I do not know what is true or not, but I believe that if this swim coach (or anyone else) did in fact maliciously delete records, then he should be terminated immediately. This is completely outrageous and a huge embarrassment to the program and indeed the University. I guess some coaches get awfully comfortable in their positions, especially after having won many championships, that they think they own the place and can do whatever they please. Huge props to Bob Bowlsby for condemning the alleged activity in no uncertain terms. I'm not familiar with the varsity swim program, but I do remember seeing this coach strut around the pool several years back when I used to swim recreationally... I remember when the varsity swimmers would obnoxiously stay in the pool even after it was time for rec swimmers to begin swimming; the swim coaches and pool manager never said anything to the swimmers (to my knowledge, at least) and I remember thinking the head swim coach seemed like a jerk. Anyway, I am happy to see the Athletics Department show some integrity by correcting the swimmers' times and by promising to take appropriate punitive actions.

I agree with Jessica. Also, I think that the coach's punishments should be made public. This guy has obviously done a lot of bad stuff during his time at Stanford, and strong measures need to be taken. This should be used as an example for other university employees to treat others with fairness and respect.

Kenney made a big mistake. However, everyone who immediately calls for his head need to calm down a bit and treat themselves to a little dose of reality. Varsity sports programs, especially perenially competitive ones, are no walk in the park. It is a foolish thing to expect that a coach gets along with every player, and it is a foolish thing to expect that every coach is a great father-mother figure for all their kids. Mind games are played, mean things are said. You want a competitive program? deal with it. To wish that a coach gets punished because he doesn't get along with all his athletes, is vindictive, or 'seems' arrogant, is ludicrous. To be angry that varsity athletes lounge around in a pool after hours of hard practice is also ridiculous, and it has nothing to do with Kenney's major lapse in judgment. No doubt he should be strongly punished, no doubt also in my mind that he should not be fired. Coaches at this school, and particularly at some others, have done much worse, and have turned their heads away from much worse. Let's have some logical thinking and make sure the punishment fits the crime rather than letting kneejerk reactions take hold.

BTW, I believe McClean was a walk-on athlete which means he had no economic compulsion to have to put up with Coach Kenney's dictatorial edicts and style. Mike was someone who truly swam for the love of the sport and to represent Stanford honorably. What a shame that he was treated in this fashion. I am embarassed as a Stanford alum and would hope that the athletic administration would do more to insure that the sports programs reflect the priorities of the University - Student first, Athlete second.

Eric, I agree that there's a fine line between mandating and encouraging, but Kenney went *way* beyond that line in this case for several reasons. To paraphrase what I think you're saying: (a) It's okay to break NCAA rules a little bit, because you can't win if you don't; (b) If other schools do something "wrong," it's okay for Stanford to do it too; and (c) Regarding Kenney's future ... it is okay for Stanford as an institution to tacitly prioritize placing de facto mandated off-season training ahead of "academic" pursuits by not firing Kenney. Perhaps this is all a matter of priorities, and perhaps the reality is that you can't "win" in today's environment without playing a little dirty. But I personally can't accept that logic, and I don't think Stanford should either.

i agree that this is a terrible mistake on skip's part. he'll pay the price in due time. i question the timing of the allegations/articles, though. why break this story just before his team is headed for the national championships? i'm with "swammer" - this is some shady business! the chronicle and daily stanford shouldn't have allowed those cal guys to stir this up right before ncaa's.

It seems misguided to fault news organizations and the timing of reporting for putting Stanford athletes in an awkward situation right before a major competition. Skip Kenney-not the SF Chronicle nor any "Cal Guys"-appears really to be the one to blame for bringing this kind of unwelcome publicity to Stanford Athletics. Stanford Athletics is better than this and I hope the administration's "corrective and punitive" action sends a very strong message that this kind of behavior will not in any way be tolerated.

Lea Maurer (that new coach for the women's stanford swim team) is one of the most ethical and caring coach around. To imply that she is guilty of forcing female swimmers to practice in the off season is disgusting.

To the folks saying you have to break the rules to compete - you obviously were not an athlete at Stanford. One of the defining differences with Stanford athletics is that we don't cheat and we believe we can still win by following the rules and not bending the rules. You may know one or two anecdotal stories but I assure you those are the exception and out of context.

All I could think of when I read this was...
Sweep the leg!

