Instant Experts and Snake Oil Salesmen

Now we have another phenomenon going that I find quite interesting and actually very alarming. I call it the “Teach for America Syndrome”. You get admitted to an elite program like Teach For America (Actually quite a good program) you serve your two years, you leave, you write a book about your experience, now you are an expert. In contrast to this look at Rafe Esquith a very experienced teacher who wrote a book about his experiences - Teach Like Your Hair's on Fire - after twenty-five years plus in the classroom, it is about his success and failures. It is clear that he has the earned the credibility to write the book and be an expert through multiple experiences actually teaching. If you need practical advice on teaching isn’t that whom would you listen to and follow as opposed to someone who taught two or three years? In our field we have the same phenomenon, just out of college you intern at some fancy facility, then you get a job at an academy or with a pro team. You stay there for two or three years you luck out and the team wins a championship (Even though you had nothing to do with it). Now you are 27 years old with one experience and you know it all, you are now an expert! If you really want to solidify your status as an expert you start a certification program with multiple levels of questionable content (Different flavors of sanke oil) based on your one experience.

In addition to this you have what I call the “Hitch Your Wagon to a Star Syndrome.” You find an athlete preferably someone of high profile who is hurt, hook him up to a piece of equipment get a popular magazine to write about your miraculous work and viola you have an expert on training and rehab. Not long ago when consulting with a company they had a guy who was their "training expert.” When I asked about his credentials they told me point blank he was their expert because he had a good TV presence. Great credentials! He gets up there and spouts bullshit and everyone hangs on every word and blindly follows – do it man! Drink the Kool-Aid.

No one is willing to hold these peoples feet to the fire and hold them accountable. Iam, I am tired of this because it hurting all of in this field. What have they really done, what is their body of work? What are their failures and mistakes? Have they paid their dues? What are their credentials, no I don't mean multiple letters from questionable certifications, I mean real academic and work experience credentials.Are they selling something? Those are fair questions. If we want to be a profession then we must be professional and hold ourselves to a higher standard. We can't tolerate snake oil salesmen. We can’t let marketing and hype triumph over sound pedagogy, training methodology and professionalism. Stop and think, who are you learning from? What are you learning? Do they preach one way or is their system eclectic and adaptable? I am very concerned about the direction of this field because of the plethora of instant experts and the explosion of marketing based on pseudo science and misinformation. We all need to raise our standards and our level of expectation if we want to progress.

Comment

You need to be a member of Strength Performance Network to add comments!

Join Strength Performance Network

Comment by Vern Gambetta on May 5, 2012 at 11:57am: You are entitled to your opinion. The NSCA does not serve coaches. PERIOD!

Comment by Jason Roe on May 5, 2012 at 11:01am: Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines industry as "1. Dilligence in employment or pursuit 2. (a) a systemic labor especially for some useful purpose or the creation of something of value (b) a department or branch of a craft, art, business, or manufacture (c) a distinct group of productive or profit making enterprises

The term profession "4 (a) a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation." (definitions 1-3 involve religion or links to religion)

Field: "An area or division of an activity, subject, or profession."

The terms industry, profession, and field share common themes or at least can be linked to the similar efforts, tasks, or productivity of a group. I believe you object to the term industry when using definition 2c linking the term industry with profit. Many people see coaching as an altruistic pursuit because they link coaching with training younger individuals to excel in sports when they are not professionals, meaning they are not paid to participate. Yet the fact of the fact of the matter is that all coaches and educators need to make money.

If a coach, a coaching staff, or organization puts on an educational clinic they need to charge money for it. If a coach writes a book or produces a DVD they need to charge money for it. Universities need to charge money for the education they provide.

There are many "snake oil salesmen" in the field, profession, or industry of exercise and/or athletic development that are selling incorrect information. In my experience the NSCA's efforts to certify and educate exercise professionals work to combat this because the organization strives to base their certifications and educational efforts on practice rooted in science, but an organization does have to charge money for their services. Not every certified individual is going to be a great coach. The educational and certification or licensure standards of the profession can certainly improve. I raised some questions and brought up some ideas. So whether we refer to the job of coaching individuals to improve their athletic performance as an industry, field, or profession how can we better educate those individuals and raise the standard of practice of this group?

Comment by Vern Gambetta on May 5, 2012 at 10:01am: First of all I do not view coaching as an INDUSTRY! I think you need to study my body of work for the last 43 years to see where I stand. I want coaching to be a profession. Fitness my an industry, that is not where I work and what I do. If you want to discuss this at length please feel to call. Again I suggest you go back through my blog posts and other other writing for the suggestions that are necessary to define the field.

