Pro Sports, Drugs, Testing, and more Lip-Service

Posted on December 20, 2009 by Josh

I’m really grateful for excellent bloggers like JR Atwood at Playthink. JR has again prompted me to write an entry that is essentially a response/reflection on one of his recent posts. JR’s post has a highlight section of the discussion between Bill Simmons and Malcolm Gladwell about sport celebrity…that, to me, goes nowhere. The topic of the part of the discussion posted in JR’s blog is about the public reaction to sports-celebrities’ behaviors, and how “random” those reactions appear to be.

While a fascinating topic in itself, that conversation really goes nowhere. There are no answers in the end. Why?

That’s the reason for this post.

I’m confused by the Gladwell/Simmons conversation. They only talk around their subject-matter, describing it, but not uncovering anything.

What’s strange to me is that neither of them points out that expectations of (or reactions-to) professional athletes and their behavior are entirely fabricated. They’re created by the media, the consensus-view of the commentators, and the consensus-view of the viewers. Granted, that’s a vague statement, but stick with me for a second.

What I’m saying is that there is no “strict moral ground” by which to judge the behavior of celebrity athletes (or any celebrity, for that matter). Instead, the reaction is more a conflagration of the “public image” of that athlete, the media’s reaction/billing of the behavior, and the public’s buy-in to that billing.

I don’t think the reaction has anything to do with the “volatility of statistics.” Stats are meaningless if a game is “infinite” (played for its own sake, to continue playing, as opposed to played to win). Therefore, the value of stats is agreed-upon before the sport is begun. The rules are laid out. “This is a finite game. It is played to win. Therefore, we keep track of everything.”

This is also a cultural creation. What are the meaning of statistics? The meaning, like the meaning of celebrity athletes’ behavior, is culturally created. What is the meaning of one or several players taking performance-enhancing drugs (PED’s) and thereby skewing those stats? How can one really know?

At this point, I’d like to turn to the PED discussion. Because it does highlight what’s happening underneath this discussion of celebrity-athlete behavior and public reaction.

Here’s the deal, and here’s what fascinates me the most – This “debate” itself is a game.

It’s similar to the “healthcare debate” entry I posted. Till cultural change occurs that supports all of the talk about healthcare change/promotion, any talk about healthcare is mere lip-service. No true change can occur until the culture will support that change.

Similarly, until a systematized, reliable, regular, and transparent method of testing athletes for PED’s is put into place, there’s no real telling what the “true” stats are.

Along with any other specifics about the subject matter they propound on, Gladwell and Simmons don’t discuss the testing policies/procedures in place now, or the history behind those policies.

While they were “banned” in 1991, “random” drug testing was only started in MLB in 2001. Steroids were only banned in the NBA in 1999. And, though steroids were “banned” in the NFL in 1990, loopholes were found in 2005 that allowed Carolina Panthers players to be prescribed banned substances two weeks prior to the 2004 Superbowl. (go here for the USA Today article outlining the last two references).

I put “random,” and “banned’ in quotes above, because, to the best of my knowledge, testing is far from random, and (as in the case of the Panthers), performance-enhancing substances are far from truly banned. Instead, players are tested who will test positive. Occasionally, a scapegoat may be needed, or someone out of which to make an example, and they’ll be tested. Or, someone from outside the organization will report unfavorable news and the whole thing will blow up.

My point about testing, above, is to say that the stats are already skewed. It’s impossible to know what the true stats are for sports until everyone is tested. If that’s your goal.

But I don’t think that it is.

This site has a nice “news-based” overview of drugs in sports, that shows clearly that athletes have always used “performance-enhancing drugs” of some sort or other. So the question I come to is not whether or not PED’s should be banned, or whether or not they’re skewing sporting outcomes, but what the game is behind this discussion.

What is the purpose of organized sports? “Bread and circus?” – that is, a distraction for the masses?

For those who believe that organized sports are simply there because so many people enjoy watching them, I strongly disagree. At the point at which a thing becomes a multi-billion dollar industry, people’s enjoyment, as being free from coercion, diminishes exponentially.

So if it doesn’t really matter…that is, if there’s no way to know what the “real” stats are, and there’s no “real” ground by which to judge a (any) celebrity’s behavior, what are we talking about here?

I don’t think we’re really talking about anything. Certainly nothing of importance. Just surface characteristics of a much larger dynamic.

It’s like talking about the weather. How is it? The city-slicker hates the rain, the farmer loves it. Same rain.

But hate it or love it, there it is.

Why do we talk about the weather? It’s easier than doing something. It’s easier than admitting that we have no control over it. Comfort? I don’t know…you tell me.

In Athletics – It’s Not The Shoes…

Posted on April 9, 2009 by Josh

I was blown away recently when I stumbled on this article on Stack magazine online. It’s called “Training Trends with Under Armour,” and is about a year old at this point.

The “trends” they’re talking about are shoes. Specifically, three shoes produced by Under Armour, called the UA Proto Power Trainer, UA Proto Speed Trainer and UA Proto Evade Trainer.

Under Armour has created the three shoes to provide foot support for three different types of training – sagittal plane (frontward/backward), frontal plane (side-to-side), and “vertical” plane training.

Essentially, you now need three different sets of shoes in order to practice properly in the off-season. I would guess, too, that you’d need to change shoes in the middle of your workout, as you transitioned from training in one plane to the other. Unless, of course, you only trained in a particular plane in each workout.

