Techniques February 2013 by Renaissance Publishing

contents Volume 6, Number 3 February 2013

A Letter from the President

REPORTS 4

Division I Track & Field Division I Cross Country

Division II Track & Field Division II Cross Country

Division III Track & Field Division III Cross Country

High School

FEATURES 10

Athletic Constructivism & Kinesthetic Inquiry An educational theory-based method for coaching Track & Field

By Jordan Goffena and Ann Haley MacKenzie, Ed.D. 18

Altitude Training by Jason R. Karp, Ph.D

Relative Speed Fluctuations in Discus Throwing by Andreas V. Maheras, Ph.D

The Special Relationship A Coachâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Duty in Sports Law By Greg Roberts

Mental Training For Track & Field By Joseph Silvers and Dr. Karen M. Appleby

Updates From the NCAA Eligibility Center by John Pfeffenberger

36 49

AWARDS

2012 USTFCCCA Cross Country Regional Coaches & Athletes of the Year

Cover photograph courtesy of Miami Athletic Communications

february 2013

techniques

A Letter From the President

ou should be receiving this issue of Techniques just as the indoor season is really getting ramped up. I hope that you and your student-athletes are off to a good start and I wish everyone the very best throughout this undercover campaign. Having returned from the USTFCCCA convention in Orlando just a week ago the positive feelings and energy from the event are still with me. With more than 1,200 coaches in attendance, the scope and importance of our annual professional meeting continues to grow. I am proud of the advances our association has made over the past few years and the increased influence we have in moving Track & Field and Cross Country forward. It is clear that the NCAA sees the USTFCCCA as a significant and important group of professional coaches. Having NCAA President Dr. Mark Emmert and NCAA Vice President of Championships and Alliances Mark Lewis provide the keynote address at our last two conventions is a strong indicator of the prominent role that our association has assumed. My thanks are extended to our CEO Sam Seemes on his work in developing and fostering the positive relationship we have with the key governing group of our sport. One of the strengths of our convention is certainly the educational opportunity offered to our membership. One of our new young coaches attended the Track & Field Academy Technical Coaching class that was offered the two days before the convention. She reported that the class was excellent and that she certainly learned a great deal. I received positive feedback from coaches about several of the other Academy courses as well. The symposiums were outstanding as well. A big thank you to the coaches who served as presenters of the symposiums. I encourage everyone to consider offering to present at future conventions. Being a presenter not only provides a great service but is a valuable professional development for you as the presenter as well. Many of the 2013 presentations are now posted online as well as a more complete selection of materials from previous convention symposiums. This is a great resource, so take advantage of it! I am sure that the upcoming season will have many ups and downs for all of us and our teams. As we deal with the multitude of responsibilities that are unique to track and field coaches, I once again encourage all of us to remember to keep our student-athletes as our first priority. As I said at the convention’s opening session, yes, results are important, very important in fact, but the personal experiences and relationships that our young women and men have while a part of our programs are what they will remember and cherish the most. Thank you all for making the USTFCCCA what it is and I remain committed to work with each of you to make the greatest sport in the world even better.

dr. ted bulling President, USTFCCCA director of track & field and cross country, nebraska wesleyan university tab@nebrwesleyan.edu

techniques f e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3

Publisher Sam Seemes Executive Editor Mike Corn Associate Editor Sylvia Kamp MEDIA MANAGER Tom Lewis Membership Services Dave Svoboda Photographer Kirby Lee Editorial Board Tommy Badon,

Larry Judge, Boo Schexnayder, Dr. Ralph Vernacchia, Gary Winckler

Published by Renaissance Publishing LLC 110 Veterans Memorial Blvd., Suite 123, Metairie, LA 70005 (504) 828-1380 www.myneworleans.com

USTFCCCA

National Office 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1750 New Orleans, LA 70163 Phone: 504-599-8900 Fax: 504-599-8909

Techniques (ISSN 1939-3849) is published quarterly in February, May, August, and November by the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association. Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any manner, in whole or in part, without the permission of the publisher. techniques is not responsible for unsolicited manuscripts, photos and artwork even if accompanied by a self-addressed stamped envelope. The opinions expressed in techniques are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the magazines’ managers or owners. Periodical Postage Paid at New Orleans La and Additional Entry Offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to: USTFCCCA, PO Box 55969, Metairie, LA 70055-5969. If you would like to advertise your business in techniques, please contact Mike Corn at (504) 599-8900 or mike@ustfccca.org.

NCAA Report

Division l Track & Field and Cross Country

ron mann

barry harwick

President, NCAA Division I Track and Field Coaches

President, NCAA Division I CROSS COUNTRY Coaches

he New Year of 2013 is already well underway! I hope everyone has had a great start to the year and that you are set for a successful, inspiring, and exciting 2013. During the holidays, I have had some time to reflect on 2012, the USTFCCCA convention in Orlando, and the first 18 months serving as your Division I president. At the 2012 Convention, we had a record setting attendance, with more than 1200 attendees, 650 of whom were Division I coaches. The Symposiums were better than ever with more than 20 topics covered by more than 30 of the finest technicians in the sport of track and field and cross country. Our keynote speaker, Mark Lewis from the NCAA, gave us great insight into how we can better market and promote our sport to fans and the media. The Bowerman Awards and Hall of Fame celebration on Wednesday evening, hosted by John Anderson of ESPN, was a personal highlight to me. Thank you Sam Seemes and the entire staff of USTFCCCA for a great job of making our 2012 convention truly one of the best! The Division I Executive Committee spent a lot of time working through old business to be brought to the floor, as well as new proposals also brought forward from the coaching community. We also had an opportunity to dialog with the chair of the track and field committee, Maisha Kelly, and our NCAA liaison, Dr. Holly Sheilly, as to how we might improve the production and presentation of our national finals to create a better program and become more media-friendly for live television. The executive committee provided feedback from your conference breakout sessions. We reviewed the indoor NCAA meet schedule and technical manual. We also prepared the executive committee for action on the NCAA legislation and proposals that needed our input. As your president, I have learned that the workings of legislation are long, tedious and deliberate. However, I thank all of you who participated in this process at our annual working convention. Please continue to bring forward new ideas and concerns through the executive committee members or me personally. As we move into spring of 2013, I would challenge each of you to stay motivated and driven to pursue our 2009 mission statement, that of making the sport of track and field more valued and valuable. We must, as a profession, think “out of the box” about our sport and look at ways to make us more attractive to the media. As we saw with the London 2012 production, track and field is the greatest sport in the world. Our athletes, coaches and fans deserve the members of USTFCCCA to continually look at ways to improve this great sport. Ron Mann is the Head Men’s & Women’s Track & Field Coach at the University of Louisville. Ron can be reached at ron.mann@louisville.edu

techniques f e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3

hen I told colleagues that my 2012 coaching convention was in Orlando, there were thoughts of warm weather, Disney World, and golf outings. What we did have was a very hard working executive committee that covered a lot of topics. For those not at the convention here is a quick list of some of the hotter topics: • We voted overwhelmingly, 156-15-1, to support the creation of an NCAA Cross Country Sport Committee. As you know, the Track and Field Sport Committee currently supervises crosscountry. That is one of the more overworked committees in the NCAA, as they have to deal with three championships each year. Having a new committee that will focus entirely on our sport will get us more attention, and hopefully, more support • We continued our discussions of ranking 64 teams at the end of the season in cross country. Having all of our results on TFRRS is giving us much more data. We are reviewing three methods of ranking the 64 and we remain committed to getting this in place. On a related note, the Learfield Cup expanded their rankings this year to include points for 45 teams. (The 31 teams at the NCAA meet and then any teams in the top five of their region that did not advance to the nationals.) While we welcome the recognition for more programs, it is important to note that these decisions were made without the knowledge or feedback of our association. • 2014 will be the 75th anniversary of the first NCAA cross country championship. We voted to explore the concept of having all divisions host their championships on the same site on the same weekend. The goal would be to encourage the NCAA to really promote this event. • We spent a significant amount of time in our committee discussing our nine regional meets. Bids for the 2013 regional meets open in early January and we hope to see sites selected before the indoor nationals. This is obviously later than we would prefer. The NCAA has changed the bid format and we hope that they can move quickly. It is important to note that we have heard concerns, from the NCAA, about our current regional format. The philosophical issue of our not having any standard to advance to the regional, we are the only sport with open access to our regional championships. • We also voted to add two recall starters behind the line at our championships, to adjust the time between races at the regional and national meets, and to add cross-country to the list of sports exempted from the multi-team two-thirds Division I sports sponsorship requirement. I hope that each of you had some down time over the holidays. Best of luck to you and your team in the New Year. Barry Harwick is the Head Men’s Track & Field and Cross Country Coach at Dartmouth College. Barry can be reached at Barry.Harwick@Dartmouth.EDU

