I recently had the opportunity to sit down and talk with Jimson Lee of SpeedEndurance.com. Jimson was just on the tail end of his North American road trip. One of his big stops was in the state of Florida where he had a chance to observe the training of a number of high performance training groups. Our interview details what he saw while in Florida and who he chatted with. We also discuss his opinions on what to expect for the sprint events in the 2012 London Olympics. While we know that a lot can happen in the next three months, it was interesting to hear his thoughts on who to watch for and if there will be any surprises.

It was a very insightful and worthwhile interview. Please take the time to view the interview below:

After creating a customized program of electrostimulation for speed development, namely the Globus SpeedCoach series, I wanted to make sure that people would be able to implement it with little to no hassles. I developed a detailed supplementary user manual for guiding coaches and athletes through the individual electrostimulation sessions. However, some of the information does not always translate well in the printed form. My solution was to track the use of an actual athlete using the SpeedCoach protocols on his Globus electrostimulation unit. The result was a two-part video series that outlines his experiences and our discussions on how he could improve his individual sessions with electrostimulation.

If you are currently using electrostimulation with your training or you are considering using it as a supplement to your conventional strength training, I encourage you to watch the video series. It may help to answers some questions that you may have or clarify some specific details regarding the use of electrostimulation. Our intent is to educate individuals on the best use of this technology in the hopes that more athletes and coaches take advantage of the wide range of benefits provided by electrostimulation.

Part 1 of 2: Planning and Application of the Globus SpeedCoach

Part 2 of 2: Planning and Application of the Globus SpeedCoach

- Derek M. Hansen –

At first glance, it sounds like an unnecessary question: “Are we running enough?” If we looked at the unprecedented growth in obesity in North America, the obvious answer would be “no”. However, taking that angle would be considered “easy pickins” as societal obesity is a much more complex problem of lack of education, depression, over-consumption and lack of movement of any kind. Would more running solve the problem? Possibly, but it would be a tough sell and would have to be bundled with a comprehensive program of lifestyle modification.

The main thrust of this article is to examine current training methodology and determine if athletes, particularly athletes who run in their sport, are running enough in their training to prepare them for both training and competition. And, are these athletes doing the correct type of running to prepare them optimally? In both cases, I would argue that there is not enough attention paid to the optimal prescription of running for modern athletes. This issue also pertains to rehabilitation. In the fields of training and rehabilitation, the proliferation of individual exercises, complex protocols, irrelevant testing batteries and fancy terminology have inundated the professions to the point of suffocating progress. In many ways we have interfered with proven methods of training, preparation and rehabilitation.

Provided below are some of the primary examples of how running, in many different forms, could be better integrated into a training, rehabilitation and injury prevention model to enhance the abilities of all athletes.

Sprinting and Speed Development

I often use the line, “In order to get faster, you need to run fast.” There are very few statements in the field of training that hold more truth. Others may argue that athletes must first get stronger, achieve more endurance or must be towed behind a car to imprint faster running onto their nervous system. While you must have adequate strength and work capacity abilities to improve your speed, your primary improvements are going to come from the high quality sprinting that you undertake in your training program. If someone is towing you faster than you can run, you are both idiots and deserve the road rash on your chest when the experiment goes terribly wrong.

How much high quality sprinting is enough? You will often see high-level sprint coaches document a minimum of 400 to 600m of high quality sprinting per workout, with three training sessions prescribed per week. That is approximately 1200 to 1800m per week. For athletes running 100, 200 and 400m distances in their competitions, with some athletes running multiple races in a day, this type of volume makes sense. For team sport athletes such as football, baseball and soccer players, I would argue that a smaller overall volume is required to address their speed requirements, as well as strengthen their muscles and connective tissue for the demands of numerous repeat accelerations in a game. The total workout volume can be cut in half, yielding workout totals of 200 to 300 meters per session, or a total weekly volume of 400 to 900 meters, depending on how much high intensity running is being undertaken in an athlete’s sport practices.

Consideration of the total sprinting volume in a sport practice is important when calculating overall stress and the requirements for adaptation in an athlete. In cases where sporting practices and competitions yield a significant volume of acceleration and fast running, sprint-training volumes can be reduced and a greater emphasis can be placed on other elements such as maximal strength or recovery and regeneration. However, some sport practices may involve a good deal of standing around and rehearsal at sub-maximal speeds. In these cases, sprint volumes in training must be increased significantly to compensate for the lack of quality running taking place. Assuming that simply playing your sport will satisfy your sprint training requirements is naïve and may result in a de-training effect and diminished speed abilities. Additionally, inadequate high intensity sprinting work in training can lead to a higher probability of injury once you are actually required to run fast in a competition.

Work Capacity and Muscular Endurance

For sports that involve a significant amount of running, high to moderate volumes of low intensity running can satisfy the general endurance requirements. It is very common for athletes to undertake other forms of cardiovascular exercise – using machines such as a stationary bicycle or elliptical trainer – in an effort to replace running. The common reason for replacing running workouts with these alternative methods is to reduce the impact stress on the lower body. While this may be a legitimate excuse in some instances, nothing replaces the actual act of running.

People do not consider running a complex training activity. In many ways, it is considered one of the lowest forms of exercise. However, the specific act of running prepares the muscles in a way that is only specific to running. The ground contact phase engages a wide range of muscles eccentrically, while the push-off phase requires a powerful concentric effort on the part of numerous large muscle groups. All of this occurs in a cyclical manner that turns muscles on and off in a fraction of a second over hundreds upon hundreds of repetitions. In the game of soccer, athletes will typically run a distance of 10 kilometers at varying speeds. Athletes that cannot handle this volume of running – with all of the stops, starts, direction changes and skill-specific footwork – will not be able to perform at a high level over the duration of their competition and may be at greater risk of injury.

Running provides special endurance training for the muscles involved in locomotion for most sports. Swimming, riding a stationary bike or using an elliptical trainer cannot provide the same level of specific muscular endurance. While these forms of endurance training can provide general improvements in fitness and conditioning, they are lacking the biomechanical specificity provided by running and, hence, are incomplete for preparing athletes for the large majority of sports. Running must be part of the preparation. It would be like a boxer relying on rowing or exhaustive push-ups for his upper body endurance for competition, without incorporating actual punching skills and drills in his training program. There would be limited transfer and the results could be disastrous.

Aerobic Training

A quick look at a MET (Metabolic Equivalent Task) table will show you that running is easily one of the most effective ways to train the aerobic energy system. While the intensity of exercise will always have a significant bearing on the impact of the exercise, the list below provides a relative sense of the demands of various activities.

Measurement in MET’s Per Hour

2-3 Slow walking, Playing musical instrument, Slow Dancing, Bowling, Fishing

4-5 Brisk walking , Climbing stairs , Moderate cycling, Slow swimming

6-8 Rowing, canoeing, kayaking vigorously, Dancing vigorously

7-12 Singles tennis, squash, racquetball

8 Jogging (1 mile every 12 min), Skiing downhill or cross-country

10 Running 6 mph (10-minute mile)

13.5 Running 8 mph (7.5-minute mile)

16 Running 10 mph (6-minute mile)

If you are pressed for time and want to maximize your time spent exercising, running will be your best bet. I know a high-level swim coach who uses running as a staple for building aerobic capacity with his athletes. It is a good way for him to improve aerobic systems of the athletes without having to pay for more pool time and potentially wear out their shoulder joints. This is a perfect example where running has provided additional value to a sport that doesn’t even involve running. Yet, there are still many cases where coaches are not fully including running in their aerobic training – and these are sports where running is the primary means of locomotion.

Injury Prevention

Although there have been many books written on preventing and treating running injuries, an appropriate amount of running can help to minimize the risk of injury. For athletes that are required to run at high velocities, a minimum amount of high-speed running must be consistently maintained throughout the year. High velocity sprinting places a significant amount of stress on the lower extremities, particularly the hip flexors, quadriceps and the hamstrings. Sprinting also involves a high level of precise, inter- and intra-muscular coordination at extremely high velocities. Individual muscle groups must contract concentrically, eccentrically and isometrically at different stages of the stride cycle in mere hundredths of a second, transitioning from handling excessive loads to being unloaded. If an athlete’s body is not put through this combination of stress and coordination on a regular basis in the appropriate amounts, it can increase the probability of muscle strain when the athlete is required to move at high velocities.

This phenomenon is common in recreational sports where old buddies get together for a game of touch football. Because most, if not all, of these participants have not maintained their sprint capabilities through regular high-quality training sessions, they are not prepared for high-speed running. When the first long pass goes up and the designated receiver tries to break into open space and make the catch, it is not uncommon for the play to be ended with the receiver clutching his hamstring. In many ways it becomes a “use-it or lose-it” proposition. If you haven’t been using it, you will suffer the consequences.

At higher levels of performance, we sometimes see baseball players in season – with a rigorous game schedule and little time for training – have periodic problems with muscle strains in the lower extremities. Casual observation reveals that the game can be quite explosive – with hitting, throwing and base-running occurring at high velocities – but also very sedentary with lots of sitting in the dugout and lots of standing around in the outfield. This mixture of inactivity and extremely high velocity bursts can spell trouble if the athlete has not maintained a baseline volume of acceleration and sprinting in their training. The games alone do not provide enough opportunities for high-quality running to maintain an athlete’s minimum requirement of sprinting volume and keep injuries at bay.

Low-intensity running over higher volumes also helps to maintain overall fitness and circulatory abilities that keep an athlete more resistant to injury. Good aerobic conditioning not only allows athletes to warm-up more easily, but also keeps their bodies warmer throughout a long game or training session, even if there are lengthy periods of inactivity between plays.

Rehabilitation

Unfortunately, running is often regarded as one of the last activities to be undertaken as part of a rehabilitation regime for most injuries. I have athletes that tell me that their physical therapists won’t allow them to run until week 12 or week 16, but they can do lots of fancy exercises with balls, bands and balance boards. My common reply is, “Then how are we going to get you ready to play? Your sport does require you to run all of the time, doesn’t it?”