To Jessica:
As an ex-Stanford swimmer, I find your comments about swimmers lounging around in the pool silly to say the list. Also, swim practice for the team is usually early in the morning, at around 6 am, so I don't think the people in the pool before noon time that you refer to were Stanford swim team members. And even if they were, so what? They're not in charge of putting in the lane lines, and they don't have to talk to a disgruntled recreational swimmer if they don't want to.

To all others:

Yes, Skip has an abrasive personality and gets along with some people and not with others. Swimming is, unfortunately, a year round sport, and not swimming in the off-season is highly detrimental to the high level of performance required to compete at the D I level. Not training during the summer is also a lack of respect to the rest of the team and the coaching staff. Skip has never shied away from punishing swimmers whose actions he believed hurt the team's prospects of winning an NCAA title, regardless of the swimmer's stature. Kicking someone off the team for a drinking incident is nothing new and one may argue that it was appropriate.

Having said that, however, I do believe that Skip should not have tampered with the records, and I'm at a loss as to why he did this. This does damage the Stanford image and there's no excuse. I'm not sure what the punishment should be for this, especially given the high standards that Stanford sets for its athletes, coaches, and indeed its students, faculty, and staff.

ExStanSwim and others:
I completely agree with you when you say the punishment may have been appropriate for the drinking incident, but many articles state that 2 people were caught for drinking and only one was kicked off?
And when was the media guide made available to the public or released online anyway? Articles say that Kenney attempted to make the guide available to only the team, the media, and "select" alumni. What does that even mean? Only people that he did not hold one of these grudges against? I follow stanford swimming pretty religiously (as do many of us jealous peons in the swimming world) and I recall the media guide was released online just last week.

Of course us swimmers must train during the off-season. There IS no off-season in swimming, and if you're a stanford swimmer and you're not training with the team, you're likely not getting the kind of work in that you could be. Coaches will always appreciate more those swimmers who are willing to put in the extra effort to train with the team outside of the school season. I know plenty of swimmers who have taken internships away from campus or studied abroad causing a hault in their training, and they've all paid the price in one way or another. To be a swimmer at this university requires incredible dedication, and asking Skip to hold nothing against his swimmers who choose to show less dedication than the rest of the team is quite arrogant in itself, I believe. I agree that Skip shouldn't have changed the record books due to a grudge, who wouldn't disagree with that? But firing a top college swimming coach due to a lapse in judgement on a media guide decision would be hasty. He's apologized, the names are being put back in the book. I've had plenty of experience with all of this, and you are all taking it way too far. He was wrong, it was a bad choice. The end.

And honestly, being upset at swimmers for lingering in the pool after their often times three hour practices is ridiculous. They aren't stanford students as well? Why can't they stay at the pool and swim recreationally? Why should they have to help switch the pool if you can't get up there and do it either? Just a thought for you, 'rec swimmers'.

I swam for Skip as far back as highschool. I have coached swimming on most all levels, maintaining contact with coach. I swam for the University of Tennessee. I know through expierence what it takes to not only win as a team on the level coach Kenny has I also know what coaches go through. No way do I believe coach would intionally violate NCAA rules, but I can believe in todays time a student athlete would take a shot at a great coach if he was into his own selfish gain and not concerned about the team. I was taught team comes first. I have sent 5 swimmers to Stanford to compete for Skip. Time to support coach guys...

its not the swimming world you dont know anything about its the sports world. I do wish you the best... Hope its not your goal to win a NCAA championship. By the way nice timing for this to come up...1 week before NCAAs. Hope the lad is getting his fair share of attention. Go Stanford

I swam for Skip and graduated from Stanford in 1993. I agree with ExStanSwim that Skip should not have changed the top times list. It was wrong and everyone agrees with that.

Skip believes and teaches a team concept in swimming. His term for it is "team chemistry" and for anyone who has not swum at Stanford for Skip, it is meaningless. One of Skip's greatest talents as a coach is the ability to meld a group on individuals into a team. For a sport often seen as individual in nature, this is a revolutionary concept and gave me a motivation to compete and train that I had not experienced before.
I don't know the specific facts that led to the suspensions and dismissals that have been reported, so I cannot judge Skip's decisions. I do know that Skip cares for his swimmers individually, but for the team above all else. Individual actions sometimes have effects on others and I trust Skip to have made his decisions based on the best interest of the entire group of men under his control and not simply out of his personal opinions.
For those of you who only know Skip Kenney from what you have read the past 2 days, please know that you have not heard all of his story or even all of the current story. He has given his life to this program and I am proud to have swum for him despite his error in judgment in omitting the times from the media guide.