NCAA Report

Division ll Track & Field and Cross Country

steve guymon

marlon brink

President, NCAA Division II TRACK & FIELD Coaches

President, NCAA Division II CROSS COUNTRY Coaches

t was good to see the nice turnout at the convention. I would like to thank our Executive Committee for their direction and support of our sport as well as each coach that attended the convention proposing your ideas and voting to better Division II Track & Field. Congratulations to our new slate of officers: President - James Reid (Angelo State); 1st Vice President - Sterling Martin (Missouri S&T); 2nd Vice President - Marc Arce (Findley). These men will do a fantastic job leading us in Division II Track & Field. During the convention the following proposals were submitted and passed. They will be passed along for approval: • Eliminate the Code of Conduct form at championships and instead add it to the NCAA paperwork done by the teams at the beginning of the season. • During the NCAA D2 festival years when housing is mandated, have the NCAA arrange and pay for student-athletes and coaches rooms and adjust per diem. • Before the NCAA awards a national championship site that a committee member visit the facility • Add a “High Point Athlete of the Meet” award to a male and female at the Indoor and Outdoor National Championship Meet. • Add an Indoor Track & Field Assistant Coach award for both Regional and National. • Revise seeding for the 200 M such that the top two times from the prelims race head to head in the Finals. • Have the NCAA work with the USTFCCCA membership to look for long term (4-6 years) site or sites willing to host D2 Indoor Track & Field Championships. • The travel party for the Indoor & Outdoor National Championships for non-athletes be increased: 1-4 athletes = 2 non-athletes; 5-9 athletes = 3 non-athletes; 10+ athletes = 4 • We as a membership charge the NCAA Track & Field committee to reconvene the NCAA indexing committee to further evaluate data. Katie Holmes (NCAA Rep) and Scott Groom (NCAA T&F Committee Chair) spoke to our body at the convention and addressed questions and did a wonderful job explaining the rational and decisions that the committee makes in regards to the Championships. I would like to thank them both for taking the time to attend the convention. I would also like to remind you of the NCAA Pre-National meet in Birmingham on Feb. 18. Please contact David Cain @ Alabama – Huntsville for details. Finally, the 2013 NCAA Division II Hall of Fame inductees will be announced later this spring. I look forward to seeing you in Birmingham and wish you and your teams a great season.

Steve Guymon is the Head Men’s and Women’s Track & Field Coach at Harding University. Steve can be reached at sguymon@harding.edu

reetings! I am pleased to report to you what I feel was a very productive 2012 Convention in Orlando. I want to thank all of you that took the time away from your teams and families and spent either your own or your school’s resources to attend the Convention. In addition, I want to thank Sam Seemes and his staff, for their efforts to put together a great Convention. Everyone had a great opportunity to hear many outstanding speakers in the symposiums, attend the Bowerman ceremony and finally attend the Hall of Fame dinner with several outstanding coaches being honored for their contributions to our sport. We had the opportunity to discuss several important issues both within our Executive Committee and among the general body of coaches. We also had a chance to speak directly with Katie Holmes, from the NCAA. Some items which our coaches voted to support to pass on to the NCAA as recommendations included: • Moving the banquet at the NCAA Championships from Saturday to Friday evening; • Teams that are not full NCAA DII members are not allowed to participate at the Regional Championships; • Several items to improve the NCAA’s production of the championships, such as a standardized timing company, internet coverage, and participant manual information availability. Another new item that was discussed included supporting the idea of a joint championship site for the 2014 NCAA Championships for Divisions I, II, and III as a chance to showcase cross country in its 75th year of NCAA XC Championships. Everyone felt that this is a unique opportunity to bring unparalled attention to the sport in many positive ways. In addition, the polls committee is changing the ranking system that will be in place for the 2013 season. We will now have 8 raters per gender, who will then submit a ballot for the national rankings. The ratings will also show the top 25, rather than the top 35 teams. Finally, we voted in a new slate of officers. Those voted in are: Gary Gardner – U-Mass Lowell, President; Scott Lorek – Northwest Missouri State, 1st Vice President; and Mark Misch – University of Colorado-Colorado Springs, 2nd Vice President. Last, but not least, congratulations to the athletes and teams that participated in the 2012 Cross Country Championships hosted by Missouri Southern University in Joplin, Mo. Team champions were Adams State on the men’s side and Grand Valley State on the women’s side. Wishing you all the best in 2013! Marlon Brink is Head Men’s and Women’s Track & Field and Cross Country coach at Wayne State College. Marlon can be reached at mabrink1@wsc.edu

february 2013

techniques

NCAA Report

Division llI Track & Field and Cross Country

kari kluckhohn

KATHY LANESE

President, NCAA Division III TRACK & FIELD Coaches

President, NCAA Division III cross country Coaches

Kari Kluckhohn is the Head Women’s Track and Field Coach at North Central College. She can be reached at kskluckhohn@noctrl.edu.

Kathy Lanese is the Head Men’s & Women’s Cross Country Coach at Case Western Reserve University. Kathy can be reached at krl3@case.edu

hat a great week to be in Orlando! We had record numbers in attendance not only for Division III, but across the board. Sincere thanks go out to our Executive Committee. They have been doing excellent work and serve as strong voices for each region. It was exciting to see many coaches seize the opportunity to attend the Track and Field Academy or numerous symposiums. The educational component of this convention is exceptional. I would like to thank Sam Seemes, Sylvia Kamp and the entire national office for their tireless efforts over the course of the year to make this convention, and our association, run seamlessly. Division III had several topics of discussion in Orlando. Among the most focused was the new track indexing that is cross-divisional for 2013. Division III and II developed a unified proposal to the NCAA to continue immediate research with regards to indexing with the expectation that results should be available for review by the outdoor championships. In 2014, Division III will have increased participant numbers at the NCAA Indoor Track & Field Championships. Our Executive Committee proposed an indoor national championship schedule with specific minimum requirements and advancement procedures based on these new numbers. This schedule will be sent to the NCAA as a guideline we would like followed as the NCAA Track and Field Committee reviews future host bids. Please keep in mind that business pertaining to the NCAA still is in the hands of the NCAA. Two roles of the USTFCCCA are to promote the progress of our sport and work with the NCAA as the professional organization of collegiate track and field. I feel confident in the relationship our Division III coaches body has with our current track and field championships committee. Thank you to Paul Sargeant, the Division III track and field championships chair, and Tyrone Lockhart, NCAA liaison, for meeting with us at the convention. We all have the same goal: provide the best environment for our student-athletes to excel. Please remember to register your teams on TFRRS prior to your first meet. You must have your athletes registered in order for them to be on the national list. Also, host institutions should be using the universal event names for their meets. Have a great indoor season! We hope to see you all in Naperville, IL, for the NCAA III Indoor Track and Field Championships.

techniques f e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3

ere’s to 2013! As I enter the New Year, I reflect over the December convention in Orlando with fulfillment about the convention, the learning curve I overcame as Cross Country President and the excitement that lies ahead for the coming year. A review of 2012 and the business settled at convention brought about some change and the potential renewal for our sport. In 2012 the NCAA removed the five team cap of each region for the fall of 2013. This will allow the eight regions more probability to gain a fair advantage in advancing the best teams to the national meet, marking a true victory for our USTFCCCA Division III members. There were no major initiatives being advanced to NCAA at this convention but a few things to mention. 1. USTFCCCA will be adding an ‘Athlete of the Week’ recognition on their website starting with the indoor track and field season and extending into outdoor and then to cross country in the fall. The national office will determine the winner and will post weekly. 2. An additional recall starter will be added behind the starting line for all NCAA competitions. 3. A motion was passed and sent to the USTFCCCA office for approval requesting a change to the All-Academic Awards from the top 35 in each region being eligible for academic awards to the top 25% of finishers in each region. The drive for this motion was because of the participant discrepancy from region to region. 4. Regional Realignment was discussed but is still in the workings of the NCAA and will be revisited at the NCAA January convention. 5. There is some discussion but few details about combining the Division I, II and III Cross Country NCAA Championships at one site in celebration of the 75th anniversary of Cross Country in 2014. Further developments to be announced. Personally, I felt privileged to be on a working group with Divisions I, II and III during a few days of board of directors meetings with Sam Seemes our CEO, the division presidents and leaders in both cross country and track and field. There was a plethora of information at our fingertips, stimulating exchange of ideas, initiatives, and true collaboration between each division. I value the support of the executive committee and the national office, the networking, the backing of our sponsors and supporters, and the excitement and entertainment of the Bowerman Award and Hall of Fame banquet. Best wishes for a successful 2013 and mark your calendar now for the next USTFCCCA convention in December.

