't. Especially if it's a purely motivational book and doesn't espouse any particular religion.
> (cut for length)


No, it's not a cheap shot. I never said it was illegal, that's for lawyers to decide. Assuming for a moment that the allegations are true, what I did was call those actions *unethical*, which is, to my morals, more damning. Come on, I bolded it in the first post, and here, so stop insinuating I said something different. 

If your coach tells you "I would like you to change your grip like this" or "I would like it if you changed your finger pressure on the string," what do you do? If your coach says "I would like it if you join me and follow my religion" what do you do?


----------



## sundevilarchery (May 27, 2005)

It is NOT appropriate for the figure head of a national governing body in a sport and/or a person who exerts extensive control over and within that body to discuss personal aspects of his her life/beliefs in public (and I consider the OTC to be a public venue). That's the sacrifice he or she makes when they take on that role. 

An athlete is in a different situation because he/she is not the "representative" of the sport, but rather of his/her ability. 

It IS appropriate for that person... or ANY athlete... to hold their own personal beliefs and morays. In fact, those beliefs probably are a solid building block in that person's life which have probably helped lead him/her to his/her success... and nobody wants to take that away from them because it is critical in their lives and likely their performance. 

It IS appropriate for a coach or administrator to feel free to answer questions, when asked, about his/her beliefs or ideals... but even that MUST be done in a way that does not exert ANY pressure on the asker (never-the -less any implied message, no matter how slight, to conform).

If I laid out my political and religious beliefs to the college team at ASU, I would have more phone calls than I could shake a stick at. Why, because that is NOT my role... AND because I am in a position that people feel comfortable challenging me. Coach Lee is not challengeable currently within the USA Archery program. So whether real or imagined... you HAVE to deal with him and hopefully get along (though from all accounts, that's easy enough to do as he seems personable).

Does spirituality/religeon have a place in sport... of course, because that's part of the make up most people living in the US and those who compete. But, should a high level executive within an organization which represents ALL athletes within the sport be doing anything to promote OR discourage spirituality/religeon/politics, etc (ie Brad Camp, Tom Parrish, Coach Lee... or any "authority figure")... no.


----------



## Spots_N_Dots (Nov 10, 2005)

Viper1 said:


> Hummm -
> 
> OK - looks like this has become a private converstaion, guess I'll step out.
> 
> Viper1 out.


naaaaaa, I don't think this qualifies as a conversation. I don't think it's taking hold. Stick arround.


Idfalk

Now I see what kind of individual I am dealing with here. You say you've been to the OTC? As a coach? And how's that working out for you and your students? I would imagine it's a rather one sided conversation, much like you've tried to make this one.

I'll remind you, even though it's apparent to the rest of those involved in this post, that in NO way have I insulted or degraded ANY of the athletes involved in the program in any way, shape or form. For you to attempt to put those words into my post shows your desperation. You lack the ability to speak on my behalf, so you can stop trying.

You know, this was intended to be a debate, and I don't feel like arguing with a wall. I've offered my arguments and thoughts. I think most understand what I am attempting to say. I guess not everyone attempts to see things from both sides. Too bad

The floor is yours.


----------



## strcpy (Dec 13, 2003)

One of the things I have learned in a number of years discussing/arguing politics is that many people have and agenda and fit things backwards. The arguments aren't really about what is going on and they aren't applied evenly, plus you then have the unrealistic ideas (such as being the US head coach means he can not discuss anything about his private life)

That is, in this case I don't think it is so much what Mr Lee has done but is a general dislike of him. Had it not been this it would have been something else. There are also some who probably just aren't fans of religion and do not see that imposing non-religion is no different than imposing religion (after all, it is not them getting imposed on).

I couldn't care less of he was doing the above with Islam, Hindu, Atheism, Shintoism, whatever. He is a human being and we can not make them into automatons no matter how much one thinks the national coach should be one. Nor does he even have the authority to do what people are accusing him of doing so it doesn't even matter if he really really really wanted to do so. 

Further even lets assume that these young people (some kids, not not so much) are that impressionable - so? They watch TV, listen to news reports, read books, play games, and all sorts of things that are blatantly more "persuasive" than anything described there - that is part of life. Since these people are *living* at that location there will be peer pressure, both implicit and explicit and one has to live with it. I bet Mr Lee also has preferences for literature, movies, food, dress, and all sorts of things (dare I say, even politics!). I also bet that living with them they all know it too. There is nothing in particular with religion that means he has to be an automaton there, there is nothing special about religion that if he is talking about it it is wrong but the rest OK. 

It's also amusing that what Coach Lee was accused of is horrid and deserves to be fired and then the same one even admit that the Times is significantly leftist but that is A-Ok - which again shows that it really isn't the action itself that has them riled up but something else. 

If it turns out he does push it (and gets the authority to do what he is accused of) that any kid being pushed out of the program for those reasons will run straight to the court system. We live in a society that does that for less. The scenario described can not exist in our system for long, especially in something dealing with the an entity with deep pockets (USOC). 

As of right now there is *one* article from a publication that even it's defenders admit is not exactly truthful - we talk of common sense in here and it isn't common sense to go off the deep end from just that. To hijack a phrase used earlier - in the case of the NYT's there is smoke without fire more often than not. It's not much further off than thinking that there has to be something to the BatBoy story since the Weekly World News ran stories on it for such a long time (especially given that whole smoke/fire things - lots of smoke there). This is especially true given that we have people here who have actually been there and say that is wrong.

Eh, in the end Coach Lee will be evaluated based on how well our archer's end up doing. 2012 is the realistic date to see and I can't believe that USOC thought any different than that. In today's litigious society if there is that type of pushing going on they will stop that quickly too.


----------



## Spots_N_Dots (Nov 10, 2005)

strcpy said:


> One of the things I have learned in a number of years discussing/arguing politics is that many people have and agenda and fit things backwards. The arguments aren't really about what is going on and they aren't applied evenly, plus you then have the unrealistic ideas (such as being the US head coach means he can not discuss anything about his private life)
> 
> That is, in this case I don't think it is so much what Mr Lee has done but is a general dislike of him. Had it not been this it would have been something else. There are also some who probably just aren't fans of religion and do not see that imposing non-religion is no different than imposing religion (after all, it is not them getting imposed on).
> 
> ...


I appologize if I've clouded my initial message. I stated in one of my previous posts that I would not reveal what I have come to be aware of because I don't know if actual "pressure" is being put on anyone. I do know that some feel like participation is "strongly desired", but that is not evidence of pressure for me, just a lack of clarity to some I feel.

I have no intention of accusing Mr. Lee of intentionally pressuring archers to practice. As I said, I think some feel they are expected to, and I hope it doesn't cause problems. I do respect what Mr. Lee is attempting to accomplish here in the US, and I hope he hears of this thread and takes some consideration to help ease the minds of those in his programs. :wink:


----------



## MerlinApexDylan (Oct 14, 2002)

I'm not Christian, but if I was given the opportunity to train with coach Lee even for a day, I wouldn't be bothered by his faith. Most everyone has their own spirituality, whether they like to admit it or not.:darkbeer:


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

Brandeis_Archer said:


> No, it's not a cheap shot. I never said it was illegal, that's for lawyers to decide. Assuming for a moment that the allegations are true, what I did was call those actions *unethical*, which is, to my morals, more damning. Come on, I bolded it in the first post, and here, so stop insinuating I said something different.
> 
> If your coach tells you "I would like you to change your grip like this" or "I would like it if you changed your finger pressure on the string," what do you do? If your coach says "I would like it if you join me and follow my religion" what do you do?


1. I didn't say that you said anything else than what you did. What I said was that sexual harassment is illeagle and you don't need a lawyer to tell you that. There are many cases where professional/client relationships begin and flurish and aren't unethical, unless coersion exists from one side or the other. If coersion exists then it isn't just unethical, it's probaly criminal. Jim C. can probably tell us more about that.

2. If my coach wants me to follow his religion I'm going to say, "Sorry about that Coach. Unless your Baptist I'm not going to follow." The depth of myu religious beliefs and my religious beliefs themselves are none of yours or anyone elses business. I dont discuss them in public and rarely in private.

Ya'll have fun. I'm gone...


----------



## strcpy (Dec 13, 2003)

Spots_N_Dots said:


> I appologize if I've clouded my initial message. I stated in one of my previous posts that I would not reveal what I have come to be aware of because I don't know if actual "pressure" is being put on anyone. I do know that some feel like participation is "strongly desired", but that is not evidence of pressure for me, just a lack of clarity to some I feel.


For the most part I try and read posts on their own merit - I try and not pay attention to who is posting unless something they say makes me (for instance, when Limbwalker posts and talks about his olympic experience I always glance up to make sure it is someone who *has* done that). I'm not going to go back either and see if I was meaning you either - there are just a number of posts that reflect exactly what I said.



> I have no intention of accusing Mr. Lee of intentionally pressuring archers to practice. As I said, I think some feel they are expected to, and I hope it doesn't cause problems. I do respect what Mr. Lee is attempting to accomplish here in the US, and I hope he hears of this thread and takes some consideration to help ease the minds of those in his programs. :wink:


There are a number posting here and in other threads that do not feel that way. For a variety of reasons there are many that want him fired (IMO most are resistant to change and/or are jealous).

Nor can we blame others stupidity on him - if there is no pressure and someone "feels" that way it's their own faults. Yes, as a coach he should be aware of it (and assuming there is this situation he may very well be and have been taking steps - the only ones that *are* there are the ones defending him and that says something), but the coach still can not force the student to realize there is nothing there.