Like weightlifting, running can be introduced at lower levels of complexity and intensity presenting little to no risk to a rehabilitating athlete. In the case of athletes undergoing ACL rehabilitation, low intensity marching knee-lift drills can be introduced a few weeks after surgery, encouraging athletes to support their bodyweight during the stance phase, as well as introducing more knee flexion work during the knee-lift phase. This work can gradually progress to skipping drills and low-amplitude jogging or shuffling (sometimes referred to as “ankling”). While many ACL rehabilitation programs do not have athletes running until the 12th week following surgery, it is possible to insert elements of running very early on in the process. These early interventions not only allow athletes to run at an earlier stage in the rehabilitation process, but also give them a larger foundation of preparatory work that makes them stronger and more durable at later stages of their recovery.

In the case of rehabilitating a hamstring after a first- or second-degree strain, running is probably the most important rehabilitation tool to apply after the first 48-72 hours following the injury. Because the vast majority of hamstring strains occur during running, it is imperative that the running motion be incorporated into the rehabilitation process. As described previously, running is a complex task of recruitment and relaxation at high velocities. Only running drills and actual running can load the recovering tissues in a way that will duplicate this sequence and prepare them for the rigors of sprinting. Intensity can be managed by limiting the speed of acceleration and the distance covered over each sprint repetition. Starting with low speed accelerations over 10 meters for five to ten repetitions per set is common. Each day of rehabilitation can include slightly higher velocities, longer distances and greater overall volume. Depending on the severity of the strain, athletes can build themselves back up to full speed running in anywhere from five to fifteen days.

Closing Remarks

We are living in a time when technology is king and finding new ways of doing things takes precedence over tried and true methods. Unfortunately, running is not innovative, trendy or sexy, and the human race has been doing it for thousands upon thousands of years. However, it is important to point out that we cannot outrun evolution and arbitrarily decide which “flavor of the month” exercises are best for enhancing performance or preventing injury. I constantly see and hear so-called “experts” describing new methods for running faster, including new weightlifting exercises, new diets, new contraptions, new running techniques and greater core strengthening. My advice is to just go out and run. Learn the proper technique, follow the proper progressions, use appropriate volumes, give yourself adequate recovery and maintain your abilities through regular, consistent training sessions. And, support your running with common sense use of weights, plyometrics, warm-ups, nutrition, stretching and general conditioning. Unfortunately, there may not be an iPhone App for you to download and follow, but common sense, evolution and history can guide you much better in the long run.

In my ongoing quest to provide simple solutions to complex problems, I have created a video resource to help coaches and athletes develop an organized approach to improve starting and acceleration for their given sport. The result of this effort is “Start Mechanics and Training Applications.” Research has shown that how an athlete starts can greatly influence their acceleration mechanics and overall performance over short distance sprints. In sports that require athlete to move quickly over five to ten yards in order to be successful, great starts are a must. But, learning how to start properly is a complex issue that involves thousands of repetitions of good mechanics under ideal conditions. Athletes must have adequate recovery breaks between repetitions and must be reminded of the key rehearsal cues prior to executing the start. If these strict rules are adhered to every training session, the athlete will begin to assimilate the characteristics of good starts in all of their movements.

The video resource is divides starts into four main types:

1. Free Form Starts

Free form starts include all types of starts that involve no special equipment and no form of external resistance. These starts allow the athlete to express their strength and power with their own body weight, mastering the technique and their coordination in a natural manner. An athlete can focus on technique and relaxation during free form starts. Speed and efficiency of execution are the primary goal in all free form starts.

2. Medicine Ball Starts

Starts that involve the throwing of a medicine ball in advance of sprinting can be useful for developing starting strength and power through the initial starting movement. The medicine ball can be between 4 and 12 lbs providing a suitable amount of loading through the initial movement. The weight of the medicine ball should be heavy enough to provide an external load without impeding the speed of the starting movement. And, the initial push out of the start is loaded with the strides involved in the acceleration phase unloaded, allowing the athlete to focus on speed of movement and relaxation.

3. Resisted Starts

Resisted starts involve external resistance applied throughout the duration of the entire start and most, if not all, of the acceleration distance. This resistance is commonly applied through the use of a dragging sled or resistance bands. Not only do resisted starts build starting strength, but also reinforce optimal posture and drive angles through the duration of the acceleration distance. It is important to ensure that the resistance applied during these starts is not excessive, significantly changing posture, limb mechanics and ground contact time.

4. Obstacle Starts

Obstacle starts incorporate quick evasive movements with acceleration to simulate patterns of movement encountered in sporting scenarios. Vertical objects placed in the path of the athlete can necessitate horizontal deflection or vertical deflection in prior to their primary acceleration phase. These obstacles are placed in the initial vicinity of the start, requiring the athlete to perform agile movements or jumps in a very short time span. These movements are followed by a linear acceleration over a set distance. It is important to avoid over-cluttering the start with too many obstacles, resulting in an unrealistic scenario.

Start Mechanics and Training Applications – Preview

The intent of this video is not to provide a cookie cutter or paint-by-numbers approach to improving starts and acceleration. The idea is to provide coaches and athletes with guidelines and progressions for using various starting methods to improvement movement efficiency, starting strength, acceleration power and overall speed. Depending on the abilities of the athlete, the phase of development and the emphasis in your training program, you may decide to use different starting strategies. And, you can add some variety to help stimulate enthusiasm amongst your athletes and make your workouts a little more interesting.

This video resource is offered via digital download or as a hard copy DVD. For more information on “Start Mechanics and Training Applications” please visit www.strengthpowerspeed.com.

- Derek M. Hansen –

I had the pleasure of being in Times Square in New York City last weekend for the announcement of the 2011 Heisman Trophy winner, Baylor’s Robert Griffin III. As soon as his name was announced, I thought of fellow strength coach and friend, Chris Ruf of Baylor University, and his contributions to the achievement of this award. When I contacted Coach Ruf and congratulated him, he mentioned that track and field’s loss was Baylor Football’s gain. And, on further research, I discovered Robert Griffin III could very well have represented the United States in the 2012 Olympics in the 400m hurdles.

As a track and field athlete, Robert Griffin III broke state records for the 110-meter and 300-meter hurdles. He ran the 110-meter hurdles in 13.55 seconds, and the 300m hurdles in 35.33 seconds. The 300m hurdle time was one-hundredth of a second short of breaking the national high school record. He was also won gold in the 110 and 400-meter hurdles on the AAU track and field circuit. As a high school junior, he sprinted 13.46 in the 110-meter hurdles and 49.56 in the 400-meter hurdles. In 2007, as a junior, he was rated the No. 1 high school 400-meter immediate hurdler in the country, and was tied at No. 1 for the 110-meter sprint hurdler in the nation. In 2008, at the age of 18 years, he qualified for the semi-final in the 2008 U.S. Olympic trials in the 400m hurdles running a world-class time of 49.73 seconds. Unless you have been living in a cave for the last few months, I don’t believe I need to elaborate on his football accomplishments.

Strangely enough, I had a conversation a few weeks ago with legendary strength coach, Al Vermeil. He was commenting on how he thought hurdlers made good football skill players. He mentioned Willie Gault and a few others. And, I know that the San Francisco 49ers were evaluating Renaldo Nehemiah – the world record holder in the 110m hurdles, with no college football experience – in 1982 when Al was still the strength and conditioning coach for the team. It made me ask the question, “What other great hurdlers became professional athletes in the NFL?”

Transferable Qualities of Hurdling

If there is a correlation between hurdling and football success, what are the factors that contribute to this relationship? If you examine the key elements of hurdling, you can see that there are some significant abilities that could transfer over to football as follows:

Pure Speed

To be a good sprint hurdler, you must be fast. If you examine the sprint abilities of the top hurdlers, you will find they have excellent sprint times. In most cases, these athletes have possessed great speed abilities (i.e. much faster than most NFL players), but are not fast enough to rise to the top of the 100m rankings. For example, Terrence Trammell has run 12.95 seconds in the 110m hurdles and has also run 10.04 seconds in the 100m. Mark McKoy, the 1992 Olympic hurdle champion, ran 10.08 seconds in the 100m and 6.49 seconds in the indoor 60m. Does a great 100m time make you a fast hurdler? Absolutely not. But the faster hurdlers are fast sprinters, relatively speaking, and can transfer that speed to success in football.

Mobility

Without a doubt, great hip mobility is required for success in hurdling. Is it a coincidence that most strength coaches are using hurdle walk-over drills in an effort to build more hip mobility? No. In football, greater hip mobility allows athletes to change direction, both horizontally and vertically, with greater quickness, power and efficiency whether it means getting around or over obstacles. More flexibility in the hips also reduces stresses through the lower back, knees, quads and hamstrings. This quality definitely allows a hurdling athlete to make a smoother transition to the football field.

Vision and Focus

Pure sprinters simply need to focus on the finish line. Sprint hurdlers have to get over ten 42-inch barriers in as little time as possible. Their vision is not focused on individual hurdles, but an array of barriers. Focusing too much on one particular barrier can result in disaster as attack angle, rhythm and flight mechanics can be disrupted. Good vision is not about locking onto one specific hurdle, but scanning through the rows and not panicking about any one in particular. While you are focusing on what you need to do, barriers are crashing around you and limbs are flying into your lane. These are qualities that transfer well to football, particularly if you are a quarterback like Robert Griffin III. Over the longer hurdle races, such as the 400m hurdles, this focus must be maintained as severe fatigue sets in and consistent stride length must be maintained.

Athleticism and Technique

The technical requirements of hurdling lend themselves to the intricacies of football. Great hurdling athletes are not inattentive. They must be aware of the technical requirements of their sport and work on the individual elements every training session. This quality must be combined with significant athleticism and coordination. Running at near full speed and executing technique that allows you to clear a 42-inch hurdle be a mere fraction of an inch takes years of careful practice. It is no different than the skill required to catch a pass at near full speed with defenders draped all over you, all while having the presence of mind and skill to get both feet down inside the sideline.

Stride Frequency and Length

Running between each of the ten hurdles in the 110m hurdles requires quick, consistent stepping in order to post a fast time. The strides between the hurdles tend to be significantly shorter and quicker than those applied in a straight sprint such as the 100 meters. On average, the fastest portion of the men’s 100 meters at the world class level involves 4.8 strides per second, 2.3 meters per stride and a horizontal velocity of 11.8 meters per second. Whereas in the 110m hurdles, a world class athlete can put down as many as 6.0 strides per second in between hurdles, at a shorter 1.80m per stride and a peak horizontal velocity of 9.3 meters per second. Thus, sprint hurdlers put down shorter, quicker strides at a sub-maximal horizontal sprinting velocity than 100m sprinters. This is a much more compatible stride pattern for football, where quicker, shorter, nimble strides are more effective for starting, stopping and cutting movements.