HIGH SCHOOL REPORT Don helberg

pon leaving the 2012 Annual USTFCCCA Convention one can’t help but to reflect on what a wonderful few days of track and field it was. It’s electrifying to be around 1200+ track and field junkies. be in this atmosphere. The sessions were so informative, either by reinforcing what you currently do, or by giving you tips and new ideas to try with your own athletes. What is nice about the USTFCCCA convention is you have a wide range of levels of expertise to choose from. You can attend a highly technical seminar on the science behind distance running or a general high school seminar on how you coach an athlete who does multiple events. There were many positives that occurred for the high school aspect of the USTFCCCA Convention. The National Senate of High School Track Coaches Associations is taking over the administration of the Gill Track Coach of the Year Award. Your state associations will be receiving information on the process of nominating a coach for this outstanding award. Of course what happens at all clinics and conventions is a bunch of coaches sharing stories, workouts, and experiences. In many instances, it’s a clinic within a clinic. So much information is distributed during these “informal” sessions. Increasing high school coach participation in the convention is an area that will be targeted for improvement. Trust me, the professional growth, acquired knowledge and overall experience will be worth your effort. I would strongly encourage you to do whatever it takes to find a way to come to the 2013 USTFCCCA Convention which will be in Orlando. Even though the convention is a four day event, a high school coach would benefit tremendously from attending only the days that have sessions that are geared for the high school coaches if they are unable to attend all four days. All clinic sessions, multiple meals several special events are included in the registration fee. The networking that occurs with other high school coaches and more importantly the networking with college coaches is second to none. Along with all of the positives mentioned above, the true highlight of the convention is the Bowerman Award Ceremony which occurs on Wednesday evening. Each year this event continues to “raise the bar.” The whole night has the ‘Heisman Trophy’ feel to it. There is a ‘red carpet’ affair where they bring in the three male and three female finalists. Then the actual presentation of the Award where former award winners are also present (Ashton Eaton and Jenny Simpson to name a few), then to cap off the night, a nice banquet dinner with the USTFCCCA Coaches Hall of Fame induction ceremony.

Don Helberg is the Chair of the National Senate of High School Track Coaches Associations and an At-Large member of the USTFCCCA Board of Directors. Don can be reached at Donald. Helberg@cusd200.org

february 2013

techniques

2012 usftccca Convention ph otos b y crai g macaluso ph otography

Grand Valley State’s Lou Andreadis accepts the DII Women’s Program of the Year award from USTFCCCA CEO Sam Seemes.

USTFCCCA Coaches Hall of Fame Class of 2012 8

techniques f e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3

Bowerman Finalist (L-R) Brianne Theisen, Brigetta Barrett, Kimberlyn Duncan, Cam Levins, Tony McQuay, Andrew Riley

Featured symposium presenter Peter Stanley of U.K. Athletics

NCAA Executive Vice President for Championships and Alliances Mark Lewis was the keynote speaker of the opening session.

Mondo’s Jim Stalford and Glen Hoy joined by Michael & Tina Cain at the Mondo BBQ

North Central College’s Chris Wheaton, Al Carius & Frank Gramaross

Miami’s Amy Deem conducts symposium session in front of a packed house

Sponsor and Supporter Exhibits

Staff of Grand Canyon University receive their National Champions rings from Balfour’s Harold Leverett. february 2013

techniques

M iami Ath letic C ommunications photo

Athletic Constructivism & Kinesthetic Inquiry

An educational theorybased method for coaching track and field

By Jordan Goffena and Ann Haley MacKenzie, Ed.D.

an you recall a time during your educational experience when a teacher lectured and then gave you book questions to answer without ever knowing what you already knew and what your learning style was? Did your teachers mindlessly rattle off information without telling or asking you why it is important to know this information? What about that coach who just told you what to do rather than allow you to seek the answer yourself? It wasn’t long ago that America was the world leader in education. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), as of 2010, America ranks 17th in the world for science education. Why is this the case? Science is often taught as a plethora of facts without ever tying the concepts together by the students. The teach-

techniques f e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3

ers cover a 1,000-page textbook with little input from the students. In science education, the paradigm is changing where science teachers are encouraged to focus more on how students learn and less on the delivery of static information. The goal is for the teacher to provide opportunities for the students that helps them “uncover” the text, instead of covering it (Duckworth, 2006). This method, called scientific inquiry, is based on the constructivist model that provides students with the chance to understand a subject, rather than merely retaining knowledge. This article will provide a different lens to coaching by infusing constructivist approaches gleaned from science education research. How can science education inform the coaching experience?

Learning Theory First, there are an abundance of things that can determine how people learn, such as multiple intelligences and teaching styles; however, it essentially comes down to a physiological process of learning. Learning occurs when the neurons in the brain are connected to one another. More specifically, when someone learns something new, a synapse from an axon will connect to multiple neurons in the brain if the knowledge is deemed useful and, based on the individual’s previous experiences, the brain can selectively strengthen or weaken those connections (Sousa, 2001). The process of learning can also be connected to a learning cycle consisting of five phases: Engagement, Exploration, Explanation, Elaboration and Evaluation (BSCS, 1994; Llewellyn, 2007; NRC, 2012). Students become engaged when they find something that seems to be interesting in the course work from their perspective. The exploration phase is when the individual uncovers key concepts related to what is being learned. The explanation phase provides the students with the opportunity to develop definitions gleaned from their experiences during the engage and explore phases. During the elaboration phase, the students draw connections in the brain which can result in a neural bond, commonly recognized as the lightbulb moment and also when they apply what they learned in the previous phases. The evaluation phase is when the students assess the strength of the connection that has just been made or assesses their progress towards an adequate understanding of the task at hand. One of the most important parts to focus on as an educator is the engagement phase; if the students are not engaged, the chances of them actually learning is drastically reduced. All together, the process of learning occurs when an engaged student physiologically makes connections between nerve cells, which can be constructed upon the individual’s prior experiences if they’re attracted to the concept or idea and provided the experiences of working with the concept in multiple contexts within the learning cycle.

Constructivism Constructivism is a paradigm that stems from the students’ prior knowledge and experiences that they bring to the classroom. From this prior experience, the students construct meaning from the course material being provided. To follow the constructivist model, teachers should view their students as active consumers; consumers who will actively and selectively choose what to listen to based on their personal interests (Glynn, Yeany, & Britton, 1991). Once a student is engaged, it takes considerable reflection on the students’ prior knowledge to construct a new meaning (Llewellyn, 2007). Therefore, the basic premise to constructivism is to utilize the self-reflection of one’s previous experience to construct a new understanding of an occurrence, concept or meaning. Llewellyn (2007) states “Constructivism is a theory about how we come to know what we know… [And] we do this by reflecting on our everyday experiences. In this way, each of us constantly constructs and reconstructs our own mental models to accommodate and make sense of our new experiences” (p. 55). The constructivist model can be viewed in different ways (Bentley, 1998); however, educational constructivism is a baseline theory that acts as the foundation for a variety of teaching methods pro-

viding students to build neuronal pathways from the experiences they bring to the classroom and alter based on their involvement in learning cycles.

Scientific Inquiry Scientific inquiry, a method for how to teach science, expands directly from constructivism and learning theory. Llewellyn (2007), author of Inquiry Within, articulated that there is not just one particular way to define inquiry but there are many ways to define it based on how different people experience it. The following quotes provide a lens from which to examine inquiry. • “Inquiry is a process of exploration guided by a personal interest.” –Marilyn Austin (p.8) • Inquiry is open-ended and is subjected to the differentiating view of each student. –Doris Ash (p. 8) • “Curiosity is the centerpiece of inquiry.” –Hubert Dyasi (p. 8) • “A problem to be solved is at the heart of inquiry, especially if the problem is authentic” – MacKenzie (Interview) Professionals who teach according to scientific inquiry put the students at the center of the educational experience and do not just give the students the answers when they ask. The educators provide them with the opportunity to seek out the answers to their own questions and will give them a gentle nudge in the right direction when needed. “Exemplary science teachers… structure their classrooms so that exploration and wonder are vital elements of the learning experiences” (Haley-Oliphant nee MacKenzie, 1994). Particularly, inquiry teachers ask questions to explore and elicit the misconceptions that the students may have because it can lead to wonderful teachable moments in the classroom. Those moments are what spark the interest of the students and engages them in the learning experience. Furthermore, inquiry-based teachers take on a multitude of roles which might be best balanced by the combination between a coach and a referee, “Coach in the sense of setting tasks for the student which will improve the students’ performance as individual scholars, and referee in the sense of helping the collective develop and apply community standards for evidence and argument” (Champagne & Bunce, 1991). However, the classification of a coach would be better defined as an individual who will improve the authentic experiences for their athletes, rather than only focus on their performance. How does this fit the sport psychological model?

The Beauty of Sport Citius, Altius and Fortius, Latin for Faster, Higher, and Stronger, was first introduced at the 1924 Olympic games and has been the modern motto ever since. At first glance, one might think that the motto is about running faster, jumping higher and being stronger than their opponents. However, the meaning is not about comparing one’s self to another, but improving one’s best. There is both an observable and subliminal beauty to all sports. For one, the beauty of sport can be observed through watching the physical achievements of an athlete, much like watching Ashton Eaton run the final 100m of the 1500m in the decathlon when he broke the world record at the 2012 US Olympic Trials. The other would be to understand and recognize how much mental preparation, energy, dedication and discipline that preceded the physical achievement.

february 2013

techniques

Athletic Constructivism & Kinesthetic Inquiry However, the beauty is not only in the observing but better defined in the doing. Athletes indulge in sports for two different reasons: the subjective aesthetic and the objective aesthetic (Lowe, 1977). Subjective aesthetic, or action as beauty, is to take part in an activity for the sake of doing it; whereas, objective aesthetics is to take part in an activity for the social acceptance of others, and it is unlikely that an athlete can experience both views at the same time. Therefore, distinguishing the difference between the intrinsic (subjective) and extrinsic (objective) reasons for participating in a sport is important for helping athletes in their self-actualization. The beauty of sport is best understood when Lowe (1977) stated, “Although there is inherent in many sports a conscious striving for perfection in the presentation of a communicable emotional state, it is probably in the simplicity of drawing a one-to-one relationship from [self-expression] that the sport-art paradigm appears so easily stated” (p. XV). To see the true beauty of sport, one would most benefit from an intrinsic view of striving for excellence through building simple connections. So, how can coaches better express the significance of intrinsic value for their athletes?