People can feel pressure even when none is there. We can not punish someone because someone else is an idiot and "feels" something that isn't there. None of us can control what other people think if they really want to do so.


----------



## mwarddoc (Aug 12, 2007)

sundevilarchery said:


> It is NOT appropriate for the figure head of a national governing body in a sport and/or a person who exerts extensive control over and within that body to discuss personal aspects of his her life/beliefs in public (and I consider the OTC to be a public venue). That's the sacrifice he or she makes when they take on that role.


IMO this person makes a very good point that applies to any figure working in a public capacity, in any facility supported by public dollars. That would include anything from the President of The United States all the way down to me in my office with my two employees...which is a private office but which performs services paid for by dollars from US government programs.

I read the NYT article, and assuming it isn't flagrantly false, which is unlikely due to the risk of lawsuit (which even for the NYT can cost them thousands of dollars per hour in just preparation for defense and examination of the work and allegations of libel) it appears that perhaps Mr. Lee, like many people, does not perhaps share that opinion. Many folks like to wear their religion on their shirtsleeve, for good reasons in many cases, and espouse their belief system quite openly. However, it can be a problem for any public figure to do this in a public facility when they are in the employ of a public agency and in a position of "influence" within that agency. Even when specifically asked about their belief system, when at work, it is not appropriate to be drawn into these discussions, which are not "work" related.

It is OK for them to do so in a public setting, as long as they are not at that time representing the public agency or "on the clock" at that time.

For some people, with their beliefs and the practices they espouse, this can be a problem, and a restriction on their practices which they cannot tolerate. 

Those people, regardless of their skills, should not be in public employment, nor be working in a position of trust and influence supported by government dollars. If this is a sacrifice they must make for their faith, to avoid public employment, then they need to make this sacrifice.

However controversial this issue is, the alternative is far worse. Many of us have ancestors who came to this country because of this very thing. Not just the freedom to worship or to publicly espouse beliefs. But to be able to have those beliefs, regardless of what they are, without fear of prosecution, compulsion, or ostracization at any level. In the OTC, with the close environment and the small numbers of people involved in sports at this level, it is particularly important to avoid even the hint of scandal about such an issue as religion.

As for the comments by another poster, America's youth are certainly not a bunch of mindless sheep willing to blindly follow any authority figure. However, I know people who could teach them to shoot you upon command...even in this country...that could teach them to fire into a crowd like at Kent State...or maybe not fire and get killed themselves...most American youth are just like youth everywhere else. They can be influenced, in good as well as bad ways, and public figures need to be focused on their public work at work and make sure that they don't give the appearance of impropriety.

I used to work for a government agency, and I have no doubt that if such an article came out about me I'd have already been asked to tender my resignation, or be "released from employment" without cause.


----------



## adnoh (Apr 4, 2008)

target1 said:


> So far I've been quiet on this issue.
> 
> Disclaimer: The following is just my opinion and in no way reflects the view of this program or channel...whoops, wrong media...I mean AT.
> 
> ...


Does anyone really believe the New York Times? It's obvious that today's media is biased and would like nothing better than do do away with crosses, commandments and any religious right. They want everyone to be sheep and take away our freedoms one by one. Just look at the media's political coverage today and the views of their "favs". It's their way or no way. I still believe that we all have a mind of our own and can make decisions for ourselves. My guess is that any young archer that has made it as far as the OTC had people surrounding them to help them get there and watch over them. If something was going on, I would hope those people would speak out.


----------



## Spots_N_Dots (Nov 10, 2005)

adnoh said:


> Does anyone really believe the New York Times? It's obvious that today's media is biased and would like nothing better than do do away with crosses, commandments and any religious right. They want everyone to be sheep and take away our freedoms one by one. Just look at the media's political coverage today and the views of their "favs". It's their way or no way. I still believe that we all have a mind of our own and can make decisions for ourselves. My guess is that any young archer that has made it as far as the OTC had people surrounding them to help them get there and watch over them. If something was going on, I would hope those people would speak out.


I understand what you are saying about the rag, however, if my understanding is right, they are the ones that initially uncovered the age issue with the gymnastics in the Olympics most recently.


----------



## Cuthbert (Nov 28, 2005)

mwarddoc said:


> IMO this person makes a very good point that applies to any figure working in a public capacity, in any facility supported by public dollars. That would include anything from the President of The United States all the way down to me in my office with my two employees...which is a private office but which performs services paid for by dollars from US government programs.
> 
> I read the NYT article, and assuming it isn't flagrantly false, which is unlikely due to the risk of lawsuit (which even for the NYT can cost them thousands of dollars per hour in just preparation for defense and examination of the work and allegations of libel) it appears that perhaps Mr. Lee, like many people, does not perhaps share that opinion. Many folks like to wear their religion on their shirtsleeve, for good reasons in many cases, and espouse their belief system quite openly. However, it can be a problem for any public figure to do this in a public facility when they are in the employ of a public agency and in a position of "influence" within that agency. Even when specifically asked about their belief system, when at work, it is not appropriate to be drawn into these discussions, which are not "work" related.
> 
> ...


Good post! This is the point in a nutshell.

I would only include the point that when the coach is off the clock, that some students will still vie for "coach time" and this is where the influence thing gets sticky. If getting this extra attention requires taking an interest in something the coach thinks is important, it can be viewed as less about the student's craving for more coach time and more about picking favorites. While it may sound childish, the "teachers pet" phenomenon can be disruptive to the coaching of the entire body of student archers. Students that aren't interested, or motivated to explore a religious vocation through the guy that's supposed to be there for everyone based on talent and accomplishment, shouldn't need to feel disadvantaged, whether it is perceived or actual.


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

OMGISEEJESUSONTHEWALL!!!!!!!!!


> Follow the instruction below.
> 
> 1. Stare at the 4 little dots on the middle of the picture for 30 seconds
> 2. then look at a wall near you
> ...












This seems like something you would expect to see in 3rd grade Sunday School passed around with the grape juice and animal crackers. 



> Let us now consider the clash of two equally matched teams, both of which pray to their respective creators in their specific ways. The winning team later naturally thanks Super Being in Space (SBS) for blessing them; the losing team says "Ah, well, it was the Will of SBS that we lose - to teach us some lesson." In other words, no matter what happens, SBS comes out looking pretty good and most team members manage to eliminate any critical conflict and skepticism. Some bystanders to this analysis will ask: "Does anyone seriously think that SBS takes any real interest in who wins some dumb sporting event which has no real effect on the future of humankind?" There are probably others who maintain that the winning team had the right "attitude" and strategy, so that some mind stuff ought to be given a lot of credit.


Has the Kansas School board Athletics Council read this? They could learn a thing or two! *nudge nudge wink wink* "We didn't really mean OUR god when we were writing this. . ."

EDIT- Forgot to cite the above. From Coach Lee's own website, of course, at http://www.kslinternationalarchery.com/AboutUs/SportSpirituality.html


Or, how about this? This is, oddly enough, by the same Dr. Mel C Siff that wrote the text body on the KSL International page I just linked to.



> *A significant proportion of the results obtained by certain rehabilitation or training regimes may be due more to a placebo effect than direct
> physiological intervention.*





> _t may be that many
> methods may enjoy success with some client in the hands of some
> professional somewhere at some time or another. As we are well aware, one
> of the explanations behind this individual and seemingly irrational response
> ...


_
http://www.sportsci.com/SPORTSCI/JANUARY/pp108_placebo_and_training_parad.htm

Could it be that Coach Lee is not really trying to convert them to Christianity for the good of their own souls, but is instead only giving them the emotional tools to deal with success and failure? Is he giving them what he thinks is a sugar pill?_


----------



## Spiderkiller (Jan 30, 2007)

*Hmm*

Seems to me that if a teacher, school coach (in any sport), administrator in business or college professor did what is mentioned in the article, they would be repremanded or dismissed. 

If one athlete is being favored (or not favored) due to religous beliefs over another, isn't that discrimination? 
In the US, I believe discrimination is illegal. Justification for the behavior is irrelevant. It does sound a bit funny when put into perspective doesn't it? "This coach discriminated against "x" amount of people because of their age, or their gender, or their religous beliefs, but HEEEEY we got 4 gold medals so it's ok." (Please note the sarcasm)

Idk, hope it's not true though, but if it is, he should be released.


----------



## frydaddy40 (Oct 17, 2007)

*??????*



Brandeis_Archer said:


> OMGISEEJESUSONTHEWALL!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  So why do yall hate Chistianity? Does going to hell scare you? It should.


----------



## Cuthbert (Nov 28, 2005)

frydaddy40 said:


> So why do yall hate Chistianity? Does going to hell scare you? It should.


Why do you hate the Flying Spaghetti Monster so much?

Remember, being an American doens't automatically make anyone a Christian.


----------



## frydaddy40 (Oct 17, 2007)

*???????????????*



Cuthbert said:


> Why do you hate the Flying Spaghetti Monster so much?
> 
> Remember, being an American doens't automatically make anyone a Christian.


 Frist, i have never seen a (Flying Spaghetti Monster). But if you say
it's scary ok. Now, You should remeber being a American is about being 
able to make choices in what you beleive no matter where you are. Even 
the OTC.


----------



## Cuthbert (Nov 28, 2005)

frydaddy40 said:


> Frist, i have never seen a (Flying Spaghetti Monster). But if you say
> it's scary ok. Now, You should remeber being a American is about being
> able to make choices in what you beleive no matter where you are. Even
> the OTC.