Contact and Collisions

Anyone who has trained and competed in hurdles knows that at any given time, you could end up on the ground in a split second. As a youth, I vividly remember a training session where I cleared the first hurdle and then, on the second hurdle, I broke the cross-board between my legs, skidded for 8 yards and then found my face buried underneath the third hurdle. Like a good hurdler, I got up and readied myself for the next repetition. Football is no different, although a spindly hurdle tripping you is not a good comparison to a fast moving 240lb linebacker putting you on your back. But of all the track and field events, hurdling is most likely to knock you on your butt with annoying regularity.

The Hurdling/Football Athletes

Now that I have put forward my argument as to why I feel hurdlers make good football players, here is my incomplete list of the athletes, in no particular order, I have found to have had significant successes in both the hurdles and professional football:

- Jerry Tarr attended the University of Oregon where he competed in both football and track. Tarr was a member of Oregon’s 4 x 110 yard relay team with Mike Gaechter, Harry Jerome, and Mel Renfro, setting a world record in the event in 1962. Individually, Tarr excelled in the 120-yard hurdles. He was the first athlete to win back-to-back NCAA titles in the high hurdles in 1961 and 1962, and in doing so, helped Oregon win its first ever NCAA Men’s Outdoor Track and Field Championship in 1962. Tarr went on to play professional football rather than continue his track career, completing one season as a wide receiver with the Denver Broncos of the AFL in 1962.

- Richmond Flowers played football for the University of Tennessee and was also a member of the track team. Alabama football coach Bear Bryant hired Billy Hardin, the former Olympic hurdler, to try to persuade Flowers to attend Alabama. Flowers ultimately went to Tennessee and, as a Junior, defeated Southern University’s Willie Davenport in the 120-yard high hurdles, winning the race in 13.3 seconds. The time was a tenth of a second slower than the world record. Soon after, Flowers injured his right hamstring while doing sprints in Knoxville. The injury prevented him from competing in the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City, where Davenport won the gold medal in the 120 highs. Flowers eventually played in the NFL as a safety with the Dallas Cowboys (1969-71) and New York Giants (1971-73). Flowers was a backup safety on the Cowboys team that lost Super Bowl V to the Baltimore Colts, 16-13, in January 1971. He made six interceptions, all with the New York Giants, in his five-year NFL career. Four of his interceptions came in 1972.

- Earl McCullouch played college football at the University of Southern California and was one of five USC Trojans players taken in the first round of the 1968 NFL Draft after his senior year. In the 1967 and 1968 seasons, McCulloch played wide receiver on the USC offense that featured tailback O. J. Simpson. McCullouch was difficult to cover in pass routes and pursuit due to his world-class sprinting speed. As a member of the USC Track & Field team, McCulloch was the NCAA 110 Yard High Hurdle champion in 1967 and 1968, the NCAA 55 yard indoor high hurdle champion in 1968. He was the world record holder for the 110-meter men’s high hurdle sprint from July 1967 to July 1969, and also was the lead leg sprinter of the USC NCAA 4 X 110-yard world record (38.6 seconds) sprint relay team in 1967 and 1968 (the team also featured Simpson and future Olympian sprinter Lennox Miller). McCullouch played for the Detroit Lions (1968-73) and the New Orleans Saints (1974). He was named NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year in 1968.

- Willie Gault played in the NFL for 11 seasons for the Chicago Bears (1983-87) and Los Angeles Raiders (1988-1993). Gault was a standout in both football and track at the University of Tennessee receiving All-American honors as a receiver in 1982. Gault was a member of a world record-setting 4 x 100 meter U.S. relay team and earned a spot on the 1980 Summer Olympic team as a 110 meter hurdler only to miss the games due to the U.S. boycott. His best times are 13.26 in the 110 meters hurdles and 10.10 in the 100 meters. Gault was drafted in 1983, selected 18th overall in the first round. In Super Bowl XX, Gault had four receptions for 129 yards, and four kickoff returns for 49 yards. Gault finished his 11 NFL seasons with 333 receptions for 6,635 yards. He also returned 9 punts for 60 yards, rushed for 154 yards, returned 45 kickoffs for 1,088 yards, and scored 45 touchdowns. More recently, Gault has gone on to compete in Master’s track and field, recording world records in both the 100m (10.76) and 200m (21.80) in the 45-49 year old age group category.

- Rod Woodson is a former NFL defensive back best known for his 10-year stint with the Pittsburgh Steelers as well as contributing to the Baltimore Ravens’ Super Bowl XXXV championship season. While attending Purdue University, Woodson excelled at both track and football, receiving All-American honors on two occasions. Woodson established school records in both the 60m and 110m hurdles and earned five Big 10 championships during his collegiate career. He qualified for the 1984 Olympic trials in the 110m hurdles, but elected to pursue a career in football following graduation. In addition to playing for Pittsburgh and Baltimore, Woodson also played for the San Francisco 49ers and Oakland Raiders, wearing No. 26 throughout his career. He holds the NFL records for career interception return yardage (1,483) and interception returns for touchdowns (12), and was named the NFL Defensive Player of the Year in 1993. His 71 career interceptions places him third overall in NFL history. He was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio in 2009.

- James Owens played in the NFL for the San Francisco 49ers (1979-80) and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers (81-84) over six seasons. He played both the running back and receiver positions throughout his career. While at UCLA, Owens was the NCAA 110m hurdle champion in 1977, while placing second in 1975-76. Owens also competed for the U.S. in the 1976 Montreal Summer Olympics, placing sixth overall in the final. His personal best times were 13.46 in the 110m hurdles and 10.47 in the 100m. He still ranks second on UCLA’s all-time 110m high hurdles list. As a halfback for the UCLA Bruin football team, Owens had eight 100-plus yard games finishing his career with 2,074 yards and a 5.01 average. Owens was voted team MVP in 1977 and received the outstanding senior award in 1978. Ironically, sprinting and hurdling legend Jesse Owens’ original name was James Cleveland Owens. He became Jesse when a teacher accidently wrote down his name as “Jesse” instead of J.C.

- Renaldo Nehemiah was known more for his hurdling prowess than football achievements. In 1981, Nehemiah became the first person to run the 110m hurdles in under 13 seconds posting a 12.93 second World Record at the Zurich Weltklasse meet. Nehemiah dominated the hurdle events in high school running 12.9 seconds in the 110m hurdles and 35.8 seconds in the 300m hurdles (remember, RG III ran it in 35.33 seconds). At the University of Maryland, Nehemiah achieved three NCAA hurdle titles, two indoor and one outdoor. Despite dominating the sprint hurdle event in the late seventies and early eighties, Nehemiah decided to pursue a football career in the NFL, even though he had not played collegiate football. He played two-and-a-half seasons with the San Francisco 49ers and amassed career totals of 754 receiving yards, four touchdowns and an average of 17.4 yards per reception. After a lackluster career in the NFL, Nehemiah returned to the hurdles in 1986 to achieve world rankings four more times from 1988 to 1991.

- Tedd Ginn, Jr. currently plays for the San Francisco 49ers in the NFL and played for the Miami Dolphins from 2007 to 2009. Ginn was a national champion 110m hurdler as a high school senior running a time of 13.40 seconds (he ran a wind-aided 13.26), also running a time of 36.73 seconds in the 300m hurdles. Ginn was recruited to run track at Ohio State, but decided to focus on football. He finished his career at OSU with 125 receptions for a total of 1,943 yards and 15 touchdowns. He also set a Big 10 record for most career punt returns for touchdown (6 in total).

- Paul Lowe, an Oregon State graduate, was a high hurdle champion in high school and college. “That’s where I got my style from with the high knee action. I was only 170lbs, so I wasn’t going to run over anyone.” Lowe amassed 4,995 yards as a running back for San Diego and Kansas City in the NFL averaging 4.9 yards per carry from 1960 to 1969.

- Reyna Thompson played defensive back for the Miami Dolphins (1986-89), New York Giants (1990-92) and the New England Patriots (1993). In his senior year in high school in 1981, Thompson clocked the nation’s fastest time in the 110m hurdles at 13.4 seconds. He then enrolled at Baylor University on a track scholarship. He qualified for the 1984 U.S. Olympic trials in the high hurdles, but was not able to compete due to a hamstring injury.

- Roger Craig, the star running back for the San Francisco 49ers from 1983 to 1990, outlined how he attributed much of his football success to running the high hurdles in his book, Tales from the San Francisco 49ers Sideline. “My football running style helped me when I was running the hurdles – and my form in the high hurdles helped me on the football field, too. Ira Dunsworth, my track coach, taught me the correct form to use on the track. I finished in second place in the 110m high hurdles and the 400m hurdles at the Iowa State Track and Field Championships my senior year. I found that I could be even more effective on the football field if I applied the same principles of running with my knees up.”

- Bobby Mitchell played for the Cleveland Browns (1958-61) and the Washington Redskins (1962-68) as a halfback in the NFL and was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1983. Mitchell had a successful hurdling career, setting an indoor world record in 1958 in the 70 yard low hurdles with a time of 7.7 seconds. Mitchell had an opportunity to try to make the 1960 Olympic team, but instead opted to play for the Cleveland Browns.

- Tyrone Wheatley played for the New York Giants (1995-98) and the Oakland Raiders (1999-2004) in the NFL, totaling over 6,500 all purpose yards as a running back and kick returner. As a high school track and field athlete, Wheatley ran the 110m hurdles in a time of 13.87 seconds in 1991. At the University of Michigan, Wheatley placed eighth in the 1995 NCAA outdoor championships in the 110m hurdles, earning him All-American honors. He finished his college career running 13.77 seconds in the 110m hurdles and 10.46 seconds in the 100 meters.

- Gene Washington was NCAA Indoor Champion in the 60 yard high hurdles in 1965 for Michigan State University. Washington played for the Minnesota Vikings (1967-72) and the Denver Broncos (1973-74) as a wide receiver. Washington made the Pro Bowl in 1969 and 1970.

