Lisa Johnson

4/27/15

Risk and Liability Final Project

Agency:
The United States Olympic Committee mission is To support U.S. Olympic and
Paralympic athletes in achieving sustained competitive excellence while
demonstrating the values of the Olympic Movement, thereby inspiring all
Americans. The United States Olympic Committee serves as representing
Governing organization for both the National Olympic Committee as well as the
National Paralympic Committee for the United States of America. Training, entering
and funding of team U.S.A. for the Olympics, Paralympics, Youth Olympics, Pan
American and Parapan American Games is facilitated through the USOC. The USOC
works with National Governing Bodies of many different sports for both Olympic and
Paralympic Athletes. Providing financial support as well as working to develop
custom impactful athlete-support and coaching programs to be done with joint
efforts of the National Governing Body. The USOC supports athletes for success both
on and off the field of play through athlete funding, health insurance, media and
marketing opportunities. Also, Olympic Training Center facilities and staff provide
athletes with services to enhance their athletic performances including sports
medicine; strength and conditioning; psychology, physiology and nutrition aid; and
technology to improve performance. In addition to athlete assistance and
development, the USOC oversees the process of U.S. cities bidding to host the
Olympics and Paralympic Games. The USOC also has a role in the bid process of
other international competitions. All U.S. trials sites and procedures for the Olympics
and Paralympics are approved through the USOC.

I am interested in working with The United States Olympic Committee. Im

interested in being the operations director for the entire organization or a specific
event. The organizational department within an organization such as the USOC
oversees the event entirely, the operations director is in charge of staging and
ensuring that the event runs efficiently and smoothly. I would love to work with the
IOC once I have gotten my foot in the door and worked with the USOC for a while
doing operations and event coordinating. The success of the operations department
within an organization the size of the USOC is very dependent on individual people
and groups doing their part to a high quality. Its like the gears in a clock, all the
gears do a specific job within the entire clock, when they work together its seamless
and easy but if one cog is out of sync it disrupts all the other factors that make the
clock tick. I think working with an individual country before the International stage
would be very beneficial. I would prefer to work with summer events such as soccer,
water polo, beach volleyball, or BMX racing.
Risk Identification:
There are many different aspects of risk that would be present in an organization
like the U.S. Olympic Committee due to the amount of individuals it impacts, the
pure size of the organization, and the complexity of the organization. As a
professional in the organizational structure in the USOC there are multiple risks that
as an operations director, you would need to be aware of. All four types of risk are
foreseeable and applicable in any situation; physical, psychological, financial, and
political. Three major risks that could be in an issue for the Olympic Committee as
an organization include; discrimination issues, negligence, and defamation of
character claims.

Within the negligence claims, one must be aware of the proper standard of care that
is expected from the organization. Negligence claims can contain risks in the form
of physical, financial, and psychological injury. There are many different types of
negligence situations that can arise in the operating of an event; facility related
negligence, equipment related, or human contact related negligence. Negligence
claims can be raised from several different individuals with contact with the
organization including athletes, spectators, officials, and employees of the
organization. One concern that I think is very realistic with an event such as the
Olympics is the likelihood of a spectator receiving injuries due to a rogue ball that
leaves the playing field or something of that nature. The safety of the viewers in the
stands is an obvious concern. In addition to the concern for the spectators, athlete
safety and health needs to be evaluated and atop the concerns column. A real risk
for athletes is their physical health and safety; wrongful death during a boxing
match could occur, a crash caused by a bad race track on a BMX course resulting in
a spinal cord injury, or an equipment malfunction during a fencing match could
cause serious physical damages to the participating individual.
Discrimination claims are a definite concern of the U.S. Olympic Committee due to
the fact that the USOC works directly with many different federally protected
classes including race, gender, and disability. A concern for the Constitutional Rights
of the spectators, employees, coaches, athletes, and medical staff is a risk that the
USOC needs to be cautious of because any claims of discrimination can affect the
publics view of the organization just as any claim can but U.S. citizens are
extremely passionate and aware of Constitutional Rights. Discrimination issues have
the potential of creating a risk of psychological and financial injury to those affected
by discrimination. One concern that could become an issue for the USOC could be