Sometimes the outcome is out of the control of the athlete; therefore, focus should be put on their performance rather than the outcome (Weinberg & Gould, 2011). However, still putting the emphasis on performance can be detrimental to the behaviors of the athlete. It is crucial for coaches to focus on their athlete’s personal growth by contributing to their experiences because they would otherwise be subjected to the controllable pressures of performing (e.g. lack of the ability to cope with adversity, attentional focus or difficulties maintaining arousal). In reference to the triad, Vealey (2005) said, “Many people fail to understand that optimal performance in sport is most likely to occur when athletes focus on developmental goals and the enjoyment of optimal experiences in their sport” (p. 17). If the focus is on positive and exciting experiences during practice, the chances are much greater of reaching optimal performance during competition. However, it is hard for a coach to directly tell an athlete to learn the inner edge. Coaches need to find a way to guide their athlete’s in the right direction by helping them experience track and field and find enjoyment in their events.

Athletic Constructivism Inner Edge Coaching There is a noteworthy coaching outline derived from Coaching for the Inner Edge (Vealey, 2005). The Inner Edge is “the advantage that athletes create for themselves by honing the sharpness or keenness of their mental skills” by focusing on a triad that consists of optimal development, optimal performance, and optimal experience (Vealey, 2005, p. XI, 5-8). Complementary to the triad, there are two factors known to provide significant contributions to coaching: (1) maximizing athletic performance and (2) maximizing an athlete’s personal growth and development (Botterill, 1980). It is important to recognize that there are both performance goals and development goals; however, when one puts more emphasis on performance over everything else the outcome could be detrimental. Vealey (2005) refers to this as an unbalance triad and says, “Winning (or optimal performance) is most likely to occur when the triad is in balance” (p. 17). All too often coaches focus on the outcome, which can lead to negative and pessimistic behaviors in their athletes.

techniques f e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3

The inner edge needs to be attained through the athlete’s willingness and attentiveness to their own individualized way of recognizing the triad. So, it is important for coaches to have a certain approach that will help them teach the inner edge to their athletes. Coaches need to personally know and understand their athletes and his or her athletes need the opportuni-

ty to construct upon their previous athletic experiences to help them gain insights into their individualized way of knowing. Constructivism has been subliminally recognized in sport psychology when Weinberg & Gould (2011) said, “Coaches also [should] use performance information, such as past accomplishments, skill test, practice behaviors, and other coaches evaluations… Performance accomplishments provide

Athletic Constructivism & Kinesthetic Inquiry

the most dependable foundation for self-efficacy judgments because they are based on one’s mastery experiences” (p. 327, 330). These quotes suggest that the constructivist theory has a place in the coaching experience. Coaches must be proactive in knowing their athletes’ previous experiences with the sport, skills and personal background (e.g. Are the athletes extrinsic or intrinsically motivated?). This knowledge will help coaches better construct a new plan of attack when developing a practice schedule or a new way to “uncover” a technique. Athletes can build their experiences toward mastery, which proposes a task goal orientation that focuses on the improvement relative to one’s self (Weinberg & Gould, 2011) and leads to a more intrinsic approach inspiring voluntary engagement (Vealey, 2005). (See pg. 12 for chart). Athletic constructivism, essentially, is a base theory to which new coaching methodology can be built upon. Constructivism is the base theory for scientific inquiry in the classroom and athletic constructivism can be the basis for kinesthetic inquiry.

Kinesthetic Inquiry Track and field is a sport that focuses on precise techniques based on scientific experimentations and the fundamentals of biomechanics; therefore, we consider the track and field sport based on science. If this is the case, then why not suggest a coaching methodology that incorporates the athlete’s individualized process of learning in the instruction? Kinesthetic inquiry, based on the principles of scientific inquiry, is an interpersonal method of coaching by allowing one’s athletes to reflect on their prior experiences, investigate their natural curiosities when learning a new technique and question how the technique works compared to their individualized way of knowing and moving. The following are some main points that

techniques f e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3

kinesthetic inquiry offers: As a coach, it helps when you uncover what the athletes find interesting because it potentially can help close the gap between one topic to another. Pose questions like “Describe how xyz technique would better fit your form?” and/or “What are the differences between xyz form and provide evidence for your thinking?” Question and think! A philosophical approach can enhance the ability to learn from and improve the athletic experience (Reid, 2002). Coaches should be a figure of guidance rather than a teller of all knowledge. Coaches must provide an atmosphere for the athlete’s to come up with questions and provide them with questions or responses that would help them answer the questions themselves. For example, a coach could ask the athlete to provide evidence for his/her ideas, just as science teachers use inquiry to pose questions like “What is your evidence?”’ “How do you know?”; “What assumptions are you making about content xyz?” Often, athletes are predisposed to a certain technique or form because that was what seemed the most natural when learning the event from their perception. When this takes place, a unique distinction occurs based on individual differences and preferences where a coach can find him or herself effectively deviating away from the “textbook” form. One particularly good example is the double leg swing for pole vault. The double leg swing has worked fantastically for vaulters such as Australian Steve Hooker, Russian Evgeniy Lukyanenko, and American Jason Colwick, all world class pole vaulters. As a coach, you have to be able to recognize if your athletes are performing a certain task a specific way based on a coach’s prior expectation or if it is an individualized physiological preference from the athlete.

Athletic Constructivism & Kinesthetic Inquiry

How can Athletic Constructivism and Kinesthetic Inquiry improve the track and field experience? Track and field is a unique sport because it consists of a multitude of events, variable techniques, and a plethora of personality types. Because individuals can be so dynamic in this sport, it would seem fitting to have a dynamic method of coaching in order to appeal to individual differences and preferences. Kinesthetic inquiry, based on the foundation of athletic constructivism and the process of learning, allows for the diverse assortment of individuals to actively use their prior experiences to develop an individualized path to selfdetermination, self-efficacy and self-actualization. That is, “Understanding is the one-dimensional comprehension of the intellect. It leads to knowledge. Realization is threedimensional—a simultaneous comprehension of head, heart and instinct. It comes only from direct experience” (Millman, 2000, p. 15). History has shown the significance of many great track and field coaches, but one that may preside over all other coaches is William J. Bowerman. Not only is the Bowerman System (Walsh, 1983) a method for hard-easy distance running, it was a method for individualized mental construction based on what that particular athlete experienced. Bowerman was a man of inquiry, one who considered himself first a teacher and second a coach (Walsh, 1983), which is best glorified when he said “teaching is the root of all good coaching” (p. 13). Though Bowerman understood the individual differences between his athletes and their training, his meet strategies were fundamental; but not even the best strategies can stop someone’s personal, intrinsic desire to run his or her hardest for every single race much like Steve Prefontaine did. Bowerman worked with Prefontaine, they questioned each other often, but cooperated when the time was right because he knew that Prefontaine was going to give his all every time. Bowerman learned from Prefontaine; therefore, further subjecting him to the beautiful fact that teachers and coaches should never stop learning and they learn the most from their students when both are actively engaged in the conversation. Athletic constructivism and kinesthetic inquiry are not necessarily a new topic in track and field, and in athletics in general; however, it has not been defined until now. The goal now is to embrace inquiry in the coaching process and allow athletes to construct from their prior experiences, those experiences that have built that particular individual from the ground up; to invite the process of learning to manifest itself in the teaching of events and techniques; and finally, to encourage all athletes to strive for their maximum potential, for we all know how good it feels to achieve a new personal record. “Men (sic) of Oregon, I invite you to become students of your events. Running, one might say, is basically an absurd past-time upon which to be exhausting ourselves. But if you can find meaning, in the kind of running you have to do to stay on this team, chances are you will be able to find meaning in another absurd past-time: life.” -Bill Bowerman

techniques f e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3

References Bentley, M. L. (1998). Constructivism as a referent for reforming science education. Larochelle, M., Bednarz, N., & Garrison, J., Constructivism and education. Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press, p. 233-249. Biological Science Curriculum Study (1994). Investigating Systems and Change. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing, p. xi-xiii. Botterill, C. (1980). Psychology of coaching. Suinn, R. M., Psychology of sports : Methods and application. Minneapolis, MN : Burgess Publishing Company, p 261-279. Champagne, A. B., & Bunce, D. M. (1991). Learning-theorybased science teaching. Glynn, S. M., Veany, R. H., & Britton, B. K., The psychology of learning. Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (p. 21-41). Committee on Conceptual Framework for the New K-12 Science Education Standards. (2012) National Research Council: The National Academies Press. Duckworth, E. (2006). The having of wonderful ideas and other essays on teaching and learning (3rd edition). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Glynn, S. M., Veany, R. H., & Britton, B. K. (1991). The psychology of learning. Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Haley-Oliphant, A. E.( nee) MacKenzie, A.H. (1994). Exploring the place of exemplary science teaching. (pp. 1-9). Washington, DC : American Association for the Advancement of Science, p. 1-9. Llewellyn, D. (2007). Inquire within : Implementing inquirybased science standards in grades 3-8 (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA : Corwin Press, Inc. Lowe, B. (1977). The beauty of sport : A cross-discipline inquiry. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall, Inc. Millman, D. (2000). Way of the peaceful warrior: A book that changes lives. New World Library: Tiburon, CA. (p. 15). Reid, H. L. (2002). The philosophical athlete. Durham, NC : Carolina Academic Press. Sousa, D. A. (2001). How the brain learns (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA : Corwin Press, Inc. Vealey, R. S. (2005). Coaching for the inner edge. Morgantown, WV : Fitness Information Technology. Walsh, C. (1983). The Bowerman system. Los Altos, CA : Tafnews Press, Track & Field News, Inc. Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. (2011). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology (5th edition) Champaign, IL : Human Kinetic