- Qadry Ismail played wide receiver in the NFL between 1993 and 2002 for a number of teams including the Minnesota Vikings, Green Bay Packers, Miami Dolphins, New Orleans Saints, Baltimore Ravens and the Indianopolis Colts. Ismail won a Super Bowl in 2000 while with the Baltimore Ravens. As a high schooler, Ismail finished his senior year as the third-fasts 110m hurdler in Pennsylvania State history with a time of 13.71 seconds. He went on to play football and run track at Syracuse University, posting a best 110m hurdle time of 13.60 seconds.

- Jabari Greer currently plays for the New Orleans Saints as a cornerback. He was initially signed by the Buffalo Bills in 2004 after playing his college career at the University of Tennessee. In 2003, Greer won the SEC 110m hurdle title with a personal best time of 13.32 seconds, the second-fastest time in school history behind Willie Gault’s 13.26 seconds.

- Nolan Cromwell played defensive back for the Los Angeles Rams from 1977 to 1987. He was named to the Pro Bowl over four consecutive years (1980 to 1983) and played in the 1979 Super Bowl with the Rams. As a college athlete at Kansas University, Cromwell earned All-American honors in the 400m hurdles with a performance of 49.47 seconds. In 1975 and 1976, Cromwell was the Big Eight 400m hurdle champion.

- Mel Renfro placed second in the 1962 NCAA Track and Field Championships in the 120-yard hurdles while competing for the University of Oregon. Renfro was also a member of the 1962 440-yard relay team, coached by Bill Bowerman, that broke the world record with a time of 40.0 seconds. As a football player, Renfro had a 14-year career in the NFL playing as a defensive back for the Dallas Cowboys. He was selected to the Pro Bowl in each of his first ten seasons in the NFL and played in four Super Bowls. Renfro was selected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1996.

- Hugh McElhenny was a running back in the NFL from 1952-1964, playing for the San Francisco 49ers, Minnesota Vikings, New York Giants and Detroit Lions. He gained a total of 11,375 all-purpose yards in his 13 year career. While with the 49ers, he was nicknamed “The King”. McElhenny was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1970. When attending George Washington High School in Los Angeles, McElhenny held city school records for the 120 yard and 180 yard hurdles. He claimed that the training he performed for track and field helped him in football.

- Glenn Davis was a world class sprinter and hurdler who won a total of three gold medals in the 1956 and 1960 Olympic games. Davis ran the 120 yard high hurdles in 14.0 seconds and had world records in the 200m low hurdles (22.5 seconds) and the 400m hurdles (49.1 seconds). His Olympic titles were in the 400m hurdles in the Melbourne Olympics in 1956 and the 1960 Rome Olympics. Davis is the only man to have set world record in the 400m with hurdles and without. After his illustrious track career, Davis played wide receiver for the Detroit Lions in the 1960 and 1961 seasons.

- Clyde Scott competed in both track and football at the University of Arkansas and the US Naval Academy. Scott won the 110m hurdles for Arkansas in the NCAA Championships in a time of 13.7 seconds. He competed for the U.S. in the 1948 London Olympics and won the silver medal in the 110m hurdles. In 1948, Scott was chosen in NFL draft, playing three seasons with the Philadelphia Eagles and one season with the Detroit Lions.

Concluding Remarks

As I noted before, this is not a complete list. In fact, I may have omitted several professional football players who actually competed in the hurdles as part of their careers in the decathlon. Jim Thorpe is one name that comes to mind. And there may have been several great hurdlers who made the decision to stick with track rather than invest more energy into football. David Oliver, who has a personal best time in the 110m hurdles of 12.89 seconds, also played wide receiver at Howard University. Does anyone know whether or not Tim Tebow ran hurdles in grade school?

Regardless, there are many reasons why hurdling is compatible with football. Would I recommend that athletes who want to excel at football take up hurdling? I don’t see why not. I believe that performing a number of hurdling drills can have a positive impact on many of the qualities I have identified. I currently incorporate hurdle sprints into several of the training sessions I provide for football athletes. As a general philosophy, I believe competing in several track and field events and other speed and power dependent sports can have a beneficial influence on an athlete’s overall development. Hurdling is just another activity that has the ability to vault an athlete over the competition.

- Derek M. Hansen -

Running successfully over long distances (I consider anything over 400 meters to be a long distance) requires a composite of many factors. The majority of distance runners will tell you that “mileage” and overall training volume will form the foundation of their training program. Hence, good distance runners tend to have:

- Low body mass
- Low percentage of body fat
- High percentage of slow-twitch muscle fibers
- Relatively high VO2 max (maximal oxygen uptake)
- A poor chance of winning in the Ultimate Fighting Championship

Thus, when we picture a successful distance runner, we tend to think of a skinny person of average height with an efficient cardiovascular system and big lungs. We certainly do not envision a heavily muscled body sculpted through hours of hard work in the weightlifting gym. So why would any lightly muscled distance runner even consider touching a weight when planning their training program?

An excerpt from exercise physiologist Dave Costill’s 1979 book, A Scientific Approach to Distance Running, gives us a closer look the average strength characteristics of the typical elite distance runner.

“In 1968, we tested Lou Castagnola, a 2:17 marathoner. At that time he had a maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max) of 72.4 ml/kg minute and a vertical jump of 29.2 cm. Following the 1968 U.S. Olympic marathon trial, he terminated all training. Three years later we re-examined him and found his VO2 max had declined to 47.6 ml/kg minute. His vertical jump, on the other hand, increased to 51.cm, a 76% increase despite his detrained status. This suggests that endurance running impairs leg speed and explosive power.”

Although this excerpt is from an old book, it’s findings hold true over numerous research studies performed in the three decades since its publishing. And, these findings can be confirmed by simply going for a 45 minute run, then following up the run with an explosive weightlifting session. The two activities mix as well as a snack of popcorn and bubblegum.

If strength and power related activities are so incompatible with cyclical aerobic activities, why would we be proposing the use of strength training for distance runners? It seems as though the results would be disastrous. Yet there still remain many good reasons for keeping strength training within your long distance running program.

Improved running mechanics. Improvements in multi-joint strength and power abilities can minimize excessive hip, knee and ankle flexion during the support phase of the running stride. A longer ground-contact time is often observed in runners with a lower strength-to-weight ratio. These athletes experience a greater amount of flexion in the lower extremities on ground contact, negatively affecting their running economy. Higher strength levels achieved through a combination of conventional weight lifting and plyometric training can improve overall lower body strength, stiffness and elasticity, ultimately enhancing running mechanics and efficiency. Flat tires on an automobile ultimately result in poor performance and fuel economy. The same could be said for running athletes with poor lower body strength.

Enhanced injury prevention. Overuse injuries often plague long distance runners, particularly when the majority of mileage is accumulated over hard, paved surfaces. As the research has shown, resistance training performed early in the development of young athletes can increase their bone density. Continued resistance training through an athlete’s lifetime can help to preserve bone density and slow the potential for loss of bone density in latter years. As many long distance runners have discovered, stress fractures in the feet and lower legs can be a common symptom of high mileage. Any means of strengthening these bones could help to minimize the incidence of injury and, hence, lost training time.

Soft-tissue injuries such as tendonitis, low back pain and shin-splints can also be prevented with a training program that incorporates exercises that progressively load muscles and connective tissue. A stronger, more resilient body will allow for more intense workouts and higher volumes of training for running athletes.

Neuromuscular recruitment improvements. A maximal strength program may make perfect sense for 100 meter sprinters, but there are also unique benefits for longer distance runners. A well designed strength training program that incorporates low repetitions, relatively high loads and appropriate recovery times between sets will develop muscles that produce more force while not resulting in unwanted muscle bulk. Improvements in maximal force production make sub-maximal efforts much easier, particularly over longer durations. And, since not all long distance running occurs on flats or down-hill sections, hill climbing can be enhanced by muscle strength improvements derived from strength training.

It is interesting to note that I recently cracked open my copy of Peter Coe’s book, “Better Training for Distance Runners.” I was encouraged to find a photo of Sebastian Coe half squatting with a loaded barbell of 100 kg – which would be well above his training body weight. In the text supporting the photo, Peter Coe states that, “Five reps constitute a typical set.” This was not surprising to see as we have heard many stories of Seb Coe running very fast 400m splits in relays. Although he was renowned for his middle-distance accomplishments, it was apparent that he had significant speed abilities that could not be developed by high volume running alone.

Balancing out your training. At some point in your training, you will reach a point of diminishing returns with one or all of your current training elements. You can only run so far before you stop improving and start to de-train or get injured. Cross-training can provide significant benefits while preventing plateaus in training and elevating complimentary qualities such as speed, power, strength and durability. These qualities are often forgot when mileage is the primary concern for athletes competing in distance running. Once you direct a portion of your time and energy to higher intensity qualities, they can feed back into your primary training and provide a transfer effect that leads to better overall running performance. Also, you cannot discount the benefit of having a variety of training environments and modes to keep you psychologically fresh and enthusiastic about your training. Achieving a proper balance of training inputs can improve performance without increasing the risk of overtraining.

If you examine the most recent achievement by Kenyan athlete, Patrick Makau, completing the Berlin marathon in a World record time of 2:03:38, you can come up with some interesting conclusions. He averaged a 4:43 mile pace over 26.2 miles translating into 70.75 seconds per 400m (the equivalent of running around a quarter mile track 104 times). In order to run consecutive 70-second quarter miles for two hours, I would surmise that he has the capability to run a 400 meter race time of no less than 47 seconds, a 200m race in 21.5 seconds and a 100m time of under 11 seconds. That type of performance takes a degree of fast twitch muscle fiber that doesn’t come just from long runs in the plains of Africa.

Exercise Prescriptions

So if we can all agree that improved strength qualities can enhance overall running performance, how does one go about developing an appropriate strength training program? As with any exercise prescription or planning process, individual differences will arise depending on age, gender, experience, pre-existing injuries and goals. However, there are some basic guidelines that can be followed to get the most out of a strength training regime that will add value to your running program.