discrimination based on race among athletes that are selected as well as employees
that are promoted to higher positions and that receive a pay increase. Another
discriminatory issue that could become a hotly debated topic is gender equality and
differences within gender specific sports and events.
Defamation of Character is a really tricky situation within the Olympic organization
because as an organization, you are working with highly visible and publically
watched athletic icons. As an operations director you work with athletes that are
tested regularly for banded substances and performance enhancing drugs. As
endorsements from companies, interviews with magazines, and television
appearances are external experiences that need to be monitored for issues with
character and defamation claims. In house defamatory claims can destroy an
organizations reputation. The risks that are connected directly to defamation
include physical, psychological, financial, and political damages. Defamation of
character is classified within the intentional torts section of a civil court proceedings
but defamatory claims can also be related to Constitutional Rights of privacy and
Intentional infliction of emotional distress. A situation that may arise within the
USOC pertaining to defamation is the testing positive of banded substances by an
Athlete that is later released and found to be incorrect.

Risk Evaluation:
Identified Risk
Negligence
Spectator
Athletes
Discrimination
Defamation of Character

Frequency

Severity

2
2-3
2
2

3-4
3-4
4-5
3

Negligence: Spectator injury at an Olympic or Paralympic event does not occur too
frequently due to the heightened standard of care that has been exercised by the
organization and the facility staff to ensure the safety of the spectators. When
incidents do occur, they typically are not too severe on the damages levels of injury
to the spectator. I would say that the lower rate of severe injury to spectators in the
Olympic and Paralympic setting is due to the general standard of care and the
action steps that are taken by other athletic organizations in facility upgrades and
programming. Realistic consequences that could come from spectator injury could
have stemmed from a ball leaving the field of play, hitting a spectator in the head,
causing fractures and head trauma. In this realistic case, the injured spectator
would raise claims of negligence due to the physical, financial, and psychological
damages against the organization, facility, owner, and the league if it were
applicable.
In conjunction with the spectator safety, athlete safety is a high risk. I ranked
athlete injury due to negligence a little higher than that of spectators because
athletes are the x-factor in an event. There is so much physical and psychological
demand on the athletes that injury in bound to happen, the question is whether the
USOC or another Governing organization is liable for negligence. The USOCs main
concern should be the protection and safety of their athletes, so I would rank those
negligent claims more severity than those of spectators based on the fact that
athletes are the number one concern of the organization. To both spectator and
athlete risk there is an aspect of assumption of risk that is present with their
participation in viewing or participating in the event that needs to be recognized.
The realistic consequences of an athlete getting seriously injured in competition or

during a training session due to a negligent action by the USOC could include loss of
ability to compete, loss of wages from lack of competing, or even permanent
damages such as paralysis or death. If any of these situations were to arise from a
negligent act on the part of the USOC, lawsuits for physical, psychological and
financial damages would be raised in addition to others.
Discrimination: The frequency of discrimination taking place in the USOC is really
low but when it does occur, it is a severe case. As I stated earlier, discrimination is
classified under Constitutional Torts which makes it a rather touchy subject and
highly controversial when it occurs because discrimination is seen as an
unacceptable occurrence that was alive in the past as opposed to still being around.
As a society, we like to believe that discrimination does not happen in the modern
age because we have progressed to far from where we were. So when
discriminatory accusations come to light, the accusations are seen as despicable
due to the idea that we believe, as a society, we have overcome that. Severity, I
believe has a lot to do with public opinion in this section. There are more severe
discriminatory acts than compared to others but when the public hears of any
discriminatory actions being done or even tolerated, it is often blown out of
proportion ergo increasing the severity in the public eye. In a realistic situation,
discriminatory claims have a little more emphasis on them due to precedent and
history. In a discrimination claim including race, one may sue the USOC for
discrimination of a federally protected class with damages of financial,
psychological, political, and physical sort.
Defamation of Character: I evaluated the frequency of defamation of character
incidents within the USOC pretty low due to the fact that defamation cases must
have a third party or persons that was being intentionally told of the false

statement. Slander or libel cases can be made if the information that was being told
was false or defamatory in any way to the athletes reputation. As a connection to
the Constitutional right of privacy, an individuals reputation is privately their own.
Defamation severity relies heavily upon what the defamatory statement included
and where it was publically released.

