Former University President Sharpens His Role on the U.S. Olympic Committee

Matthew Hersh

Last June, when former Princeton University President Harold Shapiro was selected for a spot on the new 11-member board of directors of the United States Olympic Committee, he found himself not only in the vanguard of a restructured committee, but in the position of helping establish a clearer means of governance among the generation-old system that oversees the U.S. involvement in the Olympic games.

According to Prof. Shapiro, the idea was to create less confusion at the helm: "The USOC had an extremely large board of directors trying to accommodate representatives from different sports, and as a result, it became an organization that lacked adequate transparency, adequate accountability, and adequate effectiveness."

In addition to the former University president, the USOC decided to have four votes on its board represent "independent directors," or individuals who have no current affiliation with any athletic organization.

Prof. Shapiro, a president emeritus and a professor of economics and public affairs at the University, said that a smaller entity would serve the U.S. Olympic interests "more effectively."

Indeed it does.

The USOC's announcement, handed down under the leadership of chairperson Peter Ueberroth, the president of the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee in 1984, is the most drastic governance transition in its 104-year history. The reform process that began in February of last year included six hearings before the U.S. Congress, and the appointment of a five-member Independent Review Commission via a recommendation of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee.

Of course, Prof. Shapiro could only speculate as to why he was nominated. As a former member of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Problems of Major Intercollegiate Athletic Programs on the American Council of Education, and a former member of the Division I Board of Directors and NCAA Executive Committee, he has more than enough to bring to the table.

He remains, however, humbled by his selection.

"Maybe somebody who saw me in those roles thought I would be a good member. I think they were looking for people who had run organizations, had some reputation for integrity and the capacity to move organizations along," he said, adding with a smile, "it's not like I was a great Olympic athlete at some time or a great coach."

But he does have faith that he and the other directors on the USOC board can make something more of the Olympic Games than simply an international tournament. He said that while anybody can hope that high ideals can bring together the international community, the Olympics can offer a reprieve of sorts to an otherwise turbulent global environment.

Characterizing this as a "modest" objective, Prof. Shapiro said that the Olympic movement could potentially improve international relations.

"[The games] could bring countries who are otherwise having a very hard time getting along, even speaking to each other, some potential to join together in an activity.

"I don't want to exaggerate this, the Olympic movement is not going to transform the world, but it has some modest possibilities in this regard."

He also emphasized the hold that spectator sports have on younger people, citing children who emulate their sports heroes: "I thought to the extent that the Olympic movement can reflect what I consider important values, it could, again in a modest way, have an impact on young people in this country.

One story that had stolen the spotlight throughout the months prior to the Olympic games involved what Prof. Shapiro calls the "enhancement issue." In May, after testing positive for the stimulant modafinil, U.S. track and field star Kelli White received a punitive two-year ban for using performance-enhancing drugs. Additionally, Ms. White was stripped of all medals received in the past four years, including three gold medals in world champion events.

The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency also claimed that the sprinter had used a once-undetectable steroid in addition to using erythropoietin, an endurance-enhancing hormone. The doping issue has also tainted recent stellar performances in other sports, including Lance Armstrong's six consecutive Tour de France victories, and San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds's homerun heroics.

"The way I think about it, the enhancement issue is: why are we concerned? Should we be concerned about performance-enhancing anything?" he said. "It's an interesting issue that has not been carefully thought out."

Formerly the chairman of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Prof. Shapiro said the doping subject is an issue that he has observed not only in athletics, but in "life in general."

"If a drug is thought to be unsafe, then I think it clearly should be banned, not simply because it may harm the athlete who's taking it, which is an important enough reason, but what about all the young people who mimic that athlete who don't have a full understanding? I think there are some risks because of the impact on others."

"We don't let a mine worker go down into a mine shaft any longer without certain precautions," he continued. "It doesn't matter how willing he is to do it. We say 'no'."

The philosophical decision arises, Prof. Shapiro said, when questions like "Should it be banned?" and "What is the reason for banning it?" enter the picture. He said there should be some sort of standard imposed before certain drugs are banned altogether. Many athletes consider drugs like phenylephrine and pseudoephedrine, the main ingredients in Sudafed, as harmless.

"People do take performance-enhancing drugs in other parts of life. If someone takes an aspirin to get rid of a headache, is that not the real you? There, of course, safety is not an issue, but on what basis do we consider certain performance-enhancing techniques legitimate and which ones ought to be illegitimate?"

So would it be better to say "no drugs?" Prof. Shapiro said there should be strict guidelines in place defining what a drug "is" before a ban can be enforced.

"Let's suppose there's a drug that's safe and let's suppose that everybody knows about this drug, what would be wrong with allowing people to take it?"

But Prof. Shapiro said that with less bureaucracy and an eye on open critical thought, subjects like doping can be better approached by the USOC with its smaller government restructuring.

"With any board that exceeds 100 [previously the board numbered 125 members], it's very hard to imagine anything that size to be effective, so while decreasing the size doesn't guarantee anything, I think it makes movement within [the governing body] a lot more likely," he said.

With the entire board in place for a few months, the members have recently completed their first assignment and have begun tackling what Prof. Shapiro calls "very worthy objectives," concerning not only how various games-related issues will be handled in future Olympiads, but the completion of a structural overhaul that has yet to find closure.

"That's something that we are going to face up to now," he said. He added that he is looking forward to getting immersed in an international event that carries some personal sentiment as well.

Having first attended the Olympics in Montreal, his hometown, at the 1976 summer games, Prof. Shapiro said that he is continually impressed with the way local governments have handled creating an infrastructure that supports an influx of thousands of athletes and spectators. He specifically referred to this year's games in Athens, a city that, to him, stood out from those in past Olympics. Having been to Athens, commonly known for pollution and less-than-pristine surroundings, he found that the city had cleaned up its act.

"I felt like I was in a different place," he said.

The outpouring of support from the Greek government and spectators for countries currently in distress also impressed Prof. Shapiro.

"That was really quite noticeable and quite touching," he said.