Don’t be afraid to lift heavy weights using less repetitions. Conventional wisdom for endurance runners has been to lift light weight over numerous repetitions. It is not uncommon for long distance runners and other endurance athletes to engage in 3-4 sets of 15-20 repetitions with low recovery times between sets. While this may intuitively fit with their endurance profile, it does very little to improve their durability and high performance capabilities as the type of work they are performing is too similar to what they are already doing with their running. In other words, it is overly redundant. These endurance athletes would be better served by running more, as it is more specific to their ultimate goal.

There is a misplaced fear that lifting heavy weights will result in bulky, useless muscle. If the correct repetitions and loads are selected, weightlifting can yield great improvements in muscle recruitment and force production, without significant increases in muscle cross-sectional area and body weight. Sets in the range of two to five repetitions with 80-95% of a one repetition maximum can easily be integrated into a runners training program without creating unwanted side effects. Of course, time has to be taken to develop technical proficiency and progressively build up the loads being lifted to ensure that an athlete minimize risk of injury. Such work also prepares athletes for the stress of other complimentary activities such as plyometrics.

Why sit when you can stand? Implement the majority of your exercises with your feet planted on the ground. Ground based exercises such as dead-lifting, squatting, lunging and overhead pressing can provide the vertical loading required for improving lower limb force producing qualities and postural integrity. While many core-strengthening routines utilize exercises that are carried out in horizontal positions, I’m a big proponent of loading the body vertically. It’s been many tens of thousands of years since we were quadripeds. Now that we are walking and running bipedally in the upright position, our training should reflect this fact. Loading the spine, pelvis and legs vertically with weight training will pay dividends for running athletes who spend most of the time on their feet.

Incorporate jumps, plyometrics and/or medicine ball throws into your routine. A good portion of your strength training activities can be undertaken without the use of weightlifting equipment. Jumps that focus on strong hip extension – such as jumping up stairs or up onto a box – can help develop powerful glutes, quads and hamstrings. Plyometric jumps over short distances, focusing on quick ground contacts, can develop lower leg strength and elastic power that can feed back into efficient stride mechanics. The addition of medicine ball throws and passes to your strength training routine can provide a total body workout that can build general strength, power, mobility and speed. Incorporating a combination of these activities into your overall training program one to two times per week can add the right type of intensity to your training program without creating more wear and tear. As with a higher intensity weight training program, a gradual progression of work for these ballistic activities is essential to avoid joint and soft-tissue injuries, thereby facilitating the positive evolution of your training program.

Running drills for strength, speed and power. Basic running drills that incorporate marching, skipping and rapid knee lifts can be useful in isolating the key mechanical components of the running stride and enhancing these individual qualities. Often referred to as the A, B and C’s of running drills, these drills can be used to hone technique, improve flexibility, stabilize posture, build core strength and enhance force production capabilities. These drills can be combined with regular running workouts or used in a separate qualitative technique workouts. If performed in association with a longer distance running workout, it is recommended that these drills be performed prior to the run when fatigue is not a factor. In many ways, these drills can be used as a warm-up or technique primer before a running workout.

Keep it simple. People are always anxious to add more elements to their training program in an effort to improve performance. It is advisable to add new elements incrementally in an effort to evaluate their efficacy and your body’s reaction to additional work. Patience and meticulous planning will pay off in the long run, while the haphazard clustering of new techniques can only end badly.

Additionally, there are always new training types and trends that claim to enhance performance. Rubber bands, vibration platforms, kettle-bells, suspension training, hot yoga and hypoxic training devices are examples of trendy innovations that are flooding the market. This list is endless and can be expensive. Certainly these devices can add variety to your program. But do they actually deliver improved performance? That is the question that you seriously need to ask yourself when faced with the prospect of handing over more cash with no tangible return on your investment. Everyone likes the idea of placebos in training, as the mind can be a powerful ally in your day-to-day struggle to carry out your workouts. But in the long run, the “sugar pills” may just add more calories, not better performances.

Final Remarks

Perhaps I am just a purist. I believe that common sense adjustments to the volume and intensity of a training program over time can yield the best results. When it comes to a training program, you must have a full understanding of the contribution of all of the exercises and inputs. You must also have a means of monitoring the value and shortcomings of specific training elements. If something is not working for you, do not hesitate to remove it or, at the very least, minimize its involvement. Alternatively, you may know that some training elements are providing value added. However, would an increase in volume lead to greater improvements, or would a point of diminishing returns become a factor?

Ultimately, your training program is no different than a culinary recipe. A given gourmet recipe may call for one tablespoon of salt in order to make the dish taste just right and get rave reviews. Yet two tablespoons of salt might lead to a gut-wrenching experience that drives people out of your restaurant. The right ingredients added at the right time and in the proper amounts are the key to a good recipe. A training plan for long distance runners, or any athletes for that matter, should be no different. Make sure that you are adding the right types and amounts of work at the right time in your program, using experience and common sense as your guides. With careful management and decision making, your workouts and your meals will be much easier to digest.

Robert A. Panariello MS, PT, ATC, CSCS
Professional Orthopedic and Sports Physical Therapy
Professional Athletic Performance Center
New York, New York

The lack of early age athletic “preparation” as well as the common occurrence of youth athletic “sports specialization” is presently an all too common theme in the United States. The dream of a college scholarship and perhaps an ensuing professional payday appears to often be the incentive for such early sport specialization. However, too early a sport specialization does have its consequences. An example of such a consequence is the 12 year-old baseball pitcher whom I recently rehabilitated after arthroscopic elbow surgery. According to his father “this young man is going to be the next Roger Clemens”. Obviously the father did not realize that throughout Roger Clemens’s athletic career, this Hall of Fame caliber pitcher never had elbow surgery. My time and experiences with this young athlete was my incentive to write this article.

The athletes of today live in a much different society than the athletes of decades past. The days of walking or riding a bicycle to one’s destination is often replaced with a car ride from parents, an arranged “carpool”, or perhaps a helping hand from a friend or neighbor. The advances in technology have provided us with the Internet, a venue for obtaining information effortlessly and provides an ease of multiple tasks as it is no longer necessary for one to leave their home as often to make a sales purchase, communicate with friends, travel to the public the library, etc… and essentially producing instant gratification at one’s fingertips.

The days of sandlot competition and playground pick-up games have been frequently replaced with various video games played at home in a sedentary position. However, there are certainly millions of children, teenagers, and young adults that participate in athletic activities. Some of these young athletes partake with the aforementioned dream of their participation evolving as a gateway to a college scholarship and perhaps even an eventual professional occupation. Though the number of Americans that participate in some type of physical activity, and more specifically, the number of present day athletes who physically train with the goal of athletic enhancement is probably at an all time high, the question arises are these athletes prepared for the stresses of vigorous Athletic Performance Training as well as the enduring repetitive stresses that will occur over a long competitive season? Unlike the athletes of decades past, many of today’s adolescent and teenaged athletes are often sedentary when off the field of play, and many are of the mindset of “sport specialization”, meaning a significant percentage of these individual athletes participate in one specific sport and only that sport activity throughout the year (i.e. 24/7/365).

Each year an increased number of athletes (just like that 12 year old pitcher) walk through the doors of our physical therapy clinics with both performance training and athletic participation injuries. Many parents with whom I speak are of the opinion that the performance training as well as the organized athletic participation of these athletes is initiated at too young an age. I have had many conversations with a number of Strength and Conditioning (S&C) Coaches, many with whom I associate, and their opinion with regard to this subject matter is that prior to the initiation of the athletes performance training a “lack of physical preparation” occurs all too often. This opinion comprises athletes of all ages and levels of competition including those at both the college and professional level of play. Often times it is the athlete’s skills that render them successful, but it is their lack of physical preparation and at times, their lack of “athleticism” that may “set them up” so to speak, for potential injury.

At the time of the initiation of an athletic performance training program, many young athletes, and at times their coaches, are more concerned with the amount of weight the athlete can lift vs. the proper way to prepare to train. A common question a coach or teenage athlete may ask their peer is “How much can you bench?” vs. “What kind of training program do you utilize? “

If the present day young athlete is less physically active (sedentary) during the early developmental stages of life, and disregards the opportunity for their body, and more specifically the neuromuscular system of the body to adapt and develop from the experiences of the various environmental stresses that occur in a child’s life, are they less prepared at the time of the initiation of performance training and/or their selected sport of participation? If the physical stresses such as walking, running, bicycle riding, tree climbing, participation in various sports and physical activities, etc… occur less frequently or are even eliminated, in addition to elementary schools and physical education classes eliminating “dangerous” activities such as a schoolyard game of “tag”, or climbing ropes in the gym class, is the young athlete of today as physically well prepared as the young athlete of the past? Are today’s young athletes prepared to adapt to the high stresses that are applied to their body over a prolonged period of time without breaking down? Are college and professional athletes, whom are so specialized and demonstrate high skill levels for their particular sport of participation, also prepared for the high stresses of their off-season training program?

Skill vs. Athleticism

Many successful one-sport specialized athletes are very “skilled” at their particular sport of participation. Though a baseball player may have a .300 batting average, or a basketball player may make a high percentage of his/her shots, are these athletes flexible, strong, powerful, and fast? Is their conditioning and work capacity at optimal levels? Are they prepared for the training that hopefully will not only enhance their level of play, but also allow them to resist the stresses associated with athletic participation over a long season (avoid injury) while maintaining their ability to perform at an optimal level of performance time and time again?

There are also many athletes that display high levels of ‘athleticism”, but are not necessarily “skillful”. For example, an athlete with a superb vertical jump many not be a very good shooter of the basketball. A football player who displays excellent running velocity but demonstrates the inability to catch a football may be assigned to become a defensive back or with special teams. There is certainly a difference between “skill’ and “athleticism” and it would be a crucial mistake for a coach to not recognize the differences between these two physical entities. Our responsibility as S&C Coaches is to enhance the athleticism and work capacity of our athletes, as well as assist in injury prevention. The newly developed athletic “enhancement” will eventually transfer to result in optimal athletic “skill” performance as the athlete continues to practice their skills over time i.e. hit a baseball further. The S&C Coach is also responsible for the preparation of our athletes, when necessary, prior to their participation in a stressful performance training program, to ensure that the training is applicable, that athletic enhancement is achieved, that overall work capacity is enhanced, and that the reduction of a potential risk injury is attained. The coaches, and more specifically, the position coaches of the specific sport of participation are the individuals responsible for enhancing the specific skill(s) level of the athlete. Due to the distinct differences displayed in these two physical entities (skill vs. athleticism), a very highly skilled athlete may not be prepared for the task of strenuous athletic performance training, or for their long season of participation during athletic competition.