Case Precedent:
Allred v. Capital Area Soccer League, Inc. - Negligence: harm to a spectator at an
athletic event.
In the case of Allred v. Capital Area Soccer League, the plaintiff, Teresa Lynn Allred
was injured when she attended a Professional Womens League Soccer game. The
plaintiff was struck in the head with a rogue soccer ball prior to the kickoff of the
game, allegedly causing severe head injury. The plaintiff filed a claim of ordinary
negligence against the facility and sought monetary damages for the injuries she
sustained. The plaintiffs argument of negligence was based on the facilities lack of
protective netting surrounding the spectator seating. The defendant in this case
counter claimed with the assumption of risk taken on by the plaintiff in addition to
contributory negligence that the plaintiff was responsible for. I other sport facility
cases involving spectator injury due to objects leaving the field of play, the most
common example is baseballs going foul during a game. In those related cases, the
facility was not found liable for negligent because of the assumed risk that the
spectator had accepted as well as the facility providing the typically amount of care
needed to ensure safety. In the Allred case, the court ultimately decided that Capital
Area Soccer League did not breach their duty of care by not providing the protective

netting due to the fact that the spectator, Allred, had assumed the risk of injury by
entering the premises.
The case precedent that is set can provide good information in creating and
implementing my own risk management plan. The main points I would take from
this case that I would keep in mind for my own risk management plan would include
the importance of making the risks of the event or location accessible and easy to
know so that the individuals that enter the area are completely aware of their
assumed risk. I would have the risks typed on the ticket, thus ensuring that all
individuals that enter the area have had the opportunity to look over and review the
risks involved in the activity. Another aspect of important information that I gleaned
from this case is the importance of knowing the standard of care that other
organizations in the area and the specific setting are actively doing. In this case,
there was no protective netting due to the fact that it wasnt a typical action to be
done within the industry of Professional Soccer. So being aware of what other
organizations that are in the same type of industry are doing to ensure safety is a
good way to evaluate your own organizations risk management approaches.
Exum v. USOC- discrimination due to race within employment.
The plaintiff, Wade F. Exum filed a claim of discrimination against him in terms and
conditions of his employment because of his race. Mr. Exum claimed that he was
constructively discharged and denied various promotions and appointments
because of his African- American heritage. Background of the situation, Wade Exum
was hired as a Director of Drug control Administration for the USOC in 1991.
According to the plaintiff, the USOC encourages doping and that his anti-doping
efforts put him in an inherent conflict with the rest of the USOC. During his

employment at the USOC, other employees were promoted while he was not, one
example he brought to light was of Scott Blackmun, a white employee. The plaintiff
also stated that he was promised a position that was not yet created, Chief Medical
Officer. In addition, when the United States Anti-Doping Agency was established in
2000, USOC officials did not submit Exums name for position consideration. Exum
was asked to turn over certain medical information to the newly formed USADA but
he refused, his supervisor repeated his order and allegedly stated that the Plaintiff
could leave the USOC sooner rather than later. The Plaintiff stated that this
interaction with his supervisor caused him a great amount of stress, and that a
psychologist told him to resign for his physical and emotional well-being. In June
2000 the Plaintiff tendered his resignation from the USOC, he stated that he was
resigning because he under duress and protest because of the USOCs actions of
encouraging doping activities among athletes as well as its hostile attitude towards
racial minorities. The following day, the USOC suggested alternatives to resignation
and stated that the USOC would be willing to investigate his allegations. Mr. Exum
refused to take part in any investigation of discriminatory acts and stated that his
resignation was final.
As stated previously, the Plaintiff raised claims against the USOC for various
instances of racial discrimination. The district court dismissed the case and the
appellate court affirmed the district courts decision. The plaintiff had no direct
evidence of intentional racial discrimination, ergo, he had to rely on circumstantial
inference. The constructive discharge claim was dismissed because the Plaintiff
resignation was voluntary. With the claims against his lack of promotions during his
time at the USOC, the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case of race
discrimination, therefore, they were dismissed. With the claim of his name not being