I've never seen Jesus. That's the point. I agree with the rest of what you said. America is all about the freedom of choice. If I choose to credit the FSM for my victory, then that is just as American as if I choose to credit Jesus. Right?


----------



## frydaddy40 (Oct 17, 2007)

Cuthbert said:


> I've never seen Jesus. That's the point. I agree with the rest of what you said. America is all about the freedom of choice. If I choose to credit the FSM for my victory, then that is just as American as if I choose to credit Jesus. Right?


 That is right. I have never seen Jesus ether, but thats why i have to 
have faith. You in (FSM) and me in Christ (Jesus). As America's, we all 
have that right to beleive in who we want and to worship where we what to. Me, you , Coach Lee , the archers at the OTC. 

Coach Lee is fine man,and the most successful olympic coach IN THE World. 
And we have him, on top of that he a good Christine man. We are ones who are being blessed. So cut him some slack,that all i am saying.


----------



## Spiderkiller (Jan 30, 2007)

*Please clarify*



frydaddy40 said:


> Coach Lee is fine man,and the most successful olympic coach IN THE World.
> And we have him, on top of that he a good Christine man. We are ones who are being blessed. So cut him some slack,that all i am saying.



Sooo, if he were influencing people to believe in Wicka or Satan it wouldn't be ok? But because it's in Christ it is? Or is it becasue he's the most successful coach in the world it makes unethical behavior justified.

I guess I don't understand . 

Ethical behavior is ethical behavior. If you have children, would it be ok for the little league baseball coach to act in this manner because it'll help your child get on base? 

Again, I hope the article isn't accurate but if it is, a serious repremand or dismissal would be in order I would think.

Seems that there is a lot of contoversy involved with Coach Lee. I don't understand that part either but it is what it is. 

I guess I enter this season with no understanding....LOL


----------



## kraven (Jan 25, 2006)

Yeah, cutting him some slack isn't the issue. AT ALL.


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

kraven said:


> Yeah, cutting him some slack isn't the issue. AT ALL.


I think you all need to go back and read the article again. Please remember that the only thing that actually happened was that Coach Lee handed out an inspirational book and he has some posts adn quotes on his web site.

The girl said that she was the only Buddist there and because of that she felt uncomfortable. She never said she was treated any differently than anyone else.

You folks are just engaging in a "Coach Lee Bashing" contest now. No inappropriate behavior has been charged, and from what I have observed none has occured.

Oh, BTW, Brandeis_Archer, one of the most telling signs that someone is losing the debate is that they resort to vulgarity to punctuate their statements. Poor tactic on your part, especially for someone who professes to be a Christian in the same post. Hmmmmm...at least I've never heard vulger inuendos at the JDT camps. We don't act that way. It's not a good example for the impressionable youth that are being coached there.

LD


----------



## arconudo (Feb 10, 2008)

*Ethical Principles and Guidelines*

Citing from the Belmont report:

"Unjustifiable pressures usually occur when persons in positions of authority or commanding influence -- especially where possible sanctions are involved -- urge a course of action for a subject. A continuum of such influencing factors exists, however, and it is impossible to state precisely where justifiable persuasion ends and undue influence begins."


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

Oh come on, do some research before accusing me of saying vulgar innuendos. www.venganza.org The phrase can't be "noodly arm" because how can spaghetti have arms? It just wouldn't make sense.

EDIT: Remember, sometimes a quote by Freud... is just a quote by Freud. 
no innuendos were used in the making of this post.



ldfalks said:


> Oh, BTW, Brandeis_Archer, one of the most telling signs that someone is losing the debate is that they resort to vulgarity to punctuate their statements. Poor tactic on your part, especially for someone who professes to be a Christian in the same post. Hmmmmm...at least I've never heard vulger inuendos at the JDT camps. We don't act that way. It's not a good example for the impressionable youth that are being coached there.
> 
> LD


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Let's get back on TOPIC or  it may just close itself.


----------



## Spiderkiller (Jan 30, 2007)

*Response*

idfalks,

Took your advice, went back and read the article and yeah...still concerned. It reads:

"Susan Caldwell said she was alarmed by the extent to which Lee pushed his faith on the athletes. *She said her daughter felt pressured to attend church with Lee *even when she needed to do other things, like homework. "

"Raquel Caldwell and Tyler Martin, an archer who was among the three baptized in 2006, said other archers who were not religious *expressed discomfort* with the Christian atmosphere in the program."

“I give him six tasks a day, including reading the Bible and education,” Lee said. 

Is it ok for this to be going on at the OTC? It doesn' sound ethical to me. I hope that the above is just based on perception.


----------



## frydaddy40 (Oct 17, 2007)

*Closer*



target1 said:


> Let's get back on TOPIC or  it may just close itself.


 I think that's the B.E.S.T. post yet. What do i need to say to have 
this closed target1?


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

arconudo said:


> Citing from the Belmont report:
> 
> "Unjustifiable pressures usually occur when persons in positions of authority or commanding influence -- especially where possible sanctions are involved -- urge a course of action for a subject. A continuum of such influencing factors exists, however, and it is impossible to state precisely where justifiable persuasion ends and undue influence begins."


I think you're a little off target here. This is the summary of the Belmont Report:

SUMMARY: On July 12, 1974, the National Research Act (Pub. L. 93-348) was signed into law, there-by creating the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. One of the charges to the Commission was to identify the basic ethical principles that should underlie the conduct of biomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects and to develop guidelines which should be followed to assure that such research is conducted in accordance with those principles. In carrying out the above, the Commission was directed to consider: (i) the boundaries between biomedical and behavioral research and the accepted and routine practice of medicine, (ii) the role of assessment of risk-benefit criteria in the determination of the appropriateness of research involving human subjects, (iii) appropriate guidelines for the selection of human subjects for participation in such research and (iv) the nature and definition of informed consent in various research settings. 

Read the whole thing here:
http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html

We're not doing biomedical nor behavioral research on archers and the conditions are different than those outlined in this report.

Get real! :wink:


----------



## frydaddy40 (Oct 17, 2007)

*Sorry*



Spiderkiller said:


> Sooo, if he were influencing people to believe in Wicka or Satan it wouldn't be ok? But because it's in Christ it is? Or is it becasue he's the most successful coach in the world it makes unethical behavior justified.
> 
> I guess I don't understand .
> 
> ...


 Sorry, don't debate with someone who scared to show there name, or that 
has no profile. Sorry


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

*Reposting a removed post*

Well, this got removed once, but I've been allowed to repost a very lightly edited version, so insert this up after the original post I'm replying to. If you're interested in seeing what was removed, please PM me. I assure you, it's nothing dirty.




frydaddy40 said:


> That is right. I have never seen Jesus ether, but thats why i have to
> have faith. You in (FSM) and me in Christ (Jesus). As America's, we all
> have that right to beleive in who we want and to worship where we what to. Me, you , Coach Lee , the archers at the OTC.
> 
> ...


Guess what! I'm Christian myself, and I *STILL* think his conduct is wrong. Doesn't matter how many of my personal beliefs agree with his brand of Christianity or not- his conduct is (let me say it one more time) unethical.

[non-Christian religious salutation removed]
James[/quote]

Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.


----------



## UncleRecurver45 (Aug 25, 2008)

frydaddy40 said:


> Sorry, don't debate with someone who scared to show there name, or that
> has no profile. Sorry





frydaddy40 said:


> I think that's the B.E.S.T. post yet. What do i need to say to have
> this closed target1?


Well, first of all, I'm shocked that you would refuse to debate with an account that has no name. That seems counterproductive to actually learning and improving yourself, which I would think is the point...if this were about who is right and who is wrong and insist that you are absolutely correct, no matter what, perhaps you should look to the Crusades and see how that turned out? Also, looking to say something to close the topic just seems selfish. If it's so annoying to your person, why not just walk away?

Now to the business at hand. My God, this is indeed a sad state of affairs. You all miss the key elements of this. To be a good archer it appears you must worship Mr. Lee's version of God. I wonder if other people of faith, maybe those who are Catholic are pressed to view things his way as well?

While I disagree with some of his minor points, you seek to bash the young man who began this topic and avoid the topic at hand and think his tongue in cheek approach to be offensive! Surely even you who are so loved by Christ have a sense of humor? But away from personal attacks, and on to the topic at hand, which is the ethics of what Mr. Lee is doing!

If you replace the statements that you agree with with those that are similar, but on the other end of the Christian spectrum, it no longer sounds like Mr. Lee is just sharing his interests...it seems horrible indeed! Any good person of moral character would cry for his resignation!

You defend him for saying that only Christians have a clear enough mind to be competitive, think that we are blessed to have a good Christian man coaching our young athletes, and hold to your arguments dearly as though you certainly cannot be wrong

Religion is a fickle thing and impressing it upon others, even hinting about it, leads to trouble. I think Mr. Lee has stewed himself a fine kettle of it. Personally, I think I will wait to hear more, perhaps Ms. Thomas, the author of that article will continue to investigate and produce a second article. Or another source will begin interviewing and searching. What is for certain is nothing will be solved here except for hard feelings to be fostered at the iron clad approach his defenders take in assuming that to attack Mr. Lee is to attack Christianity itself. Gentlemen...I assure you, it does not.