The Neuromuscular System of the Body

The significance of the nervous/neuromuscular system of the young athlete was very highly emphasized during my time studying in the Eastern Bloc. Many of the coaches and instructors stressed of how “plastic” the nervous system of an adolescent is, and how this system of the body could be “molded” during the athletes early years during the initiation of the process of “general physical preparation” (GPP) that would assist to result in the young individual becoming the best possible athlete that they themselves could come to be. In fact, these coaches and instructors stated that up to 57.5% of the physical qualities that are potentially developed over the athlete’s career (athletic life) occurred between the ages of 12 to 16. This information was further substantiated to me by Mr. Gregorio Goldstein, a former Soviet Weightlifter and Weightlifting Coach here in the U.S with whom my friend and at the time NFL New York Giant S&C Coach Johnny Parker and I studied with for approximately 5 years. Coach Goldstein also highly recommended, as the other Eastern bloc athletic enhancement authorities, the necessity for young athletes to participate in as many different athletic endeavors as possible. This participation was necessary to develop their nervous system, athleticism, and work capacity, prior to focusing on the specialization of their particular sport. This GPP also prepared the athlete for the high stresses of performance training to not only enhance the individual’s athletic performance, but to ensure the body’s resistance to these appropriately applied high stresses and reduce the risk and avoid possible injury. Even at the professional level of competition, Coach Goldstein recommended that the NY Giant football players participate in at least 250 to 300 hours of GPP annually.

Preparation for Athletic Performance Training

Prior to the initiation of any athletic performance training program, an evaluation of each athlete should be performed. If an evaluation were not performed, how would the coach possibly know of the deficiencies incurred by each athlete? The method of evaluation may be specific to the opinion and choice of each individual S&C Coach, but the utilization of some type of evaluative method is highly recommended. What is also recommended, if necessary, is a period of athletic performance training preparation. This preparation period of training will ensure that the athlete has achieved the necessary physical qualities of flexibility, muscle, tendon, and joint strength and stability, familiarization and the actual demonstration by the athlete of the proper exercise technique of those to be performed during the training program, as well as the enhancement of the athletes overall general physical conditioning and work capacity.

Preparation for the Training of the Adolescent Athlete

During the yearly training of the adolescent athlete, as previously stated, this young individual should participate and perform in as many different athletic sports and activities as possible. However, the total avoidance of specialization training is also not recommended. The emphasis is placed on GPP vs. sport specialization for a superior variety of stresses applied to the body for eventual adaptation by the athletes neuromuscular system in an attempt to “create” an overall better athlete. The preparation (GPP) vs. specialization guidelines for the adolescent through the early teenage years of training may be reviewed in Table 1.

Age____ Year of Training_____Percent GPP______Percent Specialization

12 __________ 1 _____________ 70–80% ______________ 20-30%

13 __________ 2 _____________ 50-60% ______________ 40-50%

14 __________ 3 _____________ 30-40% ______________ 60-70%

Table 1. General Physical Preparation of the Young Athlete

The appropriate progressive and repetitive practice by the athlete of their actual sports skills performed over time, will support the transfer of these enhanced neuromuscular qualities resulting in an “overall” superior athlete.

Adolescent athletes will initially utilize body weight exercises (i.e. push-ups, pull-ups, squats, etc…) and medicine ball activities during their training program. Rubber bands and other implements may be used to assist in unloading the athlete during the performance of specific exercise activities such as pull-ups, if the athlete cannot perform these types of exercises with their full body weight. When appropriate wooden dowels, PVC pipe, and lightweight bars may be utilized to assist the “eye of the coach” to ensure that proper exercise technique is maintained and/or improved while the application of these additional light intensities will continue to enhance the appropriate amount of applied “stress” for the athletes adaptation from the exercises performed.

Preparation for the Training of the “Older” Athlete

As a S&C Coach begins their work with the “older” (i.e. high school, college, professional) athlete, the biological age and sports skill experience of the individual athlete may not correlate to the same level of athleticism or physical condition/work capacity of these same athletes. These differences, if presented, are undoubtedly a consideration and will certainly have an influence during the planned course of applied stress of performance training for the desired outcome of optimal athletic development. Over the years during multiple conversations with S&C Coaches, and more specifically my friends Al Vermeil, Johnny Parker and Al Miller, I have heard time and time again how often the professional athletes they have worked with were not prepared to train. They have stated how frequently they have had to physically “prepare” many of their professional athletes prior to allowing the athlete participate in their professional teams the off-season S&C program. This is not to insinuate that the athlete’s previous S&C Coach was a poor coach. This is simply stating that at the time the athlete arrived to participate in the team’s off-season S&C program, they were not physically prepared, in the opinion of these coaches, to partake in the teams strenuous off-season training program. We have also had this same experience with some of the college and professional athletes we train at our Performance Center, as this was also often the case during my 10 years as the Head S&C Coach at St. John’s University.

The necessity of an athletes physical “preparation” is especially true of those specific high school, college, and professional athletes that have participated and completed a course of physical rehabilitation prior to their arrival for participation in an Athletic Performance Enhancement Training Program.

I have often heard at lectures, or during my conversations with other S&C Coaches that they don’t have the time to “prepare” the higher level athlete for their off-season athletic performance training program. This “preparation” would take away from the valuable training time that is necessary for the athlete’s actual participation in the specific off-season training program. Many of these coaches have been of the opinion that the athlete should participate in the same off-season program as their teammates, as the athlete will either adapt or not adapt i.e. “sink or swim” during the training process. The obvious response by many coaches would be how could a coach not spend the time to preparing the athlete?

As an example, during the 1980’s Coach Goldstein spent a significant amount of time teaching both Coach Parker and I the value of the overhead squat as both an evaluation and performance training tool. Al Vermeil substantiated this information when he expressed the importance of the overhead squat to me during a conversation that occurred in 1990. If the S&C coach utilizes the overhead squat as an evaluative tool, and a particular athlete demonstrates poor exercise technique, why would an S&C coach apply inappropriately high intensities to the athlete during squat exercise performance when the athlete had previously demonstrated such a poor squat performance? Should an athlete that demonstrates limited shoulder range of motion or poor thoracic mobility be stressed inappropriately and instructed to perform the overhead press or the snatch? Is it reasonable for an S&C Coach to prescribe excessive and inappropriate specific exercise intensity and/or volume when deficits in specific physical qualities and work capacity have been demonstrated? This is especially true when one would consider that these improperly performed exercises (poor technique) are to be performed repeatedly over time where both increases in exercise volumes and intensities will be applied as usually prescribed in any athletes training program design.

Preparation for training of the higher level athlete probably does not occur as often as we would assume. Yet it is very simply achieved in a fairly short period of time. Utilizing methods such as Javorek’s complexes, where an athlete will perform a “cycle” of 5-6 exercises in immediate succession for 6 to 8 reps per exercise and eventually complete 4-6 cycles in a training session is a very effective training method to establish the necessary exercise range of motion (flexibility), muscle and joint strength and stability, familiarity of the exercise performance (technique), and enhance the overall work capacity of the athlete. Initiating the exercise complex at 25% body weight and eventually achieving 40% body weight, as well as instituting activities such as medicine ball and running tempo, etc… depending upon the individual athlete, the GPP may take a total of 2 to 4 weeks to achieve. At that time the athlete will be well prepared for the advanced yet appropriate exercise volumes and intensities required of an off-season performance enhancement training program.

Considerations based upon the athlete’s biological and training (experience) age, athleticism, training experience, and evaluation test results will assist, when necessary, in the program development and prescribed exercise selection to be utilized by the athlete to prepare them prior to the initiation of their performance enhancement training program. Although many of these off-season athletic enhancement training programs may differ, what is certain is that often “preparation” of the athlete is essential to ensure optimal training success. There are coaches with the opinion that they do not have the necessary time to prepare the athlete for off-season training. These coaches will unfortunately likely find that that the athlete will lose that preparation time and perhaps an even greater amount of time when during the training period, the athlete performs poorly, breaks down, and is possibly injured. There is an old saying that states “you can pay me now, or you can pay me later”. We as S&C Coaches should determine the best time to write the check.

- Derek M. Hansen –

As a track and field athlete, I always ran in the sprint races or competed in the jumping events. In college, a 200 meter sprint race was an eternity for me even though I ran the quarter mile in high school. So my foray into middle distance running was limited to general aerobic training in the early phases of training or punishing mandatory endurance tests as part of high school gym class. Aside from my mediocre VO2 max, I just didn’t have the mentality or attention span for long distance running. For me, the term “cross-country” only applied to a nice long drive on the interstate.

When you crack open Runner’s on Running, a book compiled by Rich Elliott, you truly appreciate the passion the contributors have for the act of running. For many people, simply running for the sake of running makes absolutely no sense. I train many football, basketball and soccer players who cannot contemplate running without also thinking about tackling someone, making a lay-up or kicking a ball into the back of the net. For others, running is a way of life, a cherished process, a metaphorical journey or a simple escape. Rich Elliott writes, “My aim was to bring together the best true stories about running, the best writing about runners and races. My hope is that the pieces in this collection will entertain you, provoke you, fire your imagination, and inspire your running, as they have for me.”

Thus, it becomes clear that this is not a “How To” book on running. It could best be described as a running book of encouragement, inspirational anecdotes and short-stories, with each individual author contributing their own personal account of running – what running means to them, and how they felt when they were running. In other instances, the writers are sharing a biographical look at a unique running athlete whose story can inspire others to run and compete.

Provided below are descriptions of the contributions that caught my attention when reading through Runners on Running.

Dr. Sheehan

The late Dr. George Sheehan – a cardiologist who re-discovered running in his forties and became known as an authority on running for health and fitness – opens Runners on Running with his essay on the “experience” of running. “Every day I put on my running clothes, I am born again,” writes Sheehan. He talks about being a beginner every time he runs and how it is the only way to run, “Otherwise, my runs become dull, uninspired interludes.” Perhaps I should be taking Sheehan’s perspective, because every time I go for a run, I’m cursing and saying in my head, “I’ve been doing this for over 30 years and it sure isn’t getting any more fun or easier.”