recommended for a position in the USADA, the plaintiff failed to prove the USOC
treated him less favorably than anyone else in the respect of race, therefore, the
plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case on his claim for discrimination on the
part of not being recommended for the job. Basically, the plaintiff was unable to
prove that he was treated differently or unfairly based on his race.
I think the main thing that I pulled from this case that I would incorporate into my
own risk management plan would be the organizations willingness to work with the
individual by offering to conduct an investigation while letting him reconsider his
resignation. I think that shows that the organization really does care about the
employees that run it. I would adopt that information into my own risk management
plan; set a policy that if claims of discrimination had occurred job security would be
offered through appointment to another position or department while the
investigation was being conducted. Something that is not inherently said but I
gained from this case, is the importance of documenting and reporting
discriminatory acts promptly. As a person in a management position, I need to
ensure that the proper process and channel are available for situations to be
handled properly. Also, discrimination can occur between any interactions of
different individuals, so as a director, I need to be prepared to have the safety of the
employees as well as the athletes in matters of discrimination.
Reynolds v. International Amateur Athletic Federation- Defamation due to doping
allegations.
Harry L. Reynolds, the plaintiff, raised numerous charges against the International
Amateur Athletic Federation. The plaintiff had tested positive for banned substances
during a track and field event. The plaintiff was suspended from competition for two

years by the International Amateur Athletic Federation, the defendant, which would
keep him from competing in the U.S. Olympic Trials for the 1992 Barcelona games.
The IAAF issued a press release stating that Reynolds was tested following the
Monte Carlo meet and tests revealed banned substances. The release went on to
say that Reynolds had been suspended and offered a hearing by TAC, the governing
body of Track and Field. American sports publications and newspapers picked up the
press release and reported the suspension of Reynolds as a news headline. The
IAAFs trail upheld Reynolds two year suspension from competition so the plaintiff
filed addition actions in the Southern District of Ohio. Alleging four different causes:
breach of contract, breach of contractual due process, defamation and tortious
interference with business relations. The plaintiff sought monetary damages and
temporary reinstatement for the Olympic Trials.
Reynolds claimed that the IAAF purposefully directed defamatory statements to
Reynolds, that he would suffer damages in his home state of Ohio. The plaintiff
claimed that the false IAAF drug report was both defamatory and interfered with his
contractual relationships. He stated that he lost Ohio corporate endorsement
contracts worth over $2,500,00 as well as appearance fees of over $1, 500,00.
Allegedly the false press release by the IAAF had lost the plaintiff over $4,000,00 in
his home state of Ohio, due to the IAAF intentionally and purposefully directed
their tortious acts toward Plaintiff, and such acts has a devastating effect upon
Plaintiff. The defamation claim by the plaintiff states that his contacts in Ohio and
business relationships were interfered with due to the IAAF intentional defamation
of his character. The initial alleged defamatory statement was done in England, the
plaintiff is raising claims that he faced defamation consequences in Ohio. The major
question in this case is whether the IAAF, in making the alleged defamatory

statement in England, had minimum contacts in Ohio thus giving the statement
root. The courts found many reasons for the defamation claim to not stand in Ohio.
First, the press release was centered on the Plaintiffs actions in Monaco, not Ohio.
Next, Reynolds is an international athlete whose professional reputation is not
centered in Ohio. The defendant itself did not publish or circulate the reports in
Ohio, Ohio papers did. Ohio was not the center of attention during the press
conference. Finally, even though Reynolds lost Ohio endorsement contracts, there
was no evidence that IAAF knew of the contracts. The press release that the IAAF
released did not directly accuse the Plaintiff of using banned substances, it recalled
the fact that the lab had reported a positive drug test, which Reynolds had been
suspended and was offered a hearing.
The importance of this one case is major within the operations and USOC antidoping departments. The important information here for me is that a claim of
defamation can be filed even when the information is not stated in the same
location as that of the repercussions of the statement occurred. As an agency that
works nationwide as well as internationally, being aware that distance does not
always guarantee the safety of your organization. In addition to distance and
location aspect of the press release, I think an important aspect that was not said
inherently but just sticking to the facts of what the laboratory found on the test. Not
adding any opinion or judgement based thoughts into an interview or a press
release is important to remember when dealing with defamed situations.
Risk Treatment:
Negligence: With the spectator injury potential, I would treat this risk with a retain
or reduce approach to risk treatment. I would also advise for there to be some