I agree with Chas: Skip was always big on the team concept, and he was willing to lay down the law, even if it meant losing one of the "studs" in order for the team to succeed. I witnessed this several times. From a personal perspective, I can also say that I was always treated fairly and with respect, despite not being a top-notch swimmer, because I went to all the practices, didn't complain, and did what I could for the team to succeed. I don't know the particulars about McLean's situation (I was not there), but I'm sure we haven't heard the entire story.

I swam for Skip during elementary school, high school, and college. Stanford swimming is only great because of SKIP's strong handed dedication to "Stanford's team above superstar individuals"... And there is no individual person on his teams, who was above team, and the occasional feathers being ruffled (of some who felt they were going to go 'solo') was part of the reason for his team success. "Drinking" in irresponsible ways -based on how Skip directly saw it (ie. the next morning in the pool, we could always see it's effects on the hangover'd drinker), or "not working out during the summer" (something that we scholarship swimmers never would even consider doing to the team) - these team failures are not going to help any such Stanford championship teams. And we Swimmers would always appreciate if our coach Skip would help our team: and insist on such year-round conditioning if our teammates wanted to remain on our teams.... (p.s. apparently, the NCAA also already concluded Skip was NOT breaking rules at all here, so end of story on that). Innocent on those old issues.....
Thus the only new event: is the deleting of records in some list of old swimming times we had all posted....I also agree that the deletion of records was poor judgement (and he has aplogized, so if some administrative appropriate punishment is needed, fine). But: there is no other area where his 'style' needs to change. Unlike academic school classes (which is needed for graduation) SWIMMING TEAM MEMBERSHIP IS NOT SOME "RIGHT" THAT WE STUDENTS ALL HAVE.... The JOB of the coach is to win with his chosen team of ELECTIVE, like minded swimmers. Division one championship coaches need to judge 'team chemistry first'. Division one championship one coaches should have the right (and DUTY) to 'kick off' those who in his judgement, undermine the success of the TEAM chemistry. There is NOT any requirement for 'swimming' for one's graduation, so this is unlike any 'school classes'....the rules are different here. That is how SKIP successfully wins, and you are welcome to join and support his team concept (which happens to win successfully for decades....with tons of happy Stanford Alums in his wake).
In terms of the Rec swimmer complaints: if you had a problem, then please just say something THEN (a decade ago?). Those swimmers have the right to be IN THE POOL since they also have REC SWIMMER rights....and the negligent LIFEGUARDS at that time needed to have better prepared the pool - complain to them, if you were unhappy with them....this is just 'sour grapes, years later' on an un-related topic you should have brought up years ago, is not an appropriate part of the discussion. The career of an un-involved successful swimming coach has nothing to do with this....

26 conference championships this guy has and 7 or 8 national championships. Clearly this guy knows something about coaching that very few other coaches do -- namely how to build and maintain a long-term top level program. It is simply not possible to do that if you are a jerk or not a likable person. Skip's program is reverred amongst all athletic programs nationwide. Many of his athletes are academic all-american and many alumni now occupy prominent positions in their chosen fields.
The error here is easily corrected and will be corrected. Kenney has already acknowledged that it was a mistake. When it is corrected, what was the harm? Maybe some hurt feelings. The conferences are responsible for the official record keeping so there was never any chance that these accomplishments would be completely erased. Do hurt feelings warrant a total character assassination and career destruction? No way. We should all look at the characters involved here and consider the source. THe NCAA has already determined that there was no violations.
The fact that this issue was purposely brought to light this week further proves that these young men don't give a darn about the team. By getting the coach suspended the week of the national championships hurts their teammates as well as the coach. Maybe they didn't care about that. Apparently this is nothing more than a continuation of the same behavior these guys exhibited when they were on the team.
Let the University do their investigation. The truth will come out. When it does, Skip should be appropriately censured for the record-deleting but lets hope the university appropriately takes the high road and dismisses these allegations for what they are -- attempts to win a personal battle for recognition and respect. These young men had the chance to do that when they were on the team but clearly they blew it. Skip Kenney doesnt wake up one day and decide to make life miserable for a select few individuals, especially ones who are great swimmers or have the potential to become great swimmers. After all, his job is directly related to the success of the guys performance in the pool. Anyone who is the focus of Skip's rath has earned it by puposely defying team rules, University rules and/or the team's self-imposed code of conduct. Skip Kenney has a long history and enviable record of producing fine athletes and great young men. In 28 years thats well over 200 men. Every swimmer is given the chance to take advantage of that when they arrive at the Farm. Some choose to accept his help while others resist and intentionally choose to enter into a battle of wills. Nothing new here. Every college coach across America faces the same challenges. Some kids want to be helped and coached and are open to and accepting of Skip's mentoring and accumulated wisdom. Some kids just want to make trouble and be disruptive and prove that they know better. We've all known people like this - on teams, in the classroom, in the dorms, on the job. Skip does what any good coach, manager, parent or teacher would do -- namely protect and nurture the willing majority who want to cooperate and improve themselves. As a good coach, teacher, manager or parent, you also have to separate the negative influences in an effort to keep things positive. After 28 years at Stanford and having a tremendous record with young men both in the pool and out of the pool. Lets not be too hasty here and lets consider the source of the allegations and the motives behind them.