Sheehan continues by discussing the process of “searching out how to run” each time he goes for a run. He comments on how tremendously simple yet how tremendously complex running can be. His approach is to “take to the roads as a beginner, a child, a poet. Hoping for a new appreciation of the landscape, a new perspective of my inner world.” Wow, some really deep stuff. Most of us are simply trying to burn a few calories and listen to a good podcast on our run. It is obvious that running to Sheehan is much more than running. It is “my fountain of youth, my elixir of life. When I run, I know there is no need to grow old.”

Car-Dong

In another chapter, Don Kardong reflects on running as it relates to an old Buick he formerly owned. The car kept overheating despite several attempts to resolve the problem. While having a good vomit after a tough marathon, he was “remembering the feelings of frustration I had faced in trying to get that old car going again. Sometimes, it seems, no matter who you consult or what you do, the same old problem keeps rising to the surface, bobbing and weaving in an elusive attempt to avoid getting fixed. And in running the marathon, whatever slight maladjustment might be in one’s system is bound to become a major obstacle to success. The old Buick had finally succumbed to a flaw, not unlike the one that hit me at the ten-mile mark in Minneapolis. The Buick’s flaw was in the gurgling innards of its system. So was my own.” Needless to say, I am a big fan of the car analogies when it comes to running. Hence, I enjoyed Kardong’s piece on the old Buick. Essentially, his story was about his chronic problems with intestinal irritation and his predisposition to vomiting during long races. Like his car, he tried numerous different strategies to solve the problem with no luck. His story is not unlike that of many runners (and car owners) with chronic problems that never seem to entirely go away, despite the numerous strategies we employ.

Bower-Man

Kenny Moore recounts one of the most interesting stories in the book entitled “The Man.” The “man” in this case is the legendary Oregon coach Bill Bowerman. The University of Oregon track coach not only trained 12 American record holders and won 4 NCAA titles, he helped popularize the activity of jogging and provide the innovative building blocks (with the use of a waffle iron) for one of the most successful sport shoe companies – Nike.

Bowerman coached Moore in the 1960’s when he attended the University of Oregon and competed in track. One day in the spring of 1964 Coach Bowerman engaged Moore, who was returning to training after a bout of the flu, after an easy workout to assess his condition. There was some disagreement over the ease of the workout that culminated in Moore recounting the following story:

He closed great, callused hands around my throat. He did not lift me off the ground. He did relieve my feet of much of their burden. He brought my forehead to his. “I’m going to ask you to take part in an experiment,” he said with menacing calm. “For three weeks, you are not going to run a yard except in my sight. You will do a three-mile jog here every morning, and our regular afternoon workouts. If I or any of my spies see you trotting another step, you will never run for the University of Oregon again.”

“Bill…”
“Are we agreed?”
“Bill…”
“Agreed?”
As I was feeling faint, I submitted.

If you have followed the Bill Bowerman story, you will have likely heard many stories like this. He seemed to be a rare combination of army drill sergeant, physiologist, Tibetan monk, private investigator, teacher, philosopher, inventor and coach.

He examined and reeaxamined what we ate. What we wore. What we did (and with whom we did it). He rethought our gifts, our goals, and the blind spots that kept us from reaching them. And yet, no matter how he permeated our lives, he always kept a kind of officer-and-troops distance, never trading intimacy for intimacy. The better you knew him, the less you could let down your guard. He confounded friend and foe alike; he was completely unreadable.

After Moore had a major breakthrough in a two-mile race in a dual meet against Oregon State – achieving a 27 second personal best and besting the NCAA cross-country champion – he had become a believer in Bowerman’s over-bearing but intellectual approach to running.

He had given me his subject. I had found myself. It finally began to penetrate my thick skull that I had to rise above the world’s fixation with sheer work. I had to attend to my own eccentric physiology. I accepted easy days into my life. I stopped counting miles.

Over the next eight years, the one long run he permitted me every 10 days would turn me into the fourth-place finisher in the 1972 Olympic Marathon.

Reading Moore’s accounts of running under Bill Bowerman gives me the impression that every runner would want to have the opportunity to train with such a coach. It would be an astounding experience intertwined with fear, anxiety, and confusion. But ultimately – after a few years of frustration – you would have the utmost confidence in the training you were performing day in and day out. And in the final analysis, isn’t that all we want as athletes?

Team Hoyt

One of the most inspirational stories in this book is the one about Team Hoyt, written by John Brant. If you have ever watched the television coverage of the Hawaii Ironman Triathlon in the last 20 years, you will already know the extraordinary story of Dick and Rick Hoyt. The father-son running team from Massachusetts has completed over 1000 races, including 200 triathlons and 27 Boston Marathons. What some people may not know is that the younger half of the running team, Rick, has cerebral palsy and is confined to a wheelchair that his father, Dick, pushes through the various events. It is the kind of story that makes you sheepishly ask yourself, “What the heck have I done with my life?”

John Brant goes into the history of Team Hoyt and the origin of their incredibly inspiring partnership. Rick was born with cerebral palsy and can only move his head and his knees. He cannot feed, clean or take care of himself and requires constant care from his father. Their first running race was conceived when fifteen year-old Rick came home from school and asked his father if they could run a five-mile road race together as part of a benefit for a local athlete who had been paralyzed in a car accident. Dick, a career Army guy, was not a runner but pushed through the five-mile event despite the discomfort, with Rick enjoying every minute of it. Rick communicated, “Dad, when I’m running, it feels like I’m not handicapped.” Dick recalled, “After the race I felt disabled – I was pissing blood for a week.”

Knowing how happy running made Rick feel, Dick couldn’t help but continue to train and race with his son. Along the way, the pair have achieved a marathon PR of 2:40:47 and a personal best of 13:30 in the Hawaii Ironman World Championship. Of course, during the Ironman, Dick pulls Rick in a Zodiac raft for the 2.4 mile swim, bikes with him for the 112 mile cycle portion and then finishes with a 26.2 mile marathon pushing Rick’s modified wheelchair. Their times would be extraordinary for a normal young adult. These two have been posting fantastic times for over 30 years.

John Brant details many of the challenges and achievements of Team Hoyt, and also delves into the potential future challenges they face as both grow older. Even though Dick is now 70 years old and has survived a heart attack and knee surgery, there appears to be no immediate end to their journey together. When asked how much longer they can do this, Dick calmly replies, “We feel real good… we love what we’re doing… we’ve got no plans for quitting.” That seems like a pretty good reason to continue running.
——————————-

Just last month I was browsing through a NikeTown shop in Seattle. They had a t-shirt in the store that read, “RUNNING SUCKS”. I had a chuckle about it and knew a few 300+ pound football offensive linemen that would look good in that shirt, albeit in a XXXL size. After leaving the store, I began to think about the shirt slogan a bit more, particularly in relation to Runners on Running. The Nike t-shirt told the truth. Running is such an effective activity for exercise because it is difficult to do properly on a consistent basis. In order to get better, or even stay the same, you have to push yourself and create an environment for positive adaptation. However, this can lead to fatigue and, in some cases, constant pain. Hence, running can and does suck!

There is, however, a percentage of runners who, despite the pain and discomfort of running, think that running is a sanctuary and an activity that makes them feel free and complete. These people will wholeheartedly love a complete read through Runners on Running. The rest of us will have to read through Runners on Running to gain inspiration for overcoming the part of running that does suck.

- Derek M. Hansen –

Every morning, I get up and proceed to make my breakfast in a bit of a daze. Often, I find myself staring aimlessly at the toaster, waiting for that tumultuous moment when my toast pops up and I’m disappointed with the lack of golden-brown or the excess of black. Yet, in staring at the toaster, I’m often amazed at how little effort has gone into improving or advancing the technology of the toaster. A quick Google search reveals that the modern pop-up toaster was pretty much perfected back in the 1920’s once the right high-resistance nichrome wire was developed and combined with a variable timer.

So, what does my toaster have to do with sport science’s shortcomings? I think we can agree that modern civilization is pretty content with the quality of the toast that is being popped out of $20 toasters. The result is that people are not knocking themselves out trying to improve the toaster, publishing web sites, books or DVD’s with better ideas on how to enhance breakfast. Sport science, on the other hand, is not happy with the quality of “toast”. Sport scientists and pseudo-experts are constantly making claims that they have improved training methods, discovered new techniques and developed new concoctions of sport drinks and supplements to fuel athletes to victory. I am of the mind that what is actually happening is that we are being distracted by all the sport-science “smoke-and-mirrors” and getting away from tried and true methods of training. As the great coach, John Wooden stated, “The worst thing about new books is that they keep us from reading the old ones.”

Charlie Francis had some interesting insights into the world of sport science and research. On one occasion, he emphatically stated that, “Sport scientists should not be telling me what to do as a coach. They should be telling me why what I’m already doing works or doesn’t work!” He went on to say that many, if not most, sport scientists are attempting to answer questions that didn’t need to be asked. In essence, they are trying to improve toast when it doesn’t need to be improved. Or, they were trying to find out if toast was suitable for dinner. Charlie believed that coaches were the innovators because they, not the scientists, were the ones working with athletes on a daily basis and could see the impact of their adjustments and changes on the athletes under real-world conditions – not the artificial environment created by a science experiment.

Let’s take running mechanics for example. On a weekly basis I hear or read about a new technique that has made the rounds. These techniques are often bolstered by marketing efforts that extol the virtues of an “innovative” approach to running. The techniques are given fancy names such as “Pose” or “Chi” running and boast of improved running economy and reduced injury. Dubious studies are conducted in an effort to artificially support the claims of the marketing department, with studies conducted on treadmills under unrealistic conditions with less than suitable subjects. Somewhere in the master plan, a book deal, video series or speaking tour is integrated into the dog and pony show.