Mr. Richard Hanes


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Just a quick note, although I did say I did not want to get involved in this.  Remember one thing. Lee is not a US Citizen and has to be taught US Custom and Law. Therefore, before we "crucify" his actions let's educate him on our laws first. Once he has been shown and taught accordingly, then he becomes fully responsible if he chooses not to follow US rules. 

I will say that all of the time I have known Lee, not once has he ever approached me on any religious comments. None...and I can assure you I have spent some time with him. 

I am sorry to read that this section is getting heated. There is no question that archery, religion and our country means a lot to many of us. I hope we can keep it in perspective.


----------



## Steven Cornell (Mar 22, 2003)

*This is a really sad state of affairs.*

You all read an article in the NY Times and think that it has to be true.

Again Coach Lee is a very fair and honest person. 
I know him and he would never pick and archer over another because of their faith.
He would pick them on their form, potential and character.
Again, he treats everyone equally.
He never ever stood on the field at the OTC and asked who is going to Church with me today.

You are trying to discredit him on an article and gossip.
Why would you want to do that? You don’t like the BEST Method? He’s Korean?
Why?

So listen, you are condemning him on being a Christian and a man of faith.
I wish I had as much Faith as Coach Lee does and may God bless him.


----------



## Spiderkiller (Jan 30, 2007)

*Good Reply*

Fry,

Thank you for the deflection to the questions I asked. 

What does who I am have to do with the article in the NY times or your comments previously posted? If I told you I was a ethics preffessor at a major university would your answers differ than if I told you I was a first year recurver from nowhere? My guess is probably.Neither is the case but It still doesn't change the questions on whether or not it is an appropriate environment for religion to be taught in. This has nothing to do with whether Coach Lee is a Christian, it has to do with ethical behavior. 

How do you know if it's appropriate or not? Easy, input Satan in the article where Jesus' name is. If you're offended, then it's inappropriate either way.

I'm not comfortable with any individual teaching me, or my kids about God, Jesus, Wicka, Satan, Buddha or any other theological entity in an athletic setting. Thats my job as a parent to decide, not a coaches.

I think Rick might have put his finger on it the best, it's most likely a cultural issue that needs to be taught.

Now before I get struck down by lightning I'm done. :tongue:


----------



## sundevilarchery (May 27, 2005)

Rick McKinney said:


> Just a quick note, although I did say I did not want to get involved in this.  Remember one thing. Lee is not a US Citizen and has to be taught US Custom and Law. Therefore, before we "crucify" his actions let's educate him on our laws first. Once he has been shown and taught accordingly, then he becomes fully responsible if he chooses not to follow US rules.



Rick, 

I suspect you are right. My gut tells me we are dealing a cultural error more than anything else.


----------



## Not Sure (May 25, 2007)

Amongst all this, I can't help but think of the old saying, 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander'. The 'goose' in this case is the Korean team and the 'gander' being the U.S. team. 

Are the Korean teams being tought the mental game of archery the same way we are now? I saw something about archers messing with cadavers and climbing mountains w/ a raft strapped to their back. I'm assuming that was to make any fear incurred in a tournament much more reduced in their minds.

Would Coach Lee be allowed to bring his method to Korea if he ever went back? (I have no idea of the sort of religious freedoms they offer there).


----------



## arconudo (Feb 10, 2008)

Dear friend,
I referred to this not regarding biomedical stuff, but ethic. If you have a certain power on people (and this is the condition if I'm not mistaken) you should not get into situations where people "could" think you are coercing people that are under you. 




ldfalks said:


> I think you're a little off target here. This is the summary of the Belmont Report:
> 
> SUMMARY: On July 12, 1974, the National Research Act (Pub. L. 93-348) was signed into law, there-by creating the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. One of the charges to the Commission was to identify the basic ethical principles that should underlie the conduct of biomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects and to develop guidelines which should be followed to assure that such research is conducted in accordance with those principles. In carrying out the above, the Commission was directed to consider: (i) the boundaries between biomedical and behavioral research and the accepted and routine practice of medicine, (ii) the role of assessment of risk-benefit criteria in the determination of the appropriateness of research involving human subjects, (iii) appropriate guidelines for the selection of human subjects for participation in such research and (iv) the nature and definition of informed consent in various research settings.
> 
> ...


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

There have been many great Christian coaches...and they all lived and shared their faith. It is who they were/are. We all live out our lives reflecting our worldview...all of us. We can't help it.

All you critics...you are being true to your beliefs. But somehow it's OK to chastise others you don't like. We are who we are. Unfortunately reading some of these posts, show me exactely who you are. I'd be embarrassed if I were you.

Here's a small sampling of great coaches of faith, in the sports world. In no particular order we have:

1. Tom Landry - Cowboys
2. Tony Dungy - Colts
3.Lovie Smith - Bears
4. John Wooden - UCLA
5. Tom Lehman - PGA Ryder Cup
6. Les Strickel - NFL
7. Turner Gill - U of Buffalo
8. Kevin Jackson - Olympic Wrestling Coach
9. Coach Lee - Olympic Archery Coach
10. Steve Wilt - Taylor U.
11. Joe Gibbs - NFL, NASCAR
12. Pat Riley - Miami Heat

Coach Lee is in great company. Stop all the criticism. It shows how small minded you can be. Think greatness and great things will come.

John Wooden's ESPN Coach of the Century's
Seven Keys to Life 

1.Be True to Yourself. 
2.Make Each Day Your Masterpiece. 
3.Help Others. 
4.Drink Deeply from Good Books, Especially the Bible. 
5.Make Friendship a Fine Art. 
6.Build a Shelter against a Rainy Day. 
7.Pray for Guidance and Give Thanks for Your Blessings Every Day. 

Is Coach Lee, really saying anything different?


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

*USA Archery Coaching Ethics Policy*

Maybe it's time we read this...

www.usarchery.org/userfiles/file/coaching_ethics_policy.pdf


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Damn I am in violation of the ethics-I coached my wife:wink:


----------



## Landed in AZ (May 11, 2008)

*Now that's funny*



Jim C said:


> Damn I am in violation of the ethics-I coached my wife:wink:


Okay Jim, I vote this the post of the day. :darkbeer:


----------



## hockeyref (Jun 2, 2006)

*That's screwed up and needs proof read*

I didn't know they had boards or minor penalties in archery.... that looks like the first paragraph or so was taken straight from USA Hockey .... and I should know:darkbeer:


----------



## IM2BZ2P2 (Oct 7, 2004)

sundevilarchery said:


> Rick,
> 
> I suspect you are right. My gut tells me we are dealing a cultural error more than anything else.


Remember that Mr Lee has not lived in Korea since about 1996. According to post #32 in the thread http://www.archery-forum.com/showthread.php?t=23260 a warning to stop pressing religion on athletes was given to him many years ago, but not heeded.

Post #36 in the same thread makes an interesting analogy, indicating why it's necessary for coaches to stick to the sport they are employed to coach, and keep other interests in, and aspects of, their lives to themselves.


----------



## ewan (Aug 28, 2007)

Note to self: Wear FSM t-shirt at nationals


----------



## mwarddoc (Aug 12, 2007)

I see this as an administrative oversight issue for the OTC more than anything else.

This is a VERY small community, and repeatedly I see discussions about the size of the sport, how to grow it, what is needed, etc. So, while many people in the sport may be OK with this situation, and see nothing wrong with the "proselytizing" rumor/scandal/allegations or whatever you want to call it, this is the very type of issue that can keep other people out of the sport. I expect more people read the NY Times than shoot an Olympic Recurve. People see this stuff and it does not say “hey, send your kids here” unless they are into this sort of thing and think it is OK.

Reality is that everyone there has a series of mixed agendas, announced and unannounced, the coaches, the athletes, the administration, everyone. That goes for everyone on this discussion line as well. As a coach, in order to preserve your integrity and the appropriateness of the coach/athlete relationship, with all athletes, you need to be very cautious. Any coach at this level with this experience in the world should no longer need education on this issue, they either learned it the hard way, or they learned it the easy way, and they choose their course.

However, it is the OTC Administration’s job to insure that the coaches demonstrate that they have learned it, and know where the line is, and if they don’t seem to know where that line is in the US OTC then they need to be explicit on where that line is.

Those who have relationships outside of the sport with their coaches/athletes, be it religion, family, etc, need to work ever harder with those with whom they do not have those same relationships within the sport, to essentially demonstrate that they have risen above any conflicts of interest. To insure that no such articles arise in the NY Times, etc. The burden is on the coach to demonstrate this explicitly.

As far as coaching your wife, husband, kids, that would be a conflict if you were coaching others at the same time with whom they were competing for recognition.

Then, of course, with regards to a spouse, if you follow the code of conduct, and don’t have intimate sexual relations for the entire time you coach them, and for two additional years afterward, then you might be OK…but I think not…either way, it would certainly lead to lots of speculation...:secret:


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

Jim C said:


> Damn I am in violation of the ethics-I coached my wife:wink:


Jim, Are you sure about that???  Wait! Don't answer, I don't want to know!!!


----------



## Magna (Sep 19, 2004)

This is kind of a long post, I know. Just my comment on what the story says and doesn't say. I don't know anything about the OTC - all I know is from the story. But I read the story and it says nothing much, really. It hints about a lot of things, and I expect we're supposed to guess that maybe bad things are happening, but it never actually comes out and says what people are quoting it as saying. I'm not saying people's guesses are wrong - they might be right. But if there's any information available, I'd think the NYT would say so directly.