Is there a win-at-any-price ethos at the University? Any administrative action will be kept secret from the Stanford community? The gentleman still has his job at Stanford after the sexual behavior legal action years ago? The coach may be a winner in water, but on dry land he is a loser as human being. For Stanford to tolerate the coach's actions in these two incidents speaks to a culture that is corrupt.

He has to go. He's a good coach, but he shouldn't represent Stanford. If this went through Stanford's Judicial board he couldn't stay. Students who cheat maliciously aren't tolerated.

People, by their nature, make mistakes. Do you think that every cheater at Stanford is expelled on the first offense? That the judicial board has ZERO compassion/understanding/forgiveness? I certainly hope that isn't the case.

Any punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the crime and should benefit from the stories from both parties, not just one accuser.

I swam for Skip in the late 80s. Being a member of the Stanford swim team was one of the greatest experiences of my life. Swimming for Skip, sadly, was not...

I have read all posts regarding this subject on various websites. I have been doing so mostly to try to get a measure for how other swimming alumni are feeling. Don't want to sound arrogant or not "inclusive," but unless you were a member of the team and swam for Skip, you really don't know what you're talking about (with regard to Skip, that is).

I have also been communicating with a handful of fellow swimming alumni and our consensus on the matter at hand (the deletion of performances by "enemy" swimmers) is that this is actually consistent with Skip's general nature, and therefore is not surprising.

I have been motivated to contribute to this message board by something I read that was written by "Alum2":

*****Skip Kenney doesn't wake up one day and decide to make life miserable for a select few individuals, especially ones who are great swimmers or have the potential to become great swimmers. After all, his job is directly related to the success of the guys performance in the pool. Anyone who is the focus of Skip's rath has earned it by puposely defying team rules, University rules and/or the team's self-imposed code of conduct. Skip Kenney has a long history and enviable record of producing fine athletes and great young men. In 28 years that's well over 200 men. Every swimmer is given the chance to take advantage of that when they arrive at the Farm. Some choose to accept his help while others resist and intentionally choose to enter into a battle of wills***

Alum2, you CLEARLY were not the focus of "Skip's Wrath," for if you were, you would know how truly wrong you are. Talk about blaming the victim!!

It is well known that part of Skip's MO for coaching is to pick a few people to beat on every year. Why this is necessary, I'm not sure. But he does it like clockwork. Having been one of those people--despite the fact that I was totally committed to the team and well-liked by my teammates--I have to say that I think the chickens are finally coming home to roost for Skip.

I think it would be an interesting exercise to look at the program from when Skip started to when he left and to see what the attrition rate on the team has been and also what the IMPROVEMENT level has been. I know that my class started with SEVENTEEN freshman and ended with THREE people swimming all 4 years. With regard to overall improvement, fortunately the nature of swimming makes it very easy to compare the relative success of different coaches. Unfortunately, I feel confident when I say that Skip would likely not do well in a comparison with most of his peers. (anyone want to crunch the numbers?)

I don't want to use this forum to describe all the ways in which I think Skip is NOT a good swimming coach. And certainly he's had a lot of success--but wouldn't ANY coach who had the talent to work with that Skip has? How many championships would Stanford have won with Eddie Reese at the helm? Unfortunately, we'll never know...