amount of transfer risk treatment available in extreme situations, its always better
to have insurance to protect against that one in a million situation. Case precedent
had a lot of impact over what risk treatment approach I would implement, due to
the amount of duty of care that was shown in the case that I read in addition to the
cases that are associated with the specific case I used early in the document. The
spectators assumption of risk has a lot of influence over the risk treatment as does
the facility trends of protective netting which connects back to the proper amount of
duty of care that is owed by the facility. Its a balancing act between the facility and
organizations duty of care and the spectators assumption of risk.
My treatment plan for an event in the professional setting would include warning
signs posted every 100 feet in the spectator sitting area, warning the patrons of the
possibility of rogue objects leaving the playing field. I would also make sure that the
tickets to enter the premises would have the risks that are to be assumed by the
attendee are printed on the back, thus, ensuring that all individuals had the means
of becoming aware of their risks. In addition, I would also have an announcement
running before and during the event had begun to be aware of potential dangers
leaving the field of play. When an object would enter the sitting area, I would have
staff members ensure that the spectators involved in the incident were physically
alright.
There are some positives and negatives to every plan, I believe that the positives
would include a more assumption of risk responsibility being placed on those
individuals entering the area as opposed to all the liability being on your
organization. A negative could include the announcement not saying ever possible
situation or object that could leave the playing field, thus, leaving individuals open
to questions. Another negative could also be placing the staff that check on

spectators in difficult situations because if something were to happen, the staff

would be the first to be targeted for negative comments or physical altercations.
Also, a spectator could raise the accusation that a staff member did not check up on
their section after the intrusion of an object, so there could be some potential paper
work that would have to be implemented to ensure the staff are not being falsely
accused of negligently avoiding a situation.
Discrimination: Discrimination of all sorts should be avoided as much as possible
due to Constitutional Rights proceeding and issues that could arise from that. In my
own risk treatment plan I would categorize discrimination as one risk that should be
avoided due to the amount of public ridicule, financial damages that could ensue,
and because human life should be held up to a higher standard. The precedent
within the Exum case was interesting to me, the plaintiff did not have any hard
evidence that discrimination was occurring. So in my own organization, I would
implement an efficient process of filing complaints of discrimination and timely
investigating those complaints. I also really like how the USOC responded to his
complaint of discrimination and his resignation. They offered to investigate and
offered to let him revoke his resignation. During complaints in my own risk
treatment plan, I would have a system that protects the jobs of those who have filed
the complaint by offering them a different position in another department as the
investigation was being done. To protect the employees that chose to file a
complaint and follow the proper channel, I would have an insurance plan that
protects the job for that individual.
Positives that could come out of this treatment of risk that I would implement would
be less employees resigning or leaving the work environment because of the
possibility to relocate to another department or move under another supervisor

while the situation was handled. A negative could be employees taking advantage
of being able to move to other areas, where there might be a faster track to a
promotion or leadership position. There would have to be an honor code as well as a
system to check the allegations. I also think that the number of reports might
increase, therefor, work load for the investigation board could become too much.
And investigations into claims would have the possibility of not being conducted in a
timely manner or as thoroughly as possible.
Defamation of Character: Defamation of character should be avoided as well. I do
not think it would cause an organization to close down but I do believe that it should
be avoided due to the reputation of the company or organization being in the spot
light of the public. The precedents from the Reynolds case was very interesting to
me within defamation, the fact that the Plaintiff was an international professional
athlete made it difficult for him to win a claim of defamation within his home state
because the likelihood of it causing known damages was small. Also, I thought it
was interesting that the IAAF did not know of his other endorsement deals within
Ohio. So that makes me wonder, is it better for a governing body to know all
endorsements and appearance deals or did it help with this case. If I were to
implement a policy that were to make all endorsement deals known to the USOC,
there could be some positive as well as negatives. A positive could include the
athletes protection from defamed comments and if there were defamed comments,
the athlete would have grounds to file a claim for lost wages because the USOC
would have been aware of the potential damages with the release of a statement. A
negative to this idea of knowing all endorsements would be the pure amount of
information that would need to be collected and continually updated. Also, many
athletes would feel like the USOC would be almost running their lives or at least

always having a hand in their personal lives. It could create a riff between the USOC
and the athletes its supposed to protect.
In a practical application, I would use discretion when addressing certain doping
related incidents until it was confirmed. I would also give the athlete an opportunity
to step down instead of being suspended, it lets the athlete still have some grace as
well as taking responsibility.
Sources:
http://www.teamusa.org/about-the-usoc
Theodoraki, E. (2007). Olympic Event Organization (p. 112). Chicago, Illinois: ButterworthHeinemann.

Allred v. Capital Area Soccer League

Exum v. US Olympic Committee
Reynolds v. International Amateur Athletic Federation