According to the story, no athlete has complained formally and no athlete has complained at all, formally or otherwise, since someone from the U.S.O.C. talked with Lee about a year ago. The story really never says any athlete has ever complained in any other way - anonymously, informally, or whatever. There are some complaints mentioned in the story, but they're second-hand or uncertain.

Caldwell is the only named first-hand source who said anything that could be taken as a complaint, and according to the story she wasn't even sure. The only real complaint comes from Caldwell's mother, who told the NYT her daughter was pressured. Caldwell's age at the time isn't given, but apparently she was 17 or 18, or possibly 19. So it's unclear whether her mother was complaining about pressure she thought was put on her 17-year-old daughter, or whether she didn't like the choices her adult daughter made. 

An outside academic also commented negatively on the situation, but he doesn't appear to be complaining, just answering the NYT's question. Also according to Caldwell and Martin some non-religious archers felt uncomfortable with the religious atmosphere in the program, but Lee isn't named in particular and the story says there are many Christian archers there.

The story says Lee is responsible for making decisions about grants and RA status, but doesn't say anyone ever thought he discriminated.

The story does say Lee is open about his faith, and that he affirms the Christian RAs' faith. It says he participates with the RAs in some but not all of their religious activities but not that he leads or organizes them or requires them. (It does say he has made Bible reading part of Ellison's individual program, but Ellison is a Christian and apparently thinks this is fine.)

The U.S.O.C. isn't part of the government, but a private nonprofit organization that receives no public support. According to Richard Lapchick, an outside academic, its designation as America's Olympic organization makes it a "quash-public" organization and therefore must be inclusive of everyone. Because of this, coaches are ethically required to observe boundaries in their religious involvement with athletes.

After reading this story, I'd think people might want to ask questions and investigate a little further, but the NYT never says any wrongdoing took place. The only conclusion like this is by Lapchick, who said Lee's actions (not clear what time frame he's talking about here) crossed ethical boundaries. It's not clear what Lapchick was knows about this situation, since he seems to have no connection to the OTC. The NYT may have given him some information and asked him to comment, in which case the accuracy of his answer will depend on what information he was given. 

My impression after giving the story what I hope was a fair reading was that some people apparently felt uncomfortable but no athlete at the OTC had any serious complaints about Lee's personal expression of faith. It's also clear a lot of athletes, religious and otherwise, have no problem with it. There doesn't seem to be any more information available than that.


----------



## AmAthArcher (Aug 25, 2008)

Question:
In the pursuit of olympic level coaching and training which has precedence: ethics, or religious beliefs?

A coach of this level ultimately becomes a father-figure for the athletes. It is unavoidable in the context of the resident athletes who are sacrificing everything, actually subsuming themselves for the goal of Olympic excellence, for them to NOT see the actions of their ultimate mentor as "ethical", when in reality the actions are just religious exercise and unprovable faith-based superstition. 

These youths entrust the majority of their existence and disciplinary development to the coach in exchange for the opportunity to stand on the highest step of the winner's stands. It is an explicit bargain entered into by both sides, with the USOC as the facilitator and ultimate arbiter. 

These KIDS do *anything* their coach dictates in order to achieve, including following the philosophies espoused, if the coach puts forth a belief system based on "god" then they are conditioned to either accept this faith as fact or else accept that they are UNWORTHY.

Unfair coercion is easily detected, when for example, a female athlete is seduced sexually by someone associated with the infrastructure of the OTC - be he a coach or a staff member, with devastating results for the athlete. (It HAS happened, in archery, for one). Does anyone deny the horrible damage this misplaced trust results in for the athlete? 

It can (by those who choose to be able to see) just as clearly seen when an authority figure espouses a completely unrelated-to-the-sport-being-pursued belief system that fundamentally alters the rules of the training bargain between the athlete and the coach. 

The father figure betrays the bargain with the student/child by bringing into the relationship something that cannot be justified in light of the goal of their bargain - olympic excellence. He cannot bring religion into the relationship and still be neutral about it, and the child has no real choice of "staying the course of training" and at the same time rejecting the coach's belief system being offered up/thrust upon the student.... The athlete/child cannot be immune to the pressures to adopt the religion of the coach when the stakes are so high (Student A: "I've given 100% to the program, and if coach thinks I need HIS GOD, then I stand a better chance of not being asked to leave the program if I am a true believer too"). Archer student B: I have to choose between having the love and acceptance of the coach, and being allowed to continue in the program, and my own upbringing....hmmm, which do I sacrifice on the altar? My parents' or my coach's???") 

This risk of subtle but absolute coercion is undeniable by all except those that are also inculcated by the religious doctrine. Those that "believe in god" see nothing wrong with proselyzation - in the case of MOST religions, it is a requirement of their faith to push it onto everyone around - after all, it is the most wonderful religion of all, and the others are just well, infidels and mistaken fools. 

As an atheist/agnostic in America, I know that if I had worn my non-belief on my sleeve in the same way as the true believers wear their beliefs, foisting it left and right upon all those about me with the same self-righteousness, I am certain that I would never have been accorded high performance coaching status regardless of my abilities as an archer or a coach. 

My friends in America just does not allow that kind of choice. And you can easily see from the posts on this thread exactly which people would have led the mob of superstitious peasants to lynch me (figuratively speaking of course). After all , they don't really lynch people here in the US, do they? Or crucify them for their lifestyle on a barb wire fence, or drag them behind a pickemup with a chain till they are in pieces spread for miles because of the color of their skin, or pound them with baseball bats because they are not christians/jews/baptists/mormons/navelgazers.

And it certainly is reassuring to see the objectivity of the MODERATOR here, yessir....great post from him! Let's give him a hand!


And some here read that the reported article is in the New York Times, and ASS U me it must not be true. As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle, and the kneejerk conservatives think they have the lock on what is fair and balanced, and true. They think America is in a great place after 8 years of republican rule, and that if the senate has set a record for the number of fillbusters, and record national debt, and record number of businesses not paying any taxes, and record number of civilians murdered in Iraq, record number of countries HATING what America stands for today, record violations of the geneva accord, etc.......

What concerns me most is that even though some will give Coach Lee some slack cause he is not a US citizen, the USOC recognized the impropriety RISK and addressed it, yet he still went out and assigned bible readings, dunkings in the water, etc... afterwards. I fear that it sounds like he cared not a damn one way or the other about the rules, but rather stood on his religious convictions about what was best for the athletes (as "true believers" are prone to do). If he had really understood the American way, I would hope that he would not have persisted in such religious activism. 

What if he had been teaching atheism instead of bible-thumping, telling the athletes that they had to learn to stand on their own hind legs, cast aside immature and unprovable beliefs in a vaporware god who has been AWOL since well, a thousand years or so, and just rely on their own talents and developed excellence to get to the medal stands?? That they couldn't go to Beijing unless they proved they were not christians by taking a dip in a body of water and reciting a few phrases of druidisms...?? In light of the posts in this thread, that would have gotten him.........where?

Finally, I think that the methods he has created and teach are indeed the very best in the world, and that given a little more time, the ranks of American yewts will swell with excellence, returning the US to the top step, to gold, and to a new level of "BEST" archery. It just doesn't have to have a god included for that to happen, and in fact it shouldn't need one. 

And may heaven have mercy on my soul, for the zealot participants in this thread will surely have none.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

AAA,

You were doing pretty good until the middle of your post. You sound like a speaker at the Dem Convention. All that tripe is as in-appropriate here as Lee's proselytizing is at OTC. 

Oh, and please explain how your handle isn't wearing your non-belief on your sleeve? Bit of hypocrisy there.

Dave


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

Wouldn't this be more appropriately discussed in the campfire forum? There is absolutely no value whatsoever to this discussion.

-Andrew


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

This thread just committed suicide...:darkbeer:


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Who said the dead cannot be resurrected...

After many requests and concerns, it was decided to let this run...but it will be monitored...

Stay on topic

Do not engage in trying to debate personal religous positions (there is a forum for that)

Discuss the topic. If anyone forgot, read post #1.

I invited the opening of this discussion, do make me regret it. There are several of you that want to match minds and wits. The proselytizing is the noun not the verb in this discussion.


----------



## Cuthbert (Nov 28, 2005)

spangler said:


> Wouldn't this be more appropriately discussed in the campfire forum? There is absolutely no value whatsoever to this discussion.
> 
> -Andrew


I have to disagree because it has a bearing on the environment at the OTC. I seriously doubt that KSL is indoctrinating our archers into a spacific faith, but it does need to be reviewed. Has anyone asked KSL about this? Since the story was in the NYTimes, it may at least deserve a phone call to the source and Mr Lee.


----------



## Spots_N_Dots (Nov 10, 2005)

Here is an excerpt from the initial article:



> Lee said coaching was more of a challenge for him when members of the team did not share his beliefs.
> 
> “I don’t want to have any favorites,” he said. “I would love to be fair for everyone. But sooner or later, if they can see through me God, that’s what I want to try to do. I’m not God, and I can’t drive them to God, but I can pray for them.”


Are we discussing proselytizing, or are should the discussion be more about discrimination? I said it before, and I'll say it again, the people involved probably feel pressured, and according to this quote, they have reason to feel as though they are being judged.

How much of this is fact? How much is fiction? If ANY of this is true, then there is reason to be concerned.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Cuthbert said:


> I have to disagree because it has a bearing on the environment at the OTC. I seriously doubt that KSL is indoctrinating our archers into a spacific faith, but it does need to be reviewed. Has anyone asked KSL about this? Since the story was in the NYTimes, it may at least deserve a phone call to the source and Mr Lee.