It sounds to me like your argument is that Skip gets to do whatever he wants. Or was there an argument at all?
(Also, do you understand how the caps lock key works?)

Are there lots of swimmers dropping dead or heading to the doctor from being out late drinking the night before a tough practice set? This heartrate stuff is just plain crazy. While drinking to excess for an elite athlete is not reccomended, I can think of plenty of swimmers who have done that and worse (including at Stanford).

All I can say is that it never seemed to hurt Retterer. I still say you're making a crazy argument. While it's not acceptable behavior of an in season athlete, it's simply not major health risk. You've "gone off the deep end" on this one.

Please, now. So many critics, make their argument against proven medical risks -by name calling ('that's a 'crazy' argument....hmmmm), instead of addressing my real medical points (other namecalling arguments = you are 'off the deep end' and 'you should have no scalpel' and you are 'practicing medicine without a license'). All the while, the critics wanting intoxicated swimmers to get to swim, are offering no counter argument to my many, listed medical SAFETY concerns. Please correct me here, but I really reading from you critics out there, who really claim that it IS ACTUALLY SAFE to do this sport while impaired? Because I am the one claiming it is DANGEROUS....and you protest my claims....
Not only did I do the swimming for decades (thus, I know what I am talking about regarding the rapid pulses/sucking in water repeatedly over swims that could drown impaired swimmers, etc)...but I also teach medical students, and am happy to discuss the well proven negative risks associated with impaired athletes....or physicians and physical therapists as well, for that matter. In fact, I will have an upcoming talk on the subject soon, and would welcome opposing debate on the topic in the future.
1) You guys still claim safety -that it is OKAY to swim (at 200 beats per minute demands) - if a coach's concerns linger whether an athlete may be impaired, 'under the influence' of something?....just because "some other guy" may have done it and did not drown? An argument claiming that 'so-and-so can do it....so why can't all others' also get intoxicated during stressful workouts.... is not any reasoned argument to not uphold the 'no impaired athlete' rules. Each person is evaluated daily, and individually, and those who may appear intoxicated from some unknown 'party' substance - should (for their own safety) NOT be allowed into rigorous athletic practice sessions....PERIOD. And, if this real medical concern is considered by some (maybe some who did party well) as somehow 'off the deep end'...that again is not much of an argument, but some personal judgment not based on medical facts. And, what if your surgeon or physical therapist was also impaired....scary, when judgment is off on anyone in a 'work setting' (like swimming is, for many athletes...besides that athlete has added risks). Read on: In that dark, 5am pool deck, it is EASY to miss a drowned swimmer by a distracted coach...and we athletes sucked in gallons of water - and collided with others head-on, in our lane - all too OFTEN during those intense sessions, during the decades (even without being intoxicated).
3) Data: Do you really disbelieve that a) one can appear
'intoxicated' from many substances (cocaine, PCP, Meth, Heroin and b) common alcohol, even. c) Many such different mind altering substances CAN be similar in presentation on a patient - i.e. you don't know 'what drug they partied with'... and ALL witnessing impairmant, should be concerned, to their teammates are facing oxygen debt and severe heart exertion. If this is "debatable", it only shows who has not been to our basic pharmacology courses we give for our medical students here, on the many risks of recreational drug use.
4) More DATA: The first statement out of the many, typical academic medical school internists that I asked: was something like this- "We would worry about the added uncontrolled dangers - be it from drowning, arrythmias, or even other such added risks from impaired judgement in the pool". All of these may be clinically silent in the 'un-screened' athlete's heart...and additive risks can result in tragedy when underlying abnormalities are unmasked.
5) Where in the physical therapist literature - and I do read this occasionally....(if are truly serious): does it ever really review "cardiac ultrasounds in the athletes"...And where does it counter my medical concern and thus claim that it is "OKAY to exert young hearts, with 200 heartbeats per minute stress, while intoxicated from unknown party substances"? For if one reads the medical literature, one would find countless reports on the following VERY related topics addressing exactly these issues...and supporting my points.
Examples, and Hints: one may wish to review the following topics that relate: "sudden death in athletes" (of course, you remind us that "ultrasound is a test for congenital defects of the heart", and of course you remind us, that it is not a test for "drinking or other substances"). Read on, however, and you will learn that it CAN ALSO be used to detect other hidden, "NON-congenital" problems, such as: wall motion abnormalities (that CAN be associated with cocaine induced ischemic heart disease), IHSS (non-congenital), valve problems that CAN BE aquired from IV drug use related endocarditis, and even many other cardiac issues, such as ejection fraction (for viral myopathy) and even other heart factors....some silent. Hence: nobody pushing for screening is claiming this as only a 'drug' test...but rather, it only means one must read more on this test...for selected, drug using athletes...
OTHER THINGS (i.e. even more data): the use of cocaine is a drug that IS associated with vasoconstriction of coronary vessles (and it causes heart attacks in young users...). A coach should NEVER stress a young heart after suspicions arise that athletes may have been using this... Other drugs cause tachycardia (rapid pulses) that can also set someone up for an arrythmia. Impaired judgement of how to breathe effectively in a wavy pool (especially difficult when judgment is impaired from alcohol, heroin or other issues) can be fatal, as drownings DO occur more often in impaired swimmers....and even warning signs of other issues (angina, oxygen debt blackouts, etc.) can occur more easily in the impaired athlete....also a deady risk......
Finally: for those who still insist on calling us physician swimmers names (instead of taking on our 'well proven' medical concerns directly). Remember some of these other points:
Do you believe that those ads that the US Government, the AMA, and even your mother endorses ('friends don't let friends drive drunk'...or 'don't swim if you are intoxicated', etc.)...Are they all just without merit? Because, that is what the other side is arguing.
Finally, from a LEGAL standpoint: do you still believe that the responsible Stanford program director (coach on deck) is NOT the one who should decide on these safety issues for his swimmers? If not, than who should Stanford University pay then, to come to the pool deck, twice daily, and stay during practices, just to evaluate the athletes for their "safety and fitness"....daily....before each athletic practice?
Finally, if you still think that we should allow uncontrolled, intoxicated athletes to compete in these Extracurricular, risky sports on Stanford Property and Pools, then Stanford lawyers should prepare for a wave of lawsuits if even ONE young athlete gets hurt, and he was known to be intoxicated by the coach and other witnesses....Open up the Stanford Wallets....