When I asked Charlie Francis about the history of running/sprinting technique, he stated, “Things haven’t really changed since the days of Jesse Owens. Certainly the overall volume, frequency and organization of training has evolved, but essentially the actual running technique has not.” This statement was confirmed by my casual research of track and field books from the 1940’s that had descriptions of sprinting and running technique. In most cases, these books provided significantly better descriptions of the techniques of starting, accelerating, sprinting and running than most, if not all, of the books being published today. The only difference was that the athletes of the past had shovels as opposed to starting blocks. It appears that today, many of the sport scientists and “experts” are the ones with the shovels.

Of course, I am presenting a bleak outlook of sport science that perhaps many people to do not want to be shown. Nobody wants to hear that the earth is round, when they all are comfortable with (or are profiting from) the assertion that the earth is flat. And, there are small pockets of scientists and experts that are actually doing fine work. But, there are numerous signs that our society as a whole is regressing in many ways. Provided below are just a few of the phenomena that are facilitating this downward slide and making the world – including the sports world – a dumber place.

- The Internet. While hailed as the “information highway” it has also become a bit of a back-alley of misinformation with questionable reliability. I remember one of my younger track athletes arguing a point with another athlete a few years back. When pushed on his point and sources of information, he replied, “I did my research on the Internet. Of course it’s true!” I had to inform him that the Internet is just a medium that can hold information – much like the inside of a restroom stall. It is up to the individual to adequately confirm the validity of the information and not take it at face value. But that takes effort and persistence. The quest for knowledge is paved with good intentions, but so is the road to hell. If you rely on the Internet for your information, make sure to cross-reference your sources of information, get second and third opinions and avoid being complacent (unless of course you are Googling the history of the household electric toaster).

- Cell phones and, particularly, “smart-phones”. The other day I overheard someone saying, “How did we ever meet up with someone in the crowded Downtown area before cell phones and texting?” I had to restrain myself from yelling in their face, “Plan ahead to meet at an agreed upon location and be there on time you moron!” Ultimately, the oxymoron deemed “smart-phone” is making people dumber. Messaging and texting has replaced meaningful conversation and common sense communication. People rely on using their phone for Google queries to make them appear intelligent at social events. Paying attention in school wasn’t an option, so the mobile phone is now bailing them out. And, people are walking into light posts, stop signs and shopping mall fountains because they are constantly hunched over these devices, lacking awareness of the reality that surrounds them. The fact that iPhone apps are created to teach people how to exercise makes me cringe. If there was an electromagnetic pulse that destroyed all mobile electronic devices, would Western civilization be relegated to being unfit, fatties. Wait – too late!

- GPS. Did you hear the one about the Canadian couple that used their in-vehicle GPS device and ended up lost in the back-country of Nevada for seven weeks while on their way to a convention in Las Vegas. No this is not a joke, but a real news story. The poor husband wandered away from the vehicle and is presumed dead. Drivers rely so heavily on these devices for navigation, that if an evil villain wanted to hack into the GPS units and direct people to drive into the nearest body of water, I am certain that a large percentage of them would most certainly do so. But perhaps Dr. Evil would be doing us all a favour and reducing traffic congestion (but not marine congestion) and raising the average level of societal IQ. Unfortunately, most people couldn’t read a map to save their lives, let alone find their car in a multi-level parkade.

- Spell-check. I mark a good deal of coaching certification assignments each month through a home study program. One coach sent in his assignment with an apology. He wanted to let me know that he was embarrassed about all of the spelling mistakes that I would find in his paper. “The spell check function in my word processing program wasn’t functioning properly!” was his excuse. I held back in my email reply and did not point out the obvious fact that spell checking applications are primarily used for correcting typos and the odd misspelling of a word, not translating his idiotic gibberish into coherent english.

- Reality-television. Why meet someone through the gradual, organic process of friendship, intelligent conversation, common interests and romance when you can surround yourself with random, surgically-altered bimbos in a hot-tub on some exotic island where good taste and class are in short supply. The popularity of such television shows is indicative of the public’s acceptance of mediocrity, lack of creativity and crap. But, I’m sure that more than a few readers of my article will be wondering where they can tune in to the aforementioned program. “Bimbos you say… ?”

The whole point of my rantings is to urge people to build their foundational knowledge based on tried and true methods that have been passed down from coaches who possess experience and wisdom. The ancient masters of sword-making in Japan did not hone their skills by watching YouTube videos. They learned from a master over years, decades and, in some cases, a lifetime, taking the proven techniques of these skilled craftsmen and applying the techniques as intended over time. In some cases, there were subtle innovations that incrementally improved the process. But these changes were introduced carefully and gradually to ensure that the improvement took hold and withstood the scrutiny of other masters. We can be certain that they were not hammering their anvils on top of vibration platforms.

The industries of sport and exercise have much to learn from the ancient masters and, dare I say… the toaster. Discerning minds must maintain techniques and technologies that work, and discard those which are frivolous and propped up by profit seekers and pitchmen. Too many people are dumbing down the public rather than coaching them up. Technology and scientific advances are truly beneficial to the growth and maintenance of society. But technological advancement must be borne out of necessity, not personal agendas.

The next time you make some toast, consider what I have written and make a case for wisdom over Wikipedia, and running… the old fashioned way.

- Derek M. Hansen -

Regardless of what I thought about Lance Armstrong’s accomplishments, or how he attained them, prior to the airing of 60 Minutes’ lead story on May 22nd, 2011, it became brutally obvious that almost everyone’s opinion of the most celebrated cyclist in history will have changed after Tyler Hamilton’s detailed interview. While disgraced Floyd Landis had his chance to air his laundry in the past without much fanfare, the combined testimonies of Hamilton and other longtime Armstrong friend and teammate, George Hincapie, seems to have created a tipping point in the case of Armstrong’s alleged doping history. While there is no “smoking gun” evidence yet, these eyewitness accounts appear undeniable.

It seems inevitable that Armstrong and his legal defense team will continue to deny his past use of illegal performance enhancing drugs regardless of who comes forward. The stakes seem too high for the Armstrong camp and the “deny, deny, deny” defense approach, along with poking holes in the credibility and motives of witnesses, appear to be the only tools left in their rusty toolbox. My favorite retort from the Armstrong camp is, “Lance has been the most tested athlete in the history of sport, with no positives after over 500 tests.” Of course, this provides us with about as much useful information as when I tell people that I haven’t received a speeding ticket for the last 10 years, thus supplying airtight evidence that I never drive over the speed limit. But, can you blame them?

So where is this heading? As far as Lance Armstrong is concerned, I cannot see a positive (pardon the pun) outcome being forthcoming. Even if the federal authorities decide there isn’t a strong case against Armstrong, public opinion will most likely judge Armstrong as a questionable hero when it comes to his cycling accomplishments. However, there are two things that Armstrong will having going for him should the court of public opinion finds he’s guilty of using performance enhancing drugs:

- His contributions to the fight against cancer and the support to cancer victims provided by his Livestrong campaign. The positive energy and momentum provided by Armstrong’s campaign will be seen as an invaluable side-effect of his drug use. He was also a cancer survivor due in large part to many of the drugs he may have abused during his competitive cycling career. But Livestrong and the yellow bracelets have become a cultural phenomenon that we cannot deny. It goes to show that positives can result from what is turning out to be a past negative act.

- The sport of cycling will most likely be painted with a broad brush of guilt when it comes to doping. Since everyone in elite cycling is deemed to have doped, Armstrong will still be seen as a having competed on a level playing field and triumphed due to his superior genetics, tactics, desire and/or training. And, this all after beating an advanced case of cancer. He can be viewed as a victim of the sport, resorting to the tactics that all others were using anyways.

Given these two pertinent issues, I feel that Armstrong’s best course of action over the next few months would be to come clean and admit to use of performance enhancing drugs. I honestly believe that there will not be a mass negative movement against him. Sure, a minority of hardcore fans may still feel betrayed. But I do feel that the general public understands that high-level athletic performances are not simply the product of hard work and good genetics. They understand that there are other factors at play to create record-breaking performances on a regular basis. We are no longer naïve to the realities of super-human feats of speed, strength and endurance. We also understand that many athletes may also suffer debilitating injuries to the brain and body, and can even have a shortened lifespan as a result. These are the realities of high-level sports.

In fact, I am certain that many people believe that if we legalized doping in sports, the world records would not fall at any greater rate. This would be the true indicator of the widespread use of doping at the highest levels of performance, as well as the ineffectiveness of current anti-doping techniques and testing protocols. Thus, if doping were legalized, we would simply have more athletes doing amazing things. The height of performances would not increase, but the depth of high performance would increase as drug use become more prolific and universal. While such an action would yield interesting results, it is by no means the right answer to the problem of doping in sport.

So, why do we have the code of silence and endless denials? Many athletes like Armstrong, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are trying to hold onto this notion of immortality and eternal legacy whether it’s through record breaking accomplishments or recognition in a Hall of Fame. It is not about the money, but entitlement. The fact of the matter is that the more Armstrong denies, the deeper the hole gets and the tougher it will be for him to climb out and restore his reputation when the dust settles.

Watching Tyler Hamilton field the questions on 60 Minutes gave me the obvious impression that these cyclists did not seek out performance enhancing drugs from the start of their cycling careers. They competed in a sport that they loved, they committed their lives to that sport and once they got close to the top, situational factors and peer pressure led them to make a decision which was not incongruent with their career goals. I am certain that Armstrong’s story would be no different. To me his story is still a great one. Man beats cancer. Man goes on to compete successfully at the highest level on par with his competition.

With the use of a good marketing campaign and some frank, sincere admissions, I believe Armstrong could still walk away from this a respected, monumental figure in the history of sports and humanitarian achievements. Others may disagree with my assessment of the situation, judging Armstrong on his terse, self-righteous statements of innocence the past decade, associating his illegal drug use with him being a bad person. While I am by no means a drug-cheat apologist, I do believe that the situation is not black-and-white. And, I believe that Armstrong can salvage his reputation and still retain some credibility when it comes to empowering people who are facing a fight with cancer.

It will be interesting to see how the story plays out and how Lance Armstrong and his team approach the continued onslaught of accusers. Will others come forward to corroborate the testimony of Hamilton and Hincapie? It seems inevitable. The more Armstrong resists and denies, the more he will be relegated to a life of isolation and embarrassment, akin to O.J. Simpson. But there is a solution. It won’t be easy. Follow your own advice: Live strong, be strong and live long. Just come clean Lance!