Paul, I elect you... :darkbeer:


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

Spots_N_Dots said:


> Here is an excerpt from the initial article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well I think that by proselytizing (his brand of religion), then that raises the question of discrimination, but is a problem in its own right. Even if no discrimination occurs, it feel that it is inappropriate, and the previously posted ethics .pdf agrees.

So, now the questioning becomes a little more complex. First, how do these allegations get proven or disproven? And secondly, if in fact unethical conduct has not only occured, but is continuing, then what can be done with him?
I haven't seen any recent statements from US Archery on this. I'm curious to hear what they have to say in response, and anything else from former students of his (Australians and our former RAs) might be willing to add if asked. Unfortunately, I'm not expecting to hear too much, because as has been said (in completely unrelated threads) when posting on here, big names have nothing to gain, and everything to lose.


----------



## Spots_N_Dots (Nov 10, 2005)

Brandeis_Archer said:


> Well I think that by proselytizing (his brand of religion), then that raises the question of discrimination, but is a problem in its own right. Even if no discrimination occurs, it feel that it is inappropriate, and the previously posted ethics .pdf agrees.
> 
> So, now the questioning becomes a little more complex. First, how do these allegations get proven or disproven? And secondly, if in fact unethical conduct has not only occured, but is continuing, then what can be done with him?
> I haven't seen any recent statements from US Archery on this. I'm curious to hear what they have to say in response, and anything else from former students of his (Australians and our former RAs) might be willing to add if asked. Unfortunately, I'm not expecting to hear too much, because as has been said (in completely unrelated threads) when posting on here, big names have nothing to gain, and everything to lose.


And I doubt you will hear anything from the NAA on this subject. It will most likely be swept under the rug to the membership, and possibly someone will have a chat with him on the subject. Then any bias shown to archers will still be there, but pushed off as the lack of tallent, possibly due to the lack of attention paid to them in thier training.

I see this taking a bad path either way. If Lee stays, it will take time, if it's correctable, to eliminate any descrimination. Who will slip through the system in the meantime? If he is made to leave, then the program suffers.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

This subject is very disconcerting. I see many issues that were implied in the NYT article but it didn’t give the full story. NYT….

Let’s look at some of the facts. Three of the five Olympic athletes met with Lee during the Olympics to sing and read the bible. Let me guess….Jenny Nichols, who is and has been, a very strong Christian all her life and will be with or without Lee or anyone else encouraging her. Oh and by the way, in the beginning she was not treated so well by the USOC and the NAA since she did not follow the BEST method and refused to train full time at the OTC. This all became public when Brent Nichols, her father, wrote a scathing letter stating such. That doesn’t sound like Lee had much influence on her. But as a good Christian, she forgave. Vic Wunderle has been a Christian since I have known him, which has been since 1990. As a matter of fact, when he stayed with me in those early years, on Sundays he would get on my bike and ride to Church. He was another archer who was not accepted in the early days of the BEST method. And now, we have Brady. The supposedly very impressionable 19 year old who I wonder if his parents know?  You already know that answer. They support his beliefs and the program 100%. So…. two of the three archers would practice their faith with or without Lee and my best guess is that the third would as well. 

Now let’s look at another scenario. Maybe, just maybe the one person who felt pressure was more of peer pressure than Lee pressure. Most of the RA’s are a close nit group. They do a lot of things together and just maybe they caused the feeling of pressure to comply with the team. You know how kids can be easily swayed by their peers. I am not saying it is or is not. It is just another option that needs to be explored. If this is the case, it can easily be remedied. 

And finally, there is a retraction of a photo that says the NYT made a mistake, stating that Lee was in the picture Baptizing Brady. It was someone else. The damage has been done. The retraction does little to make up for this type of damage and we all know that. So think before you go on a witch hunt. Make sure this is absolutely the right thing to do, because if you are wrong, no matter what the subject, there are people who will be hurt by your actions.


----------



## Cuthbert (Nov 28, 2005)

Rick McKinney said:


> And finally, there is a retraction of a photo that says the NYT made a mistake, stating that Lee was in the picture Baptizing Brady. It was someone else. The damage has been done. The retraction does little to make up for this type of damage and we all know that. So think before you go on a witch hunt. Make sure this is absolutely the right thing to do, because if you are wrong, no matter what the subject, there are people who will be hurt by your actions.


I don't want to be a stickler, but the correction was that he was there, but not in the water.

To be clear, I'm not taking a side, because I only have as much info as you. Less actually since I don't have an active personal relationship with all the archers you mentioned. However, I also know that there are more than 4 elite archers at the OTC. I do want to say that an ounce of prevention in this instance, whether warranted or not, wouldn't be out of place. Set some boundries to make people aware, including KSL. If he objects to not Proselytizing, then there may be more to look at.  If not, than no harm, no foul and those that are looking for a head to roll will have to go somewhere else.

For the record, I don't have any problem with how one gets to their happy place to shoot, as long as they have a way that doesn't disturb anyone else's chance at achieving the same thing.


----------



## Mr. Black Magic (Sep 13, 2007)

Rick McKinney said:


> This subject is very disconcerting. I see many issues that were implied in the NYT article but it didn’t give the full story. NYT….
> 
> Let’s look at some of the facts. Three of the five Olympic athletes met with Lee during the Olympics to sing and read the bible. Let me guess….Jenny Nichols, who is and has been, a very strong Christian all her life and will be with or without Lee or anyone else encouraging her. Oh and by the way, in the beginning she was not treated so well by the USOC and the NAA since she did not follow the BEST method and refused to train full time at the OTC. This all became public when Brent Nichols, her father, wrote a scathing letter stating such. That doesn’t sound like Lee had much influence on her. But as a good Christian, she forgave. Vic Wunderle has been a Christian since I have known him, which has been since 1990. As a matter of fact, when he stayed with me in those early years, on Sundays he would get on my bike and ride to Church. He was another archer who was not accepted in the early days of the BEST method. And now, we have Brady. The supposedly very impressionable 19 year old who I wonder if his parents know?  You already know that answer. They support his beliefs and the program 100%. So…. two of the three archers would practice their faith with or without Lee and my best guess is that the third would as well.
> 
> ...


Good points, all. A Retraction is always a poor band aid to a very large hemorrhage.

Erring on the side of caution however works both ways. I keep going back to that web site and the third link down to "sport and spirituality" leading immediately to the "Divine Intervention" page. That is a very bold statement about the Coach's philosophy and I fail to see how we can come to believe there is a separation of the two in the instructional process. It also makes me wonder what goes though the mind of an athlete being coached when the next person over is deemed by the Coach to have been touched by the hand of god.

I personally believe here that fairness lies in "Freedom From Choice" the religious element should never have come up in relation to the course of training. The web site alone tells me this is not so, and I think further investigation by an impartial agency would be warranted.


----------



## Chopper94 (Jan 26, 2003)

*Code of Conduct*

A lot of good points have been made in this thread by many people better than myself. Especially the points raised by Mr. McKinney in his last post. People will be hurt by this regardless of the outcome. 

The real point here is the behavior of an employee (Mr. Lee) and how that employee follows the code of conduct of the employer (USOC). If it is true Coach Lee has been warned about his behavior AND it has not been corrected then the USOC should look for a reprimand. If it has been corrected and Mr. Lee's actions and behaviors follow the directives of the USOC then we should support the team regardless of anyone's personal beliefs about faith and a higher power. This issue needs to be and should have been handled "in house". It is unfortunate that it made the front page of the NY Times. This does not shead a favoritable light on the archery community. Which begs the question, "Why print this on the front page?"


----------



## AmAthArcher (Aug 25, 2008)

*and now the time has come....*

A new olympiad cycle starts well, yesterday or so.  

We need to continue our evolution in the US with Kisik Lee's program. 

We have an opportunity to move past the mistakes of the past and simply 
*do the right thing.*
(and that is for me completely independent of a god - right and wrong can be, must be, completely isolated from religion - just look what good works the righteous have done in the past)

We need to continue identifying the best young archers, and letting their parents address their moral upbringing, and let the coach, well, coach. He (Kisik) does it better than anyone in the world, in my limited opinion. There should be no need for religious factions at the OTC, if the parents do a good job of teaching their kids to think as a **** sapien should. 

In the future olympiad there should be lots of camps, lots of different sets of kids cycled through the OTC for a week or two, and their COACHES should be brought out as well, to insure they teach as Kisik wants once the kid gets home. This business of separating the local coach from the archer (at ANY level) is garbage. We routinely win gold in events where the coach that the athlete has had for years is allowed to continue coaching all the way to the podium, such as gymnastics. Where is it written by the USOC that the formative coach must be banished to the stands rather than the coach's box? Nowhere - it is up to the NGB. And this should change. Archery is an individual sport, and if an archer not of the OTC makes the Team USA for an event, the NGB should not break the thread between the archer and the coach.

As far as the medal count in Beijing, you better also look at the count in Athens (which he had nothing to do with), and think we maybe asked too much of him given the timeframe he had to work with, and consider also the inertia of resistance defined by the NAA membership, that he had to work against. 

But we have now in the US a network of high performance coaches that are busy planting the seeds of excellence among our youth and have been doing so for more than a year now. Four years from now will be very exciting (just as this last was !)

As I see it and have experienced it, the BEST method continues to grow and change, as Kisik learns and understands more and more of the US society, and learns how to better communicate to us all. This method is a dynamic and an alive method, and continues to evolve as I think it should.