To: NOT A DOCTOR BUT I READ: I compliment you on your WELL DONE reviews. I am thrilled to read (in polite debate) such a well read, and nicely presented argument on the medical issues that 'party-ing elite athletes' face (I bet you must do this PubMed stuff for a living....nice reviews). For each of your points: I hope to briefly address several of them, and try to point out why a mere 'coach' (not expert) hired to merely train swimmers in a voluntary sport setting should err on the side of safety, for the sake of the athlete, the team, himself, and even for the sake of Stanford's legal defense budget (in case of problems)...
1) I agree with you: you found some of the good data associating even mere Alcohol use - and it IS (as I mentioned as well) associated with a) sudden death alone
b) arrhythmias (another reason for sudden death) and c) even cardiomyopathy ( if used chronically...often silent in athletes, until stressed or 'sudden death' develops in that cardiomyopathic heart)...
Just because (as you correctly point out): the 'physiology is not well understood'...well, neither is that many dangerous things, yet we still know that they are dangerous. You also point out correctly that those alcohol deaths reported are 'not due to recreational alcohol use' (but we know that: this term 'recreational' means very little, medically, since each person reacts physiologically differently). Thus, it's always left to a judgment call that must be made in any case like this. And, when you mention correctly that 'it is not seen in young, fit individuals' this also means little medically (since these athletes' stressors also are not normal individuals' stressors . Realize that these athletes face 200 beats per minute heartrates under oxygen debt = something that most individuals NEVER reach in their entire lives, much less hours after getting drunk or stoned or whatever, in dark, cold, wavy water....). Finally, while there are certain numbers of us who publish our studies in medical literature, there are not likely any PUBMED articles on this yet, since the 'study of partying elite athletes' will never have a large 'N' (i.e. large enough study population to publish a study without some extrapolation being required). Don't wait for the PUBMED study: we already know enough medically that it is dangerous event combination, from merely a CARDIAC standpoint (given what internists already know about the physiology in normals). And, why do we assume that these "intoxicated" athletes are not also "injesting other drugs" that are even more risky ("drunk is drunk"...whatever the recreational toxin - we clinicians who treat these patients know that clinical judgement of impairment is widely inaccurate without real toxicology tests). Cocaine use, for example, also stresses the heart, via the sympathetic nervous system, and it is a potent coronary artery vasoconstrictor - thus, heart attacks and sudden death even occurs in your 'young, fit individuals' you report. Many HEALTHY, unstressed sedate college kids die each year, after its recreational use. Why should college athletes be different?. Why allow any impaired athlete to risk heart attacks just for the right to wear the Stanford Swim team colors...where is the "fundamental right" for others to do this to any team rules?
Now, the other MEDICAL risks for sudden death: The risk of aspiration (i.e. drowning, or vomit aspiration) can be classified as, perhaps, an increased PULMONARY risk. The acutely intoxicated, impaired athlete (whether from the assumed Alcohol -or from cocaine?, narcotics?, crack?, crank? or other drugs? who knows....?), is for several reasons an INCREASED Pulmonary risk athlete. First of all: in a wavy pool, elite swimmers often 'suck water into their lungs' multiple times each workout...this is itself at baseline, a pulmonary risk that must be managed with elite coordination and skill, or drowning CAN occur if not well managed (just try to swim with them, for a series of 10x50's of team butterfly, with dives, ten seconds apart...and see how well your typical recreational athlete would swim without battling the waves for risk of drowning). Now, add in the increased poor judgment of the impaired athlete, and each aspirated wave can become an INCREASED risk of 'drowning'....Why should a coach have to now 'manage this risk' from his group of VOLUNTEER athletes, some of them now 'swimming drunk' on his team? Finally: Pulmonary risks are also inherently increased after alcohol (or drug) use: even in the non-stressed young party-er. Remember the deaths of famous rock stars after getting 'drunk' (typically: death is aspiration of their gastric contents, they 'inhale their vomit' in layman's terms). Why add this added risk, to the mix of: oxygen debt swimming, heartrate demands of 200 beats per minute, and wavy, dark turbulent water without adequate supervision.... Any Stanford coach endorsing this risk under his watch would be NEGLIGENT if he allowed this in any organized Stanford Facility. A legal nightmare for the Stanford Dean, if his coaches did not defend our university from such dangers.
Other MEDICAL reasons for not allowing the Impaired Athlete to compete while intoxicated: NEUROLOGIC issues. Seizures can occur with alcohol and other drugs...and nobody knows what a drunk person took before he dives into the cold water. The sedative effects are also an independent risk factor from the drug, even if one does not have that seizure. Other poor judgement issues (of impairment) can also risk the other swimmers' health from a MEDICAL stanpoint. For example, each narrow lane line contains 3-5 swimmers traversing at high speeds under oxygen debt conditions...with limited view and spinning hands, exposed skulls and eyes at risk of injury. There is a certain coordination, a certain amount of "trust" that the coaches (and team mates) must assume for teammates - such that each person in that water is appropriate and safe to the others coming at him within that lane. Also, the athlete must be "safe to himself" so that he will not hit his head during backstroke, into the oncoming wall at high speed (fracturing a skull or hand). Much like a drunk driver, a drunk (or impaired) swimmer puts the others in his lane at risk of a career or life ending injury...and risking himself as well). I have over decades of experience, seen and heard multiple examples of swimmer "collision injuries", many with fractures that I have personally seen, due to the swimming collisions with others or the wall. These are examples of fractures of the hand, and of scalp lacerations. You may ask: "why is this series not in the PUBMED medical literature yet?" Well, such investigation would be great to undertake (again, with little spare time, few of us ex-swimmers have invested the weekend career time for such a nice series for that publication). Keep posted, however, as some medical student with us, may likely soon be able to put it out that series soon, however....
OTher Reasons, MEDICAL , why to avoid allowing the impaired athlete to compete (or practice) in organized team practices - we did not even yet, address the phychological issues that young, impressionable 18 year olds may face as they begin college (some athletes may even be 17). As freshman they may face many influences, some leading them look up to college athlete seniors next to them in the locker room of a team. Those TEAM influences (and I am not a psychologist) are surely hard enough without open drunk teammates....especially for the young freshman now facing adapting to his life away from home....Why do concerned coaches have to (in 2007) now allow that influence to flow openly into his team (i.e. if drunk or impaired athletes are showing up at a workout, they may be "a bad influence on the team morale and the freshman minors"...). Remember: this is a VOLUNTARY sports team with team rules that are established by the coaches....for safety....and breaking team rules of any voluntary team has historically been a sound basis for being kicked off from a voluntary sport team. How is now that we can toss out this "Fundimental Standard" for team sports....(we all know that: drunk athletes should not swim in our pools....why is this so hard to swallow, in the year 2007?)...
Other of my points (not yet addressed in anyone's argument yet): the legal liability aspects to Stanford, if a drunk kid drowned under the coach's knowlege.....and thus with the 'endorsement' of Stanford University...lawyers?...