BIO Jordan Goffena is a former decathlete from Miami University of Ohio and is a double major in Life Science Education & Zoology. As a Redhawk, Jordan was recognized as a member of the 2012 USTFCCCA Men’s Division I All-Academic Team and is currently an Undergraduate Assistant Coach for both the Men’s Track and Field team and Women’s Field Hockey. Ann Haley MacKenzie is an award winning teacher and professor at Miami University of Ohio where she is a Science Educator as well as a Special Professor, Department of Science, Math and Technology at the University of Johannesburg in South Africa.

february 2013

techniques

kirb y lee photo

Altitude Training by JASON R. KARP, PH.D.

ltitude is mysterious. Part of this mystery comes from the fact that altitude escapes all of our senses—we can’t see it, taste it, smell it, hear it or touch it. But we certainly can feel it. Most of the time, we don’t even think about altitude, except when we take a ski trip or hike up a mountain or run in places like Colorado. We certainly think about it then, since we can hear our increased breathing and feel out of shape. Although altitude presents a unique stress not experienced at sea level, tolerance to moderate altitude is ancestral for humans (Hochachka et al. 1998; Hochachka & Monge 2000). The evolution of our physiology, which has its roots in the African highlands, was inherently dependent on efficient oxygen delivery and on the development of aerobic metabolic pathways, with a relatively minor dependence on anaerobic metabolism (Hochachka et al. 1998). As attempts to climb Mount Everest have shown, it is a remarkable coincidence that the highest elevation that can be tolerated by humans coincides with the highest point on Earth (29,029 feet). Even though the ability to cope with altitude is in our genes, many runners still have trouble tolerating it. Many places in the country are at altitude, and many runners travel to altitude to compete, so knowing how to handle it will help your athletes. Although many coaches, athletes and TV commentators attribute much of the success of the Kenyan and Ethiopian distance runners to their altitude training, there is little scientific or historical evidence that training at altitude is superior to training at sea level for improvements in VO2max or sea level performance. Historically, the best U.S. distance runners (with the exception of a few) have been born, lived and trained at sea-level. If altitude were a key ingredient for success, there would be a disproportionate percentage of elite U.S. distance runners coming from altitude compared to the percentage of people in the U.S. who live there. In my study on the training characteristics of the 2004 U.S. Olympic Marathon Trials qualifiers, I found that only 24 percent of men and 16 percent of women trained at altitude, and did so only because they resided there. More tellingly, there was no difference in marathon performance between athletes who trained at altitude and those who didn’t (Karp, 2006).

The Physiology of Altitude When you arrive at altitude, one of the first things your athletes notice is that they breathe more heavily. The

increased breathing is the obvious indication of a number of subtle changes in their bodies, including reductions in the oxygen content of their blood, blood plasma, total blood volume and stroke volume (the volume of blood pumped by the heart per beat), and increases in fluid loss, resting heart rate and resting metabolic rate (Robergs & Roberts 1997). On your athletes’ first day at altitude, they go for a run, and notice within a few strides that they’re breathing heavier than usual. They wonder why, because the air still contains 20.93 percent oxygen, whether you are swimming in the Dead Sea in Israel (1,385 feet below sea-level) or standing on top of Mount Everest in Nepal (29,029 feet above sea-level). Besides the beautiful scenery and clean mountain air, the defining characteristic of altitude is a lower barometric pressure, which keeps decreasing the higher up you go. As a result, the partial pressure of oxygen in the air is reduced, resulting in less oxygen entering the lungs with each breath (Robergs & Roberts 1997). To compensate, your athletes’ ventilation increases in an attempt to get in more oxygen. Not even one mile into their run, they feel so out of breath they begin to question whether all the miles they’ve put in at sea-level are making any difference to their fitness levels. Besides making them feel like they’re working harder, the increased breathing has a physiological consequence. Since your athletes exhale carbon dioxide with each breath, their increased ventilation decreases the partial pressure of carbon dioxide in their blood, altering their acid-base balance by elevating the pH. In response to this respiratory alkalosis, their kidneys compensate by excreting bicarbonate (the body’s buffer to acidosis) to lower blood pH back to its normal physiological value and maintain acid-base balance. Pretty neat, but rather than collecting urine samples from your athletes to check their bicarbonate concentrations, you decide to trust their kidneys to do their job. About two miles into their run, they notice their legs feel sluggish. When the oxygen partial pressure in their lungs decreases, the oxygen pressure gradient between their lungs and blood also decreases. Since molecules travel from areas of higher pressure to areas of lower pressure, the smaller pressure gradient decreases the amount of oxygen diffusing into their blood, and blood oxygen saturation is reduced. Less oxygen traveling around in your athletes’ blood means less oxygen available to their skeletal muscles. Less oxygen, together with a reduced blood volume that reduces stroke volume, decrease their aerobic power (VO2max) at altitude

february 2013

techniques

A LTITU D E t r a i n i n g compared to at sea level (Koistinen et al. 1995; Lawler et al. 1988; Martin & O’Kroy 1993). The decrease in performance in endurance events (1,500 meters and longer) at altitude is largely attributable to the altitude-associated decrease in VO2max. Interestingly, research has shown that better runners who are very aerobically fit and have a high VO2max at sea-level experience a greater reduction in VO2max at altitude compared to less fit or less talented runners because fitter people exhibit a greater decrease in blood oxygen saturation at altitude (Koistinen et al. 1995; Lawler et al. 1988; Martin & O’Kroy 1993). It seems that the more your athletes have to begin with, the more they have to lose. Since VO2max is lower at altitude, running at the same pace as at sea-level will feel harder because your athletes are working at a higher percentage of their (altitude) VO2max. Metabolism during submaximal aerobic exercise is also altered when running at altitude at the same pace as at sealevel, with a greater reliance on glycolysis (Brooks et al. 1991; Howald et al. 1990; Roberts et al. 1996). As your athletes finish their run and get back to the hotel, they realize that they are very thirsty. Since they’re breathing more, they’re not just losing carbon dioxide; they’re also losing water through their breath. As a result, they become dehydrated, which is accompanied by both a thermal and cardiovascular strain and reduced running

performance. A few hours later, your athletes notice a slight headache. Exposure to moderate to extreme altitudes can result in acute mountain sickness, a condition characterized by headaches, nausea, loss of appetite and lethargy (Armstrong 2000). Exercise can exacerbate the symptoms of acute mountain sickness (Roach et al. 2000), while the symptoms are usually alleviated with supplemental oxygen, drugs or return to lower altitude (Armstrong 2000). The next day, your athletes decide they’ve had enough with the heavy breathing and sluggish legs and they try to do some sprints. After the first sprint, they can’t believe how good their legs feel. They try another, thinking it may just be a fluke. Again, they feel like they’re flying. They think, “How can this be? Just yesterday I couldn’t even breathe and today I’m flying!” The difference between aerobic and anaerobic exercise is not more clearly seen than it is at altitude. Anaerobic exercise, including sprinting, jumping and plyometrics, is positively affected by altitude because the air is less dense (Coudert 1992; Fulco et al. 1998). Those activities do not depend on oxygen, so it makes little difference during sprints that there’s less oxygen available (strength training is also not affected by altitude). Aerobic exercise, which your athletes discovered the day before during their easier but longer run, is dependent on oxygen, so it makes all the difference during aerobic activities that there’s less oxygen available. The magnitude of aerobic performance impairment at altitude is proportional to both the elevation and duration of the activity (Fulco et al. 1998; Strauzenberg 1976). The higher up you go, the slower your athletes run.