We need to redouble our efforts on behalf of our youth, as well as our support for Kisik, and the USOC needs to help him to understand how best to fit in with our screwball society's mores and customs and RULES. The Constitution is a good place to start (yes, that document actually referred to by GW as "a goddamned piece of paper"). It is our saving grace that hopefully we all, of all religions, colors, and creeds, can rely upon to make us one nation. 

Your god belongs to you and no one else - at least, in the America I grew up in. Maybe we can get back there again?


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

AmAthArcher said:


> A new olympiad cycle starts well, yesterday or so.
> 
> We need to continue our evolution in the US with Kisik Lee's program.
> 
> ...


Good post on many points. There was a letter sent to the Jr. Dream Team Archers families inviting them and the archer's coaches to the OTC to observe training. they can't be "brought out" due to budget reasons, but they are invited to attend. Each camp there are parents who come to camp so that they can learn and then continue to help their young archers when they return home. There are multiple parents and coaches coming to the Sep 7 camp as well.

There were only 3 staff positions for archery in the 2008 Olympics. Two coaches and one Team Leader. So how do we divide those 2 coach positions up between the 4 coaches responsible for training the 5 archers who made up the US Team? Coach Lee had 2 archers (Brady and Katuna) so he was in by default, but what about the other 3 coaches?

I think that sometimes it's easier to say how things should be than to actually make them turn out that way.


----------



## Magna (Sep 19, 2004)

Brandeis_Archer said:


> Well I think that by proselytizing (his brand of religion), then that raises the question of discrimination, but is a problem in its own right.


I think you're right to separate the two, but the discrimination issue is really all the U.S.O.C.'s rules cover. Because the U.S.O.C. is a private organization, there's no first amendment issue as there might be if this were a government body.

Taking the NYT story at its word, there's not even a whiff of discrimination. The words "uncomfortable" or "pressured" were thrown around in a few anecdotes, but no one said anything about treating people differently based on their religious beliefs or practices.



> First, how do these allegations get proven or disproven?


One of the points of my post above is that there really have been no allegations, just suspicions by outsiders, really. (If anyone disagrees, feel free to post a quote from the story to illustrate your point.) It just seems a little silly to rush in and rescue people who aren't complaining about anything.

The closest thing to a complaint about the coach was by a woman who was worried about her college-age daughter, but I don't see anything article-worthy there. Plenty of kids that age go off to college where they're influenced by charismatic professors with kooky beliefs, wayward new friends, etc. and their parents often don't like it much. The only reason I see for this being in a NYT article is that it's got an Olympic connection and the NYT is suspicious of that religious group. If these kids were in the Peace Corps or if Lee were making them listen to Tony Robbins tapes or do Zen mediation, I doubt there'd be a fuss.

The NYT dug around and couldn't find much. Not to say someone might not complain at some point, but if there's not much smoke, there's probably not much fire.


----------



## Mertz (Jul 15, 2005)

I would just like to point out that the New York Times is largely considered to be the newspaper of record in this country and, like it or not, probably one of the most respected news sources in the world. And, as such I'm sure that their journalistic standards are very high (fact checking, multiple sources, etc.) and from what I've read I see no reason to doubt the article. Given the source I think it's safe to assume that it was likely well researched and the facts carefully checked. Why else would the NYT run a story like this about an arcane Olympic sport and the teaching methods of it's head coach? I suspect two things. 1. That this story isn't about Mr. Lee sharing his religious beliefs with some of his students, it's much larger than that, it's about ethics in sports maybe even discrimination (that's why it made the front page.) It posits the question of whether or not his behavior was ethical. 

And as to point of cultural differences and Mr. Lee not being fully aware of our laws any traffic cop will tell you when he hands you a ticket for a violation you may not have even been aware of; 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. 

2. Finally, it seems to me that someone must've felt disturbed enough to feel compelled to leak this story to the NYT in the first place.

In any case I think this situation warrants further investigation.


----------



## strcpy (Dec 13, 2003)

Mertz said:


> I would just like to point out that the New York Times is largely considered to be the newspaper of record in this country and, like it or not, probably one of the most respected news sources in the world. And, as such I'm sure that their journalistic standards are very high (fact checking, multiple sources, etc.) and from what I've read I see no reason to doubt the article. Given the source I think it's safe to assume that it was likely well researched and the facts carefully checked.


Thankfully most outside of the Bubble have realized this hasn't been true for years. The NYT is little better than a mouthpiece for special interest groups and has been for some time. They are more likely to get things wrong than right, though from time to time they get things close. They have been caught, and admitted too, printing stories that were totally fabricated (though they claim to have been duped - I guess so much for all those fact checkers). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair for just *one* example of long term plagiarizing and fabrication - there are a number of others.

They have not remotely been the "newspaper of record" in this country (even amongst those that believe the same way they do) in a number of years. Their readership is severely lacking because of that too.

They have too many stories like this one - no real facts, just a bunch of might haves and innuendo with an obvious bias. In fact it is one of their better ones - note that the number of reports Mr Blair did (if you think that was the only reporter to do that I have some ocean front property in Arizona). 

Maybe they are right, I'm not there so I do not know. However of those that are there that we can talk too they all say "wrong" and the story - on it's own merits - is horrid journalism and would never have made even their Op-Ed section in their heyday. Even assuming it was fabricated and distorted still doesn't necessarily mean it was wrong - it just isn't a good reason to get worked up over it.

I would generally suspect that if they were correct and had the evidence to directly state it they would have - as is they just let you believe what you will from the article while allowing themselves to say they never actually said that. It's works well, especially amongst those who already want to believe what they are implying. 

It will go nowhere because most likely there is nothing there, even if the consensus on AT is that he ought to be fired, fined, and imprisoned for this heinous crime USOC has to have more than that to actually do anything. In fact USOC needs something to have actually occurred to do anything. If there *was* something there they have too much liability to *not* do something too (and that something has to be more than an archer not making the team deciding that it was for "religious" reasons too - it takes more than just the accusation to work outside of the court of public opinion). 

As such I'm not terribly worried over it and, at this time. find myself figuring they are looking to create controversy where it doesn't exist (said idea sells papers, especially when a large portion of their readership is of the liberal persuasion and they are harping on someone being openly religious).


----------



## Spots_N_Dots (Nov 10, 2005)

This is all I have to share. Apparently, it's not the first time:

http://www.archery-forum.com/showpost.php?p=324657&postcount=32


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

Spots_N_Dots said:


> This is all I have to share. Apparently, it's not the first time:
> 
> http://www.archery-forum.com/showpost.php?p=324657&postcount=32


Great job of taking something out of context.

I counter your gambit with this move...

http://www.archery-forum.com/showpost.php?p=324512&postcount=6

After reading the thead on archry-forum, it seems that many of the same folks who are rabble-rousing on this thread are doing the same down under with less than stellar results. And It's great to hear someone who actually trained for years with Coach Lee tell it like it is. Maybe Austrailians don't know what a great paper the NY Times is or they would be out for blood too.


----------



## Spots_N_Dots (Nov 10, 2005)

ldfalks said:


> Great job of taking something out of context.
> 
> I counter your gambit with this move...
> 
> ...


So you're telling me that one with his oppinions trumps one with fact? I also find it interesting that your trump card is under the impression that the entire article came from one disgruntled archer, when in fact, that was only a small portion of the article. How is it you find what you want, and cast the remainder to the side? And what was that about recieving the book? You don't call that a hint? Even Skinner agreed with you, stating that no one was pressured, but did not know if others felt obligated.

Hey, for those that don't feel pressured, great! Just make sure no one else feels pressured.


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

Errr. . . ldfalks. . . that's not out of context at all. . . it's the entire post, and well reflects the poster's (apparent) views on the subject. 
But if you disagree with the content, sure, go ahead and call it out of context. The poster OBVIOUSLY really meant that Coach Lee has atheist tendancies, and likes muffins for breakfast. It's just how he was quoted that made it seem different.
Can't trust those Australians any more than the NY Times, after all. Very disreputable fellows. 

While you're at it, why don't you insult the other side, too? "Oh, they're not actually interested in finding out the truth, they're just rabble rousing." wheeeeeeee....

And strcpy, have you been hearing just enough to fire back a response, or have you actually been listening? I am certainly not against Coach Lee's (or anyone else's) finding religion, or even trying to spread it. However, I *am* against him (or anyone else) trying to evangelize in an unethical manner, while in a position of power. THAT is what is unethical, not the fact that he is openly religious off the job.


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

Dee (ldfalks), I just had the ODDEST urge. For some reason, I seem to want to ask you what may seem to be a rather random question. But let me ask away, and let us see where the answer takes us.

So Dee (and again, may seem like an odd question to ask, but I just kinda pulled it out of thin air)- *Was transportation offered to the Jr. Dream Team Members who are of other Christian faiths on the trip around Easter?*
As you are a Jr. Dream Team coach, I figure nobody would be better than you to answer, so I hope you'll grace us with a straight reply.

Cheers,
James


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

Brandeis_Archer said:


> Dee (ldfalks), I just had the ODDEST urge. For some reason, I seem to want to ask you what may seem to be a rather random question. But let me ask away, and let us see where the answer takes us.
> 
> So Dee (and again, may seem like an odd question to ask, but I just kinda pulled it out of thin air)- *Was transportation offered to the Jr. Dream Team Members who are of other Christian faiths on the trip around Easter?*
> As you are a Jr. Dream Team coach, I figure nobody would be better than you to answer, so I hope you'll grace us with a straight reply.
> ...