Aside from the fact that this “informational article” is obviously an advertisement, and that the “logic” behind these shoes is more about making money than about improving human performance – I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. People will obviously be buying these shoes, and buying the message that goes with them. Under Armour is a huge company, that wouldn’t have invested resources into producing and marketing these shoes unless their market research said they’d be successful.

For all of the athletes out there using these shoes, I have a couple of questions. The first is the one I pose above – how do you train? Do you have to change your shoes during each workout, or do you just focus on one plane of movement each workout?

The second question I have for you guys is – what happens when you’re on the field of play? Do all of your abilities meld together magically in the heat of the moment? Do you miss the specific cushioning provided by the shoes when you have to lace up your old Nike cleats?

Meanwhile, Under Armour, I assume you’ve done some real scientific research to back up the claims made about your shoes. Can I see it? And can you justify the increase in your carbon footprint (and the amount of garbage in the world) with that science?

I have to reiterate that shoes are essentially bad for you. They’re necessary because of the way we’ve structured our man-made environment – as a cold, hard place. But they’re accessories to the body, not enhancements. People who excel in sports excel in any shoes. They have put in the hard work to perfect their technique, to build their strength…years of practice and effort, not new shoes, make a better athlete.

The Kid in You

Posted on March 4, 2009 by Josh

I read Brian Grasso’s most recent post to the IYCA website, and realized something about my own approach to training – both of myself and of my clients. Brian interviewed renowned strength and conditioning coach Juan Carlos Santana about the way JC trains kids at his facility.

Reading the interview, I realized that I approach all of my clients the way J.C. describes his approach with child-athletes.

Then I realized something else…that this focus we have on “adulthood,” and on “acting like an adult,” is another of the cultural mores I was talking about in my most recent post. Similarly with the other items on my list, being “adult” ultimately costs a lot more than being a “child.” Not in terms of energy – kids are infinitely more active in general than adults – but in terms of wear-and-tear on the system in general. Think about the things we associate with adulthood (here’s a list from Wikipedia):

Self-control – restraint, emotional control.
Stability – stable personality, strength.
Independence – ability to self-regulate.
Seriousness – ability to deal with life in a serious manner.
Responsibility – accountability, commitment and reliability.
Method/Tact – ability to think ahead and plan for the future, patience.
Endurance – ability and willingness to cope with difficulties that present themselves.
Experience – breadth of mind, understanding.
Objectivity – perspective and realism.
Decision making capability – as all of the above correspond to making proper decisions.
Priorities – Ability to determine what is necessary at that place and time.

While all of these are qualities that we associate with adulthood/maturity, and they’re all “necessary,” the degree or extent to which each quality is emphasized is a matter of debate.

In fact, I’d like to make a point, and then ask that you read that list again. I’ve seen all of these qualities exhibited in children. The degree, or ultimate direction of their action might be different than it would be for an adult,
but the qualities they exhibit are identical.

All human beings learn by doing, by interacting with their environment. They learn that they can manipulate things through the repetition of movement “experiments.” They learn responsibility when their actions come back to bite them. They learn endurance when an old method no longer works in a new situation, and they have to continue to experiment to find the answer.

What we associate with “adulthood” in this country is a certain type of demonstration of the qualities in the list above. And I think the one thing that characterizes this type – adulthood – most, is inflexibility or lack of experimentation.

Think about it. What is the one quality present in children, that is not commonly present in most adults, that is also missing from that list? Creativity.

The creative, flexible, experimental attitude of children is one of the things that allows them to learn and grow at such an astonishing rate. There are other things, such as their lack of experience, that also help them to be more receptive than adults can be at times, but the open attitude that is associated with creativity and experimentation is central to learning.

These qualities are also associated with something that is deemed “childish” by our society – Play. We look at adults who like to play (I mean, really play, not professional athletes…they aren’t playing, they’re working) as being simple or foolish. And we only allow a few of the very top professional athletes to exhibit anything remotely resembling play. Only those who have “paid their dues” or who exhibit such otherworldly performance as to be beyond reproof (or the ones we set up as our jesters, our fools, the ones whose antics are part of their work) have the right to play during their sport. This is one of the reasons that I’m a member of organizations like the IYCA and Exuberant Animal – those organizations foster growth through play – one focused on children, the other on “adults.”

So, how do I train my clients? The same way I would train anyone, of any age. First, I assess their current state. Where are they starting from? What, based on my experience, do they need to do to create a solid foundation for future health and fitness? Then, I ask them what their goals are, what their prior experience with exercise is, etc. I’ll explain to them why we might be starting at a point that seems far removed from their ideal goal-state. Then I’ll design their program. But for just about everyone (just about), the programming is the same:

Postural/structural focus
General warmup
Basic movement abilities/patterning
More specific warmup
Strength training
More movement focus
Stretching/cooldown, and more postural work.

It seems like a lot for one session at first glance, but the lines between posture-correction and warmup start to blur, as does the junction between specific warmup and strength training. Also, movement focus occurs throughout the workout. (I don’t like isolation exercises, unless there’s a very specific reason for them). That list takes about 50 minutes to an hour from start to finish – which just happens to be the length of a training session – and provides a workout that supplies stimulus to every movement ability my clients possess.

One of the main things I try to do in every session is to create opportunities for creativity, problem-solving, and exploration. I can do this subtly, by asking the client to perform a new movement, or one that they haven’t done since they were a child, or more directly, by having them choose the next exercise, or the way the exercise is performed (within the limits of safety, of course).

Basically, I just try to do what every good parent does – create a safe place where the individual’s capabilities can flourish. And you know what, they always do.