Training Response to Altitude Living and exercising at altitude stimulates the production of red blood cells (called erythropoiesis, after erythropoietin, the hormone that stimulates their production) as part of acclimatization to compensate for the decreased oxygen, giving your athletes’ blood a greater oxygen-carrying capability when they return to sea-level (which is a good thing). However, acclimatization to altitude does not completely counteract its fundamental stress. Changes in your athletes’ cardiovascular systems do not return to what is characteristic at sea level, preventing them from running at the same speeds for their workouts at altitude as they can at sea-level (which is a bad thing). So, altitude training is a balancing act: making more red blood cells on one hand versus training at slower speeds on

techniques f e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3

A LTITU D E t r a i n i n g the other hand. The trick is to not let the latter outweigh the former. This issue, most problematic for endurance athletes, has led to an interesting area of research that suggests that, to acquire the benefit of both worlds, it is better for endurance athletes to live at altitude to stimulate the production of red blood cells, but train at sea level to maintain a greater training intensity, a strategy called “live high/train low” (Levine & Stray-Gundersen 1997). Some studies have examined this issue by actually having athletes travel back and forth between altitude and sea level, while other studies have simulated altitude conditions by having athletes at sea level breathe different concentrations of oxygen for varying amounts of time during the day. There is some evidence that this live high/train low strategy may improve sea level performance by inducing the erythropoiesis associated with altitude exposure while maintaining sea level training intensities. However, research has also shown that not all runners respond to altitude training to the same extent, with responders showing a greater concentration of erythropoietin in the blood and a smaller decrement in training speed at altitude than non-responders. Thus, while altitude training may work for some runners, others would be better served by remaining at sea-level where they can train at a faster pace.

Recommendations for Training at Altitude Intensity If you’d like your athletes to try altitude training, the ideal altitude is 6,500 to 8,000 feet for at least four weeks to obtain the greatest erythropoietic benefit while minimizing the occurrence of acute mountain sickness. Since the same aerobic intensity at altitude feels harder than at sea-level due to the reduction in VO2max at altitude, adjust your athletes’ intensity at altitude to make the workouts physiologically equivalent to their workouts at sea level (see Adjusting Running Pace at Altitude). To maintain sea level training intensity (and thus fitness) while at altitude, incorporate what I call “sea-level speed” interval workouts. Have them run at the same pace as they would at sea-level, but shorten the intervals so they can run at their sea-level speed. For example, if an athlete normally runs 1,000-meter repeats at sea-level in 3:45 (6:00 pace), have him or her run 600-meter repeats at altitude in 2:15 (6:00 pace). Your athletes may also have to take longer recovery periods during interval workouts at altitude. With the less dense air of altitude, your athletes can benefit greatly from anaerobic workouts since they can sprint faster at altitude than at sea-level. However, decrease the frequency of high-intensity workouts since it takes longer to recover at altitude (recovery is an aerobic process).

Nutrition Since resting metabolic rate increases at altitude and muscles rely more on carbohydrates at altitude when training at sea-level intensity, your athletes should increase their caloric intake, especially carbohydrates. Fluid loss also increases at altitude, making dehydration a greater concern than at sealevel. Loss of body fluid decreases blood volume and increases the viscosity of the blood, which can compromise blood flow to the contracting muscles. Thus, it is important that your athletes increase fluid intake when traveling to altitude, especially fluids that help promote fluid retention, such as sports drinks

techniques f e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3

that contain sodium. Finally, athletes should consume adequate antioxidants (vitamins A, C, and E) to bolster their immune systems, since altitude may weaken the immune system, especially at altitudes above 14,000 feet (Chao et al. 1999), which can increase the risk for upper respiratory tract infections.

Competing at Altitude The higher the elevation and the longer the race, the greater the decline in performance, so your athletes cannot expect to race at the same speed as at sea level. Starting the race at the same pace will only cause a greater amount of fatigue. In addition, athletes who run multiple rounds of an event may fatigue earlier than they do at sea level, since recovery at altitude typically takes longer. When deciding how long before a race that your athletes should arrive at altitude, two issues need to be considered. The first is minimizing the chances your athletes will experience symptoms of acute mountain sickness, and the second is how much time the body needs to acclimatize to the less available oxygen. Unless your athletes are able to train at altitude for at least two weeks before their race, they should arrive as close as possible to the race. The physiological changes that occur at altitude exhibit the greatest detrimental effect on performance between 10 and 14 days of exposure (Strauzenberg 1976). Over the following few weeks, your athletes acclimatize, making the consequences of those changes less severe. So the next time your athletes run at altitude, make sure they follow these guidelines. And if they train smart enough, not only will they get more out of their workouts and eliminate their risk for acute mountain sickness, they may even be able to demystify altitude.

References Armstrong, L.E. (2000). Performing in Extreme Environments. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 165-191. Brooks, G.A., Butterfield, G.E., Wolfe, R.R., Groves, B.M., Mazzeo, R.S., Sutton, J.R., Wolfel, E.E., & Reeves, J.T. (1991). Increased dependence on blood glucose after acclimatization to 4,300m. Journal of Applied Physiology, 70 (2), 919-927. Butterfield, G.E., Gates, J., Fleming, S., Brooks, G.A., Sutton, J.R., & Reeves, JT. (1992). Increased energy intake minimizes weight loss in men at high altitude. Journal of Applied Physiology, 72 (5), 1741-1748. Chao, W.H., Askew, E.W., Roberts, D.E., Wood, S.M., & Perkins, J.B. (1999). Oxidative stress in humans during work at moderate altitude. Journal of Nutrition, 129, 2009-2012. Coudert, J. (1992). Anaerobic performance at altitude. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 13 (Suppl. 1), S82S85. Fulco, C.S., Rock, P.B., & Cymerman, A. (1998). Maximal and submaximal exercise performance at altitude. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 69 (8), 793-801. Hochachka, P.W., Gunga, H.C., & Kirsch, K. (1998). Our ancestral physiological phenotype: An adaptation for hypoxia tolerance and for endurance performance? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95, 1915–1920. Hochachka, P.W. and Monge, C. (2000). Evolution of human hypoxia tolerance physiology. Advances in Experimental and

A LTITU D E t r a i n i n g Medical Biology, 475, 25–43. Howald, H., Pette, D., Simoneau, J.A., Uber, A., Hoppeler, & Cerretelli, P. (1990). Effect of chronic hypoxia on muscle enzyme activities. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 11 (Suppl. 1), S10-S14. Karp, J.R. (2007). Training characteristics of qualifiers for the U.S. Olympic marathon trials. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2 (1), 72-92. Koistinen, P., Takala, T., Martikkala, V., & Leppaluoto, J. (1995). Aerobic fitness influences the response of maximal oxygen uptake and lactate threshold in acute hypobaric hypoxia. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 16 (2), 78-81. Lawler, J., Powers, S.K., & Thompson, D. (1988). Linear relationship between VO2max and VO2max decrement during exposure to acute hypoxia. Journal of Applied Physiology, 64 (4), 1486-1492. Levine, B.D. and Stray-Gundersen, J. (1997). “Living high-training low”: effect of moderate altitude acclimatization with low-altitude training on performance. Journal of Applied Physiology, 83 (1), 102-112. Maresh, C.M., Kraemer, W.J., Noble, B.J., & Robertson, K.L. (1988). Exercise responses after short- and long-term residence at 2,200 meters. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 59 (4), 335-339. Martin, D. and O’Kroy, J. (1993). Effects of acute hypoxia

techniques f e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3

on the VO2max of trained and untrained subjects. Journal of Sports Sciences, 11 (1), 37-42. Roach, R.C., Maes, D., Sandoval, D., Robergs, R.A., Icenogle, M., Hinghofer-Szalkay, H., Lium, D., & Loeppky, J.A. (2000). Exercise exacerbates acute mountain sickness at simulated high altitude. Journal of Applied Physiology, 88 (2), 581-585. Robergs, R.A. and Roberts, S.O. (1997). Exercise Physiology: Exercise, Performance, and Clinical Applications. New York: Mosby, 642-649. Roberts, A.C., Butterfield, G.E., Cymerman, A., Reeves, J.T., Wolfel, E.E., & Brooks, G.A. (1996). Acclimatization to 4,300m altitude decreases reliance on fat as a substrate. Journal of Applied Physiology, 81 (4), 1762-1771. Strauzenberg, E. (1976). Short outline of the problem of competition at altitude above 2000 M. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 16 (4), 346-347.

BIO Dr. Jason Karp is a nationally-recognized coach, 2011 IDEA Personal Trainer of the Year, and owner of RunCoachJason. com. He holds a Ph.D. in exercise physiology and is founder and coach of REVO2LT Running Team™. His training programs and his latest books, 101 Winning Racing Strategies for Runners and Running for Women, are available at runcoachjason.com.