This may seem like an ODD answer to you, but I have no idea who on the team practices what religious beliefs or whether they have any Christian faith at all. So I can't answer your question.


----------



## strcpy (Dec 13, 2003)

Brandeis_Archer said:


> And strcpy, have you been hearing just enough to fire back a response, or have you actually been listening?


Listening - but not being a Believer that Coach Lee is a bad person I can't see any of it being persuasive.



> I am certainly not against Coach Lee's (or anyone else's) finding religion, or even trying to spread it. However, I *am* against him (or anyone else) trying to evangelize in an unethical manner, while in a position of power. THAT is what is unethical, not the fact that he is openly religious off the job.


I wonder where in the world I said you were that way? Are you sure *you* are listening? Even if you take the little I have stated here before that post I said some are that way but I thought most just didn't like him and are using it as excuse - if not this then something else. 

Of course, that level of reading into the few things said is *exactly* the same thing that has caused this whole argument. So I guess it's just par for the course.

Until there is a direct statement with credible evidence to back it up you all are just talking into the wind. If that was out there then we wouldn't be having this conversation as USOC would have already acted.


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

ldfalks said:


> This may seem like an ODD answer to you, but I have no idea who on the team practices what religious beliefs or whether they have any Christian faith at all. So I can't answer your question.


Let's try some free verse poetry, plucked from the air.



> If it was Easter time and you and others went to a Christian church, was that the only option for services or were the athletes offered transportation tot heir [sic] own denominational churches as well like Lutheran, Roman Catholic, etc.? If you do not know what faith the members of the team practice, don't you think it's odd to have them transported to a particular church?


Well, enough for now. I'm going bear hunting and need to pack.


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

strcpy said:


> Listening - but not being a Believer that Coach Lee is a bad person I can't see any of it being persuasive.


I'm sure he's a wonderful person. That doesn't mean he can't do unethical things. The best of intentions doesn't justify unethical action.



strcpy said:


> I wonder where in the world I said you were that way? Are you sure *you* are listening? Even if you take the little I have stated here before that post I said some are that way but I thought most just didn't like him and are using it as excuse - if not this then something else.


 Alright, so if not me, then care to name names? If you think I'm one of the ones with good intentions, who here *do* you think are the ones using this as a cover story for their dishonorable intentions? "Not Sure," "Arconudo," "mwarddoc," "AmAthArcher"? Who?




strcpy said:


> Until there is a direct statement with credible evidence to back it up you all are just talking into the wind. If that was out there then we wouldn't be having this conversation as USOC would have already acted.


You sure about that? It would appear that he's already been talked to, both in AUS and the US. If what I've heard is true, they've been trying to deal with him quietly, but there's still a problem.


----------



## Magna (Sep 19, 2004)

Brandeis_Archer said:


> You sure about that? It would appear that he's already been talked to, both in AUS and the US. If what I've heard is true, they've been trying to deal with him quietly, but there's still a problem.


I guess this depends on what "problem" means. If it means something that some outside the OTC might question after reading about it, maybe so. But if the NYT story is to be believed, no one with any connection at all to the OTC had any objections since the U.S.O.C. talked with him last year. Maybe outsiders might read the NYT story and question this or that, but info about religious activity since last year is very scant and obviously not in violation of the rules. The only information I've seen about Australia is from an anonymous post.


----------



## strcpy (Dec 13, 2003)

Brandeis_Archer said:


> I'm sure he's a wonderful person. That doesn't mean he can't do unethical things. The best of intentions doesn't justify unethical action.


There is no evidence of unethical action - you have, at best, innuendo.



> Alright, so if not me, then care to name names? If you think I'm one of the ones with good intentions, who here *do* you think are the ones using this as a cover story for their dishonorable intentions? "Not Sure," "Arconudo," "mwarddoc," "AmAthArcher"? Who?


I didn't say you had good intentions either - I don't think you do. However I listed several reasons why many have said intentions and I am sure there are other reasons why. I see no reason to list each poster in turn and give a detailed analysis - most can read what I wrote, read what they wrote, and if they think critically about it supply the correct reasoning.

Were I to be pushed to answer (as you are doing) what I see there is that you are one that does not like his program in general (not enough information to know why, but were I to guess it would fall into the "resistant to change" category). Therefore anything you hear that is remotely bad is nearly automatically true and critical thought goes right out the window. It is reinforcing what you already knew to be true - instead of looking at the evidence presented to make a conclusion the conclusion was drawn first and then evidence fit to match it.

That is you are an Anti-Believer and do not apply the same level of critical thinking and/or outright skepticism to your own sources that you do to ones that do not confirm your original idea. 

I will not exactly call that "bad intentions" either - intentions are different. I will not call them good intentions either - I think nearly all posting here mostly want Archery to succeed (good intentions) and some want Coach Lee to fail/be fired (bad intentions) and are willing to work backwards from that idea.



> You sure about that? It would appear that he's already been talked to, both in AUS and the US. If what I've heard is true, they've been trying to deal with him quietly, but there's still a problem.


No, I'm not sure about that - I've never been there. I can only go by what evidence has been presented. The talking too was *really* mild and didn't include anything near what he is currently being accused of. It's fairly common to get that type of "warning" when going to a new country as each country has different rules regarding that.

What I am sure of is that the NYT is a terrible source and even then they never accuse him of anything - they just allow people to read that into what they wrote if they want (I am further sure that if the NYT has enough to accuse they would have in a heart beat). I am further sure that USOC takes such things VERY seriously. I am further sure that many feel pressure where there is none and many more that are not amongst the chosen ones invent reasons as to why they were not chosen. Lastly I am sure that all but a very very very very few say that it doesn't occur, I'm also sure that many of those people were/are not christian and would have complained VERY loudly if they had been pressured or removed from the program due to religious believes.

If you have "heard" direct evidence to the contrary please present it.

The most "concrete" has been "AmAthArcher" who though he/she wouldn't get high performance certified. But then who was the instructor and why did you think that? What was said to give you that feeling? I'm sure the NAA and NADA would be *highly* interested if there is anything there as pretty much any of the high performance certification courses are done by fairly high coaches right now. Staying silent on that matter only allows the whole thing to be perpetuated. I'm also quite certain if you can point out a specific archer and a specific incident then the USOC would also be highly interested about coach Lee doing that. 

In both cases if it is true and the governing bodies are not being helpful that is what lawsuits are for - there are many lawyers out there that would take the case on without you having to pay money (they can recoupe it from the settlement). If it is as systemic from the top down as implied then that is the proper course of action.

Of course if there is nothing there other than something fabricated inside some peoples head then all you can do is what they NYT did - talk in vague sentences, imply lots of things, and then let the reader fill in the blanks that you want. If you have it spit it out, if not then don't be surprised when people roll their eyes about what is being said. 

I don't know the guy and likely never will. I have no intention of going for the olympics and I doubt I will ever have a student that will (and even then I would send them elsewhere). I don't think the BEST system is good for the recreational archers I teach so I don't teach it, I think it has proven itself for competitive recurvers and if I had one of them I would teach it. I don't like that our entire coaching system is being moved over to the BEST system (most people are those recreational archers). So I can't say I'm even defending him as I don't really like the program changes being made either (though I do like the structural changes with the certifications being implemented) - I don't know what goes on at the centers as I'm not there. As such I need more than what is given before I can say with any level of "sureness" and, even then, the people that have been there say and are willing to be specific say the articles are bunk - that is the people whom are actually in a position to be sure say it's wrong. As such I will go with that.


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Do you honestly believe the NY Times wouldn't slant a story concerning a religious or Christian item. They are the biggest liberal rag in the States and notorious for slanting story's with their agenda in mind.....I have a copy of one story were they argue that child molesting may be ok as long as the child agrees to it. I would find a better source for a rip at Coach Lee Viper.
Art



Viper1 said:


> Folks -
> 
> Not sure if this or any of the other posts in the original thread have anything to do with "religion" per se, and everything to do with a possible abuse of power. There's a fine line between having one's belief known and having an agenda to indoctrinate young people by means of a sporting event. If the NYTimes article is accurate, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, it paints a very black picture of the current goings on at the OTC, at least in archery. I have to admit, there was something about Lee's initial interviews that struck me as odd (sorry it's more of a feeling than something that would stand up in court) but this piece of info does concern me. Unfortunately too many people seem to have a lot of faith in Lee (pun intended), and even more unfortunate is the fact that based on what's been written here, the only way it's going to be proven one way or the other will be if he blatantly crosses the line. (Which I seriously doubt his advisors will let him do after the Times article.)
> 
> ...


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

*Unethical*

What is unethical is people who are suggesting things when they have no idea if they are actually true. 
Pitifull actually.
Art


----------



## Spiderkiller (Jan 30, 2007)

*Any idea?*

Maybe this belong in another thread but this was also in the article:

"John Ruger, the athlete ombudsman for the U.S.O.C, said in an e-mail message. Ruger said that he identified the issue while looking into other matters of “team dynamics,” 

Any idea what sparked this investigation or what the team dynamics comment is about?


----------



## Mertz (Jul 15, 2005)

ArtV said:


> What is unethical is people who are suggesting things when they have no idea if they are actually true.
> Pitifull actually.
> Art


Really, so we shouldn't discuss or suggest things about philosophy, art, politics, mathmatics, music, religion, science or even sports?

Questioning something you find wrong or disburbing is not only ethical but an obigation.


----------

