Steinbrenner Emphasizes U.S. Medals : Olympic Committee Hears 21-Page Report From Yankee Owner

As might have been expected from a commission chaired by New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner, the message delivered to the United States Olympic Committee’s executive board Sunday in a long-awaited but relatively short-winded report was that the United States’ Olympic mission is to win.

“Winning medals must always be the primary goal,” the report said.

To further that purpose, the report recommended that the USOC streamline its administration, request more cooperation and require more accountability from the national governing bodies of each Olympic sport and maximize its revenues through more aggressive marketing and fund-raising.

The 21-page report was prepared by an eight-member Olympic Overview Commission, which was formed by USOC President Robert Helmick last February at the Calgary Winter Games to review the USOC’s structure. The commission met 14 times, heard testimony from between 60 and 70 witnesses and received suggestions, many unsolicited, from hundreds of others.

Steinbrenner said that the commission prepared the report at no expense to the USOC. Although he said that there were several contributors, a number of executive board members said they believe Steinbrenner paid much of the cost himself.

After each of the commission members read from the report, which took an hour and 15 minutes, Steinbrenner was greeted with enthusiastic applause from most of the 89 executive board members as he approached the podium in a conference room at the Jantzen Beach Red Lion Inn.

In a voice choked with emotion, Steinbrenner, who became a public sector member of the executive board in 1985 and was elected Saturday as a vice president, said: “We are all trustees of a national treasure. In my mind, this is the greatest volunteer organization in the world, perhaps the best the world has ever seen. Your willingness to work for our athletes is tremendous.

“We must unify as never before to make the tough and difficult decisions. That was the most difficult thing about this report. We must reasses our priorities. But these are only recommendations. Take what you’ve heard and go from there. We have one single purpose and one single devotion, to the athletes and the national governing bodies.”

Reaction to the report was generally favorable, although some executive board members were more emphatic in their praise than others.

“It was a great report,” Helmick said. “It did everything we wanted to do. It’s all there in black and white. I predict a great percentage of it will be implemented.”

But considering the veil of secrecy surrounding the report that was not lifted until it was read, some executive board members were disappointed that it was not more innovative.

“People wanted something hot, and they got lukewarm,” said Andy Toro, the former USOC secretary who represents canoe/kayak on the executive board.

Actually, the report was not significantly different in substance than others that have been presented to the USOC in recent years, although this one received far greater attention, and probably will have more impact, because of the controversial Steinbrenner’s role.

“We’ve heard this presentation before,” said Rene Henry, a special assistant to Helmick. “There was the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, the Long-Range Planning Committee of 1985 and now this. We don’t need any more plans. Now is the time to act.”

Helmick said the USOC’s administrative committee will begin to act on some recommendations at its next meeting in May. There will be further discussion at the next executive board meeting a month later. But the USOC’s general counsel, Ron Rowan, said that it might take as long as two years to implement parts of the report.

Some of the recommendations, of course, will be ignored. Only minutes after the report suggested that plans for training centers at San Diego and Indianapolis be delayed, the executive board gave final approval to the one at San Diego. Ground breaking could begin as early as December.

As for other recommendations, if adopted, the plan would:

--Eliminate the 89-member executive board that meets three times a year and replace it with a 46-member board of directors that would meet four times a year.

--Open marketing, fund-raising and public relations offices in New York and a governmental relations office in Washington.

--Increase financial support to athletes through tuition assistance, the job opportunities program and direct payments.

--Establish a peer review board to evaluate the performances of the national governing bodies for each Olympic sport once every four years.

--Encourage greater cooperation between the USOC and the National Collegiate Athletic Assn.

Much of the report dealt with finances, which emerged as the commission’s primary concern. Without strong financial planning and accountability procedures, the report said that the USOC “may very well face financial disaster as early as the 1992-96 quadrennium.”

The USOC has approved a $248.3-million budget for the next four years, almost $100 million more than the budget for the previous four years.

To meet the increasing financial demands, the commission suggested that the USOC open offices in New York, which is the country’s corporate and media capital. Anticipating approval from the executive board, USOC officials already have begun negotiating for office space on Madison Avenue.

The report stipulates, however, that USOC headquarters should remain at Colorado Springs, at least for the present. The USOC moved to Colorado Springs from New York in 1981.

But while the report was filled with dollar signs, its focus was on the medal count.

“The Commission strongly believes that striving for excellence and desiring to win are the values that must be encouraged,” the report said. “The Olympic movement is by definition about competitions, which have only three medalists per event and which exist to find . . . those medalists.

“The charge of the USOC should be to ensure conditions enabling American athletes the unfettered opportunity to prepare themselves to compete internationally to the maximum of their abilities.

” . . . While other nations have made a national decision to devote major energy and greater portions of their national budgets to Olympic sport, the United States, by comparison, has not. The American public needs to recognize the differences in national systems and commitments that have wrought changes in the Olympics. America must provide a considerably stronger support system for our athletes.”

At a news conference later, Steinbrenner did not apologize for the emphasis in the report on winning over traditional Olympic ideals. When the French baron, Pierre de Coubertin, proposed the revival of the Olympics almost a century ago, he said that the most important thing for an athlete is not to win but to compete and give his best.

“Some guys (on the commission) didn’t want to address this,” Steinbrenner said. “But if winning wasn’t important, how come every newspaper prints the medal count on the front page every day (during the Olympics)?”

Some executive board members appreciated the commission’s challenge to athletes to compete to win at the Olympics. Although that would seem unnecessary, there was some criticism of U.S. athletes last year at Calgary and Seoul who appeared to be satisfied just to have made the Olympic team and earn a uniform.

Anita DeFrantz, president of the Amateur Athletic Foundation in Los Angeles and a bronze-medalist in rowing in 1976, praised the commission for attempting to assure athletes who want to compete that they will not lack support.

“I can buy a sweat suit anywhere,” she said. “I want to win a gold medal.”

Asked if she felt it was appropriate to evaluate an athlete’s success by his or her ranking in a competition, she said: “What else do you judge them by? ‘Do I look good in my uniform?’ ”

One thing on which everyone seemed to agree was Steinbrenner’s value to the commission.

“I’m impressed, indeed overwhelmed, with the quality of leadership provided by our chairman and his commitment to the Olympic movement,” said one commission member, Jim Morris of Indianapolis.

At the conclusion of the meeting, a number of executive board members approached their new vice president to ask for his autograph.