USTFCCCA www.mondoworldwide.com

www.gillathletics.com

www.ucsspirit.com

www.beynonsports.com

www.rekortanspurtanadvpolytech.com

www.balfour.com www.coacheschoice.com

www.stockmeier-urethanes.com

www.directathletics.com

Through their ongoing support of the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Associaton, these companies demonstrate their strong commitment to the sports of Track & Field and Cross Country. 2266

techniques ffeebbrruuaarryy 22001133 techniques

SUPPORTERS www.ucsspirit.com www.mfathletic.com

www.tractionusa.com

www.powerbar.com www.coachesdirectory.com

www.maxmedals.com

www.vsathletics.com

The USTFCCCA strongly encourages each member to purchase products and services from these supporters. techniques ffeebbrruuaarryy 22001133 techniques

2277

andreas maheras P H OTO

Relative Speed Fluctuations in discus throwing by andreas v. maheras, ph.d.

n the course of a discus throw, the center of mass of the (thrower + discus) system translates forward across the circle. This way the speed of the center of mass contributes to the speed of the discus. An analogy that can be used to explain how the speed of the center of mass contributes to the speed of the discus is as follows. That is, one can compare the discus thrower with a ship, firing a cannon. If the ship, firing the cannon, is traveling forward as the cannon is fired, the forward speed of the ship is added to the forward speed of the projectile. This results in a larger total horizontal speed of the projectile as compared to a condition where the ship would be stationary when it fired the cannon. The forward (linear) motion of the thrower+discus system contributes to the speed of the discus at release and the thrower, indeed, needs to take advantage of this forward motion as much as possible albeit its limited contribution (linear vs. rotational) to the overall speed of the discus at release (Maheras, 2011). february 2013

techniques

Relative Speed Fluctuations in discus throwing

Figure 1. Relative discus speed fluctuations, during a hypothetical movement of the thrower+discus system across the circle.

However, as the system translates forward, the discus also rotates counterclockwise around it. This combination of the horizontal translation of the system’s center of mass and the rotation of the discus results in a fluctuation in the speed of the discus in relation to the ground. To clarify this phenomenon, one should consider a discus thrower who, with her discus, moves across the circle at a hypothetical constant speed of 2 meters/second (figure 1). It can also be hypothesized that the counterclockwise rotation of the discus around the system’s center of mass imparts a constant speed of 8 m/s to the discus relative to the system’s center of mass. At the moment the discus is on the right side of the system’s center of mass, the discus is moving in the same direction as the system’s center of mass. Their speeds can then be added up to produce a speed of 10 m/sec., (8+2), relative to the ground. Similarly, when the discus is on the left side, the discus and the system’s center of mass are moving in opposite directions. This way their speeds are subtracted from each other to produce a discus speed of 6 m/sec., (8-2), relative to the ground. This combination of the forward translation of the system’s center of mass and of the counterclockwise rotation of the discus around it, results in fluctuations in the speed of the discus relative to the ground. As shown, there is a local maximum speed when the discus is at the right side and, local minimum speed when the discus is at the left side. At the instant of release, the discus is at the right side and this way the speed of the system’s center of mass contributes to increase the speed of the discus relative to the ground. At this point, the main concern is the confusion that the fluctuations in the speed of the discus relative to the ground can cause in interpreting the dynamics of the throw. It needs to be made clear that the effort that the thrower exerts to increase the speed of the discus is related to the changes in the speed relative to the system’s center of mass and not to the changes that may result to the speed of the discus rel32

techniques f e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3

ative to the ground. This implies that to produce the hypothetical movement shown in figure 1, the thrower does not apply any forces on the discus to speed it up or slow it down. The thrower merely hangs on to the discus to keep it in a circular path around the system’s center of mass. No effort is necessary to speed it up or slow it down, even though the discus is indeed speeding up or slowing down in relation to the ground. However, the thrower is doing nothing to increase or decrease the speed of the discus. That increase or decrease in the speed of the discus is occurring automatically just because the system’s center of mass is moving forward and the discus is rotating around it, a motion that requires no effort from the thrower. The dark line (squares) shown in figure 2 shows the absolute speed of the discus in relation to the ground in an average throw. Here, there is a maximum value at around the time the left foot loses contact with the ground in the back of the circle (LTO) which is followed by a series of smaller values before they eventually increase dramatically between the instant of landing of the left foot (LTD) and the release of the discus. Here, it would be an error for one to theorize that this speed pattern means that the thrower makes a forward force on the discus to increase its speed prior to the take off of the left foot, and that then makes a backward force to slow it down and then waits until the start of the double support delivery phase to make a another forward force to produce the final speed increase for the release of the discus. The top speed that occurred at left foot take off was the result of the discus being at the right side, as viewed from the back, during that instant and consequently the speed of the system’s center of mass helped to increase the speed of the discus relative to the ground. Those increases and decreases in the speed of the discus relative to the ground are the result of the forward movement of the system’s center of mass and not the result of any propulsive (or braking) forces applied by the

Relative Speed Fluctuations in discus throwing

Figure 2. Approximate patterns of: a) the speed of the discus relative to the ground (dark line-squares) and, b) the speed of the discus relative to the system’s center of mass (red line–triangles). Adapted from Dapena & Anderst (1997).

thrower on the discus. If the motion of the system’s center of mass is subtracted from the motion of the discus, then the relative motion of the discus with respect to the system’s center of mass can be revealed and it will look approximately as in the red line (triangles) in figure 2. This line shows the true action of the thrower upon the discus. It reveals an initial speed increase between the moment of the most backwards point in the discus path and the moment at which the right foot takes off (RTO). This is followed by small increases and decreases in speed and then a final increase is observed, which commences approximately when the right foot lands on the ground (RTD). This pattern is common in most advanced throwers and it reveals that throwers clearly start their final “pull” of the discus before the landing of the left foot in the front of the circle. This event may remain unnoticed to someone examining the absolute discus speed relative to the ground only, and the reason is that the discus is in the left side and is moving towards the back of the circle at the moment of the planting of the left foot in the front of the circle, while at the same time the system’s center of mass is moving towards the direction of the throw. Thus the discus and the center of mass of the system move in opposite directions. This reduces the absolute speed of the discus relative to the ground at that moment and in this fashion it disguises the fact that the thrower has already started the final “pull” of the discus some time before that (i.e., before the planting of the left foot in the front of the circle), as the observation of the pattern of the speed of the discus relative to the system’s center of mass demonstrates, in figure 2.

Conclusions, Practical Application The observation of the pattern of the discus speed relative 34

techniques f e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3

to the system’s center of mass is a much better indicator of the propulsive or braking forces that the discus thrower is making on the discus than the observation of the absolute speed relative to the ground. Many practitioners believe that the main propulsive action of the discus should not commence until the left foot is planted in the ground in the front of the circle. In fact, practically all advanced throwers start the propulsive, “pulling” action much earlier than that. The danger here is that if throwers take such instruction literally and indeed wait until the left foot has landed in the front of the circle to start their final action, then the discus may advance forward enough along its path towards the front, without any force applied to it, and this could lead to a shortening of the effective final acceleration path of the discus. Such reduction will result in the reduction of the speed of the discus at release and eventually, the distance thrown.

References Dapena, J., & Anderst, W. (1997). Discus Throw (Men). Scientific Services Project, U.S.A Track & Field. Biomechanics Laboratory, Dept. of Kinesiology, Indiana University. Maheras, A. (2011). The Function of the Extremities in Discus Throwing. Techniques for Track and Field & Cross Country, 4 (4), 8-16.

Bio Dr. Andreas Maheras is the throws coach at Fort Hays State University and is a frequent contributor to Techniques.

kirby lee P H OTO

techniques f e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3

the special relationship A Coach’s Duty in Sports Law By Greg Roberts

he iconic image of a coach and athlete traditionally evokes images of little league baseball coaches mentoring young boys, Mary Lou Retton celebrating Olympic triumph in Béla Károlyi’s arms, or teams like UCLA who symbolized basketball greatness under coaching legend, John Wooden. However, today we regularly read about a dark and unsettling extension of those relationships, as witnessed in the Penn State football program. As athletic programs continue to grow in size and influence, so will the duty of care expected of all institutions and coaches. In contrast to traditional notions of a whistle-blowing and clipboard-carrying track coach, coaches may be required to do more than simply recite fundamental drills and proper training techniques. The steady rise in costly litigation and NCAA violations suggest coaches may be expected to act as risk managers to shield themselves and their employers against unreasonable risks (i.e., lawsuits stemming from wrongful conduct). In order to minimize their exposure to such liabilities, coaches should understand the scope of their legal duties.

Objective This article explores several aspects of risks and liabilities associated with coaching student-athletes at various competition levels. Although court decisions and statutes may vary between states, this article primarily considers general tort liability issues in sports law and its impact on the coach’s role in high school and collegiate sports. The areas considered are: (1) Tort Liability in General; (2) Coach-to-Athlete – a special relationship under the law; (3) a Coach’s Duties: Failure to Provide Adequate Supervision, Failure to Provide Proper Instruction and Training; and (4) Liability for the Actions of Fans and Players.

Tort Liability in General Generally, negligence is an unintentional injury caused by another person that focuses on their conduct or actions towards the injured party (Wong, 2010). Intentional harms, as distinguished from negligence, tend to focus on an individual’s state of mind or intent to cause the injury (Wong, 2010). If an injured party can prove that another party acted negligently—not exercising reasonable care to avoid injuring others, then com-

pensation may be allowed. But as this article illustrates, careful analysis requires the reasonable conduct to be judged objectively—that is, “with the ordinary care as expected of an ordinarily prudent person in similar circumstances” (Wong, 2010).