the fact that there ARE no 'formal rules' in the "Fundamental Standard" regarding specifically these press guides. Though all agree that he used poor judgment in the solo handling of these alone (i.e. solo deletions from one guidebook, but not deletions affecting the historic times kept officially by the Pac10 or the NCAA). Removal of records is always controversial (even with the removal of "Pete Rose" whose records are ignored by the Baseball Hall of Fame, also for personal reasons). Remember, however: even the single offense found must be weighed against this man's overall decades long track record. He has already BEEN found innocent of those false claims (by the NCAA in formal investigations....those claims were found to be thus: without merit). And, that is my point: One cannot now bring up these (i.e. not 'found guilty')reasons, as another 're-trial of his past' as many critic writers tended to do (i.e. they write unfairly that he was 'charged with' making swimmers work-out in the summer -heck all of us swam summers, anyway). Other alumni lap swimmers also write (also thus, judging his record "unfairly"): that 'he was not opening up the pool on time, to those lap-swimmers who wanted their lap-swim to start on time (this complaint is also unfair: it was not his job responsibility, but that of the lifeguards...thus, these are unfair criticisms). Other critics also bring up his social life issues, personality issues, etc. -these all should not be a basic part of the career "Fundamental Standard" debate here debated. His personality was exactly fine for the "motivation, recruiting, and performance of athletes" mission for which he was hired. The majority of swimmers he recruited and trained came here voluntarily, and also agreed repeatedly with his methods for success... He has always been a tough coach with good overall social skills and an effective Olympic level leader...not a politician or a lawyer or a social worker. And, many of us had our share of regular conflicts that he (as coach) resolved as he saw fit....
But please: investigate it, a bit, before you all condemn a career for a stupidly advised act (which most of us feel, as being in and out of that guide often): was relatively minor. Some ideas for the investigation: (i.e. poll the EX - Swimmers as well): you will find great support in his actions, ethical goals for the team, and his life lessons we all took with us. Do this investigation, as part of REAL investigative reporting, and as part of the Stanford Investigation on his future: Please, do this well before printing all the one-sided sensationalist articles, some of which are based only on mere headlining only the claims of a few angry people kicked off the team. Any trial for this 'Fundamental Standard" issues should keep all this in perspective....and carefully avoid those areas that don't apply. Of course, do punish any stupid acts poorly handled by him, in attempts to put out a media guide highlighting those who adhered to his team rules....but a full investigation of his MOTIVATION for doing this may reveal a far different picture than what is usually depicted. For decades, he has tried to promote those who adhered to the 'team goals' ahead of their own personal or selfish actions. With a fair and full investigation of his decades long,(lauded) work record with thousands of young swimmers: you may find a different conclusion. Yes, he may face an appropriate range of penalties (other than 'ending his career') for his 'good intentions....but bad judgment' this past year.
Just some thoughts....

Yes: punishment may be appropriate...we await full investigations to see what amount is appropriate.
Perspective may be a bit lost, if firing someone is the only response....without investigation.

p.s. Asterisks are used in sport often (if merited....Pete Rose, Ben Johnson...etc.). That is exactly the point: full and fair investigation of those issues, before final judgment, can fairly be made (you already have concluded: simply: "fire him").

Skip was great as he built this team from mediocre to top tier. His rules were well known, and fair. He steered his ship well, over decades...with only a few minor poor decisions along the way (with a minor media guide few of us have read...and this is spoken as someone in the guide intermittently).
Keep this in perspective. Only the media guide issues have been judged un-wise, and he had apologized for this error in judgment. People who 'go after Skip's career' over this, should be prepared to find that his impressive record and strict but fair team treatment will withstand fair scrutiny. Especially if underlying reasons for conflicts (with a small minority of swimmers) gets also scrutinized.

I'm going to the fridge. Just wondering....