Comment by Jason Roe on May 4, 2012 at 7:50pm: Mr Weatherly, I am still waiting for specific examples to support your claims of how steroids tainted an entire professional organization, people associated with it, and how "University professors don't care (about sports science)", as you have stated in other posts.

Comment by Jason Roe on May 4, 2012 at 7:43pm: A certification does not equal great coaching. It establishes that an individual has a basic understanding of anatomy, exercise physiology, biomechanics, exercise technique, and training theory. Expert coaching requires continued learning, mentorship, and experience.

Mr. Gambetta your post certainly presents a defeatist attitude. You have been a very vocal critic of the industry and certification, as well you should be. You have years of experience across sports, ages, and talent levels; you and the athletes you have trained have been very successful. You note the need for change yet you state, "I could go on and on, really not productive or necessary". What could be more necessary? Please define the industry? Describe how an organization could better serve coaches? How could we incorporate a practical component? How do we evaluate time in service? A person could work as a performance coach for 20 years training people poorly or not getting maximal results. How do you rate not only the quantity of a coaches work, but also the quality? Should athletic development go the route of athletic training or physical therapy? Should an individual only legally be allowed to train athletes if they graduate from an accredited 4 or 6 year program and pass a national board certification test with a written and practical portion? Like dietetics should a year long internship under the supervision of a registered or licensed individual be required? I truly respect you and your work. I believe reading your work and listening to you present has made me a better coach but your stance on this topic is disappointing. Pointing out the flaws and shortcomings in the industry is meaningless without discussing potential solutions.

Comment by Vern Gambetta on May 4, 2012 at 4:43pm: Where do you want me to start? They are not an organization that represents coaches. Focus on certifications to make $$$. Certification is meaningless, no practical component and time in service requirement, just past a paper & pencil test and have a college degree - Give me a break. I could go on and on, really not productive or necessary. We need a professional organization that will define a profession very much in need of definition.

Comment by Jason Roe on May 3, 2012 at 4:45pm: Vern, your insights are very valuable to this discussion. What are some of the specific flaws of the NSCA and what would a true professional organization that represents the highest standards of excellence and knowledge in Athletic Development look like? How would it be different?

Comment by Vern Gambetta on May 3, 2012 at 4:22pm: No sure about the individual incidents and being referred to, but in my option the NSCA has become a big part of the problem through their pandering to certain groups. They have so many letters and certifications that it is meaningless. We need to create a true professional organization that represents the highest standards of excellence and knowledge in Athletic Development. At this time I see nothing like this on the horizon in the United States.

Comment by Jason Roe on May 3, 2012 at 3:15pm: John,

Do you feel the NSCA CSCS exam and its preparation materials do not agree with current scientific knowledge?

It appears to me you have an issue with one or two individuals, yet you make derogatory comments about a large organization comprised of many individuals that have spent their professional careers coaching athletes and/or researching and teaching others about exercise and its effects on health and performance. I can list the editors and authors of chapters of Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning or various NSCA position stands for you. Did they use steroids, are they advocating the use of steroids?

I don't need to google Danny Noonan and steroids, I need you to specifically state why the NSCA doesn't care about the field. It would also be helpful if you would make some suggestions on how they could "care more" if you will. I am of the opinion that many members of the NSCA that contributed to the development of that certification and the exam dedicated their professional careers to making the field better.

Comment by John Weatherly on May 3, 2012 at 2:42pm: Many times, call or email Andy Fry (785.864.0784, acfry@ku.edu), I've explained how when Dr. Fry was VP of the NSCA he promised me a copy of an investigation he conducted on Boyd Epley and Danny Noonan from the NSCA National Office. This was in 04. I still do not have my copy. Google "Danny Noonan and steroids." Boyd hired Danny as "Coordinator of Performance Education" in the mid-late 90's and even had Danny working for him while Boyd was on the "task force" for the NSCA's Professional Standards & Guidelines document. Danny had no training whatsoever in a topic or topics comprising the Scientific Foundations domain of the CSCS exam content description or in a relevant subject which the Professional Standards & Guidelines document stated and Boyd new he had used PEDS. As Vern stated in one of his posts some time ago, there is no place in the field for those who advocate or condone PED use let alone hire a person who had a history of PED use as "Coordinator of Performance Education." All buried and covered up because it was Boyd that did it. Where's my copy? What's to hide? Fry promised me and I've requested my copy numerous times from the NSCA BOD. Fry has even admitted that it was all buried to me on the phone saying "pick your battles John." I just talked with him last Fri. Why don't you contact Dr. Fry who is Department Chair at KU and ask him Jason?????