If you've read "Running With The Buffaloes," you probably won't be surprised at the allegations of misconduct related to CU Boulder's cross-country program. I've never written much about the team because I was part of the organization well before the "legendary" coach Wetmore took the reins. It was also a dark time for me back then. Though the environment wasn't healthy for me and several other women on the varsity team, coach Quiller was a nice guy and never pestered me about my weight or body composition. He seemed to be aware of the dangers of being too thin. Several transfers were coming from programs that were downright abusive, so in comparison, things were pretty nice at CU.
Aside from an assistant coach who ran the 800 and who was very clearly on some kind of performance enhancer, there was nothing out of the ordinary going on that I was aware of, just too many miles prescribed and too much speedwork for my body. I wasn't alone there.
Coming from an extremely safe, clean, honest, and healthy BUY setting and working with one of the most sensible coaches on the planet, CU's methods at the time struck me as far from perfect but not terribly damaging. Nothing in the article about the ongoing investigation points to anything outright evil either. Still, I have my reasons to suspect there's more to the story than a former athlete upset about having her body composition tested, and, as one individual pointed out on Twitter, perhaps the reason why more people didn't balk at the methods described in "Running With The Buffaloes" is because it's a story about men and that kind of severe training was more accepted and not seen as anything all that unusual at the time. Maybe it should have been a red flag for more people, and it was for at least some of us. But things are very different now. We recognize and can define wrongdoing more quickly and accurately.
Training or overtraining aside, weight and body composition can provide a coach with valuable information. When I was at BYU, our coach weighed us, but the team setting was probably one of the healthiest running environments I had ever experienced. It's not so much that anyone in a position of authority gathers this kind of information; it's more how he or she goes about it and also what he or she does with that information.
Part of the reason why I have avoided sharing my suspicions about the darker side of the CU cross-country program that consistently produces successful runners is because all that I know about Wetmore and his training methods is hearsay. I know at least one person who was coached by him before he was the head coach at CU, and I know a few people who filled the role of assistant or volunteer coach while he was there. One of these ladies told me that Wetmore had all of his female athletes go on the pill. I thought it was weird, but she insisted it was to help prevent bone loss in runners who were "naturally" thin. But shouldn't going on birth control be a decision between a woman and her gynecologist, not a running coach? And all of them? Really? Again, it all seemed strange to me.
I also know other coaches who trained former CU athletes who ran under Wetmore's guidance. In fact, when I was writing my memoir, I interviewed a coach who was working with two CU alums who were too afraid to talk to me about their experiences there, even though I assured them that I would protect their anonymity. No go. Whatever trauma they experienced and privately confessed to their new coach would stay hidden from the rest of the world, but it was enough for me to wonder about his coaching style. And knowing some of the unsavory comments he said to at least one of his former athletes is enough for me to know that whatever facade he presents to the world probably isn't the full picture. Most likely, he's private and avoids interviews and the spotlight for a reason, and it's not because he's shy.
Shortly after the article about the investigation was published, I noticed that Joe Klecker posted on Twitter about his experience at CU under Wetmore. He suggested it was fine, nothing to see here, folks! Because he didn't experience anything that upset him and he was referred to a dietitian and other professionals rather than discuss weight or mental health with his coach, which is how it should be, he seems to imply that his experience can serve as a standard for everyone else. People respond differently to different types of stress, and what's not upsetting for one person might be unbearable for another. That's why a good coach takes into consideration individualistic experience and aims to provide a safe environment for everyone.
Another person on Twitter suggested that coaches should be able to tell who has an eating disorder, which is absolutely ridiculous. More often than not, you can't tell who has an eating disorder or who might develop one. Don't play guessing games when it comes the mental health of individuals.
What both posters are missing is that anyone at any given time can be susceptible to developing an eating disorder or can be dealing with a mental health issue. Just because one person's experience seems OK, it doesn't mean that the program overall isn't toxic, and just because one person found the environment unhealthy, it doesn't mean it's a bad program overall. That's why it's important to conduct an investigation and uncover patterns that can help determine what, if anything, needs to be addressed.
Regarding mental health in the running community, things have definitely changed over the years, and, fortunately, those in positions of authority are starting to become more aware of the issues that plague so many runners, especially when it comes to eating disorders.
In the 80s, there were plenty of unhealthy college running programs, probably more unhealthy ones than not, and it was mostly accepted that people, primarily coaches, would talk about weight and the importance of maintaining a certain physique in order to perform well. Over time, though, it became apparent that thin doesn't always mean faster and most definitely does not mean healthier. In other words, the more disaster struck young athletes, the more coaches learned that those who are too thin or end up engaging in other unhealthy behaviors in an attempt to control weight often end up experiencing more injuries and can't maintain health. It's better to have a little extra muscle mass or even fat than risk dieting to the point of not being able to run well or at all.
Of course, there are other ways for athletes to remain extremely thin while engaging in demanding, consistent training, but I'll stick to the topic at hand here and save additional speculation for another time.
Despite some programs softening their "don't get fat" stance, plenty of coaches still foster unhealthy athletic habits and contribute to an atmosphere that encourages eating disorders. Because the investigation is ongoing, we don't know the details of what the athletes at CU believe to be toxic conditions, but one of the more important messages in the Runner's World article states:
But body composition testing can have harmful effects on collegiate athletes when not conducted responsibly. Testing frequently, conveying results without appropriate sensitivity, or aiming to manipulate these numbers can trigger disordered eating and eating disorders, and contribute to a condition called relative energy deficiency in sport (RED-S), a mismatch between energy intake and expenditure that can lead to menstrual irregularities, weak bones, and other injuries and long-term health problems.
What's concerning is that there are others calling the investigation a witch hunt. It's hard to imagine that when at least five individuals find certain methods toxic there isn't something controversial going on behind the scenes. The idea that there were comparisons of body composition between current and former teams suggests that methods were questionable at minimum. Because of my history of eating disorders and also knowing some of the snide comments Wetmore has said to one former athlete, I might be assuming the worst, but I also know that, despite improvements, there aren't enough checks on programs. There also aren't sufficient mandatory training programs or evaluations for coaches. As one local professional coach put it, "Certification for coaches is a joke. Pretty much anyone can become certified."
With the investigation, it's important to listen to both sides and try to encourage more awareness around safer coaching methods. One of the best ideas is to have athletes work with registered dietitians and mental health professionals. It takes a village, so to speak, to raise a healthy athlete. Because eating disorders are so prevalent in runners, coaches really need to work on their approach with athletes. Even if only one person on the team is more sensitive, a coach should be cautious with how he or she addresses everyone.
This is a little bit rushed and probably contains grammatical errors, but I wanted to get my thoughts out there immediately in response to the article, something I rarely do anymore. It will be interesting to see what comes of the investigation, and I hope some former CU athletes who have been successful offer their insights. Then again, most people already know that those who are running at the top are often treated differently than those who aren't winning races. Like it or not, coaches are human and fallible.