Traditionally, a party must prove four elements to establish a negligence claim: 1) Duty of care owed by the defendant; 2) Breach of that duty by the defendant; 3) Actual and proximate causation of the breach; and 4) Damages A duty of care is an obligation, recognized by law, that requires an individual’s or group’s conduct to be in accord with a particular standard (Wong, 2010). For instance, a person engaged in conduct as basic as crossing the street or as complex as that found in sports, has a corresponding legal duty to walk or play as an ordinarily prudent and reasonable person would; additionally, they should avoid creating unreasonable risks of injury to other persons. In sports, this duty requires athletes to exercise the “reasonable care” necessary to avoid creating risks potentially harmful to other players or spectators (Wong, 2010). Although the law expects us to take precautions against foreseeable risks of injury to other persons, one can imagine how flexible or even unfair this standard may seem at times. Moreover, other factors by law or status of the parties may limit or increase this reasonable care standard (e.g., employer-employee, coachathlete, doctor-patient, priest-parishioner) (Wong, 2010).

Special Relationship: Is there a heightened standard for coaches? Traditionally, coaches are expected to exercise a heightened duty of care (i.e., special relationship) to their athletes. There is a presumptive “special relationship” between a more qualified and experienced professional and a less qualified and impressionable student-athlete. Typically, the professional status is based on uniform industry standards of behavior within the profession (Wong, 2010). Thus, when acting within their professional capacity, the reasonableness of a coach’s conduct is judged by standards of conduct and qualifications established within the sport, whether that be based on commonly held practices or established rules under the NCAA or similar governing bodies (Wong, 2010).

february 2013

techniques

kirby lee P H OTO

the special relationship

Much like the employer and employee relationship, where the employer has a duty to render aid and assistance to an employee who is injured in the course of employment, coaches have a similar relationship and duty to athletes (Wong, 2010). For example, a student suffered a serious neck injury in a polevaulting accident during practice. The coach attempted to provide medical assistance. In doing so, however, he assumed responsibility for causing further damage that left the student paralyzed. The coach may be liable for his negligence if the court finds that the coach had a duty to act and breached that duty by not acting as a “reasonable track and field coach” would have acted in the situation (Wong, 2010). Similarly, in a Gettysburg College case, the courts discussed the specific nature of the duty owed to student athletes. The courts held the college breached the duty of care owed to its “recruited” student-athletes who were injured in competition (Wong, 2010). The court reasoned that an institution has a greater duty of care for recruited athletes than it has to students admitted under the traditional process. In contrast, a Massachusetts case found that Boston University owed no duty of care to protect the opposing team’s basketball player from a punch thrown by a Boston University player when the school 38

techniques f e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3

could not reasonably anticipate violence erupting (Wong, 2010). Simply put, the “special relationship” between an institution and its recruited student-athletes imposes a heightened duty of care on respective institutions. Most importantly, an institution’s coaches and staff should provide for student-athletes’ safety within the context of their sport.

Failure to Provide Adequate Supervision. Although coaches and staff cannot guarantee the safety of everyone under their care, they are responsible for providing reasonable supervision to the student-athletes under their direction (Wong, 2010). This supervisory role must be exercised with the due care of a “reasonable supervisor” and requires reasonable safety measures be taken for anyone who is likely to or actually does come into contact with the related area (Wong, 2010). The more obvious and common examples include improperly supervising an off-season weight training program or encouraging an injured student-athlete to play (Wong, 2010). For example, a college basketball player sued his coach for repeatedly playing him in games despite his knowledge of the player’s serious knee injury. The player repeatedly told the coach of his pain and despite his knowledge of the player’s

kirby lee P H OTO

the special relationship

injury, the coach held him out of practice with hopes that he could be ready for the game. In the final decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine suggested the coach had not exercised the reasonable care required of a similarly situated coach. When applied broadly, this duty may extend liability to coaches when he/she fails to control the actions of assistant coaches or staff or to properly examine the playing field or spectator areas (Wong, 2010). In the near future, coaches may be expected to take more affirmative steps in managing the scope of their duties—under a broader controlling principle.

Failure to Provide Proper Instruction and Training Coaches and assistant coaches are responsible for providing proper instruction and training to student-athletes (Wong, 2010). Generally, their education and training should meet standards specific to the sport, which may include undergraduate degrees, various certifications, and relevant experience (Wong, 2010). The coach additionally must competently instruct the student athletes on the activity, the safety rules and the proper methods of participating (Wong, 2010). In many lawsuits, injured players allege that the coach or teacher did not provide proper instruction and training (Wong, 2010). For instance, the first female high school football player in Carrol County, Md., sued the local school board after she was

techniques f e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3

injured in her initial scrimmage. She claimed that high school authorities negligently failed to warn her and her family of the potential risk of injury and if they had been so warned, she would not have played nor would her mother have permitted her to do so. In siding with the school board, the court said the danger of football was “ordinary and obvious” and that school officials had no duty to warn the family of the danger. This case applies the well-established “assumption of the risk” doctrine that is a defense against liability when a person voluntarily participates in inherently high-risk activity—especially sports. The underlying logic is that such risks are considered widely apparent and any reasonable person participating in a sport should be aware of them. For instance, in track and field a hurdler assumes the risk of hitting hurdles and possibly injuring herself in practice or competition. Thus, to shift blame to someone else for an injury that normally occurs from participating in the activity would be unfair and unduly burdensome to coaches or other athletes. Although cases may turn on facts related to negligent supervision or inadequate instructions, initially the athlete assumes the primary risk of potential injury by voluntarily participating in the sport. In any event, it is wise practice for coaches to keep detailed records of their instructions, training logs and related materials to mitigate the damage of hidden liability issues.

kirby lee P H OTO

Liability for the Actions of Fans and Players Coaches may be sued for the unintentional or the intentional tort of a fan or player, under the theory of vicarious liability (Wong, 2010). Although these cases are difficult to prove, some holdings suggest courts may be open to them in the future. For example, in a North Carolina case, a baseball umpire sued the manager and owner of a baseball team after a fan assaulted the umpire over a controversial call. The umpire claimed the manager failed to provide him adequate protection from an angry spectator and this negligent conduct was the proximate cause of his injuries. However, the court said physically violent disputes are not normal injuries that managers (i.e., coaches) could reasonably anticipate during a game; therefore the manager’s conduct was not the proximate cause of the umpire’s injury. This court’s decision suggests that if the coach’s conduct (intentional or unintentional) is more directly linked to the third party’s injury, then courts may find the coach liable. For example, if a coach orders an athlete to purposely injure an opponent and the injury occurs, the coach may be liable under the vicarious liability theory (Wong, 2010). In a California ski team championship case, a plaintiff sued the school for harm caused by the allegedly reckless conduct of team member, who crashed into the plaintiff while she stood at the base of Mammoth Mountain ski run. The court held the school may be vicariously liable if the coach knew of the student’s prior reckless tendencies but failed to take preventative measures. The court, by adding another layer to the reasonableness analysis, considered the student’s prior conduct in assessing the coach’s actions in the case. The facts

showed the coach instructed the team to “take it slow and easy” before the competition and he had no reason to suspect the generally responsible student-athlete would act out of character. Consistent with the vicarious liability standard, the court’s decision suggests the coach acted reasonably; and absent a prior showing of reckless conduct, there was no reason to impose a higher duty standard on the coach. Based on the above referenced cases, one thing remains clear: the facts of each case may be as indeterminate as determining the extent of a coach’s corresponding duty. Although the issues addressed in the cases suggest a coach’s duty may arise in seemingly remote instances, it is important to remember how he/she should mitigate risks where reasonably possible—a tough but necessary balancing act to maintain. As athletic departments continue to expand in size and influence, so will the expectations of coaches to observe and safeguard the interests of all legally concerned parties. These cases primarily address the duty element of the fourprong negligence claim. In the coming months, I will explore the other key elements of negligence claims associated with coaches in sports law.

bio Greg Roberts is currently in his third-year of law school at the University of Houston and a volunteer assistant coach for track and field at Trinity University. Greg was a 5-time (3 outdoor / 2 indoor) Division II National Champion high jumper from Morehouse College, with a personal best of 7’6 1/4” (2.29m). Greg was inducted into the USTFCCCA Hall of Fame in 2009.

february 2013

techniques

Mental Training for Track & Field St ainiger Ph oto grap hy

By Joseph Silvers and Dr. Karen M. Appleby

techniques f e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3

uring my collegiate pole vaulting career at Idaho State University, I had never given much thought to using any form of mental training. However, little did I know, that would all change in the blink of an eye. At the start of the indoor season my junior year, my vaulting pole broke during competition. Usually when a pole breaks the pieces fly away from the athlete. In my case however, a piece of the pole struck the back of my head. The pole struck my head with such force that it knocked me unconscious, caused a seizure, fractured my skull from the back of my head into my sinus and caused brain hemorrhaging. The accident ended with an emergency Life Flight out of Pocatello, Idaho. Consequently, I was not able to compete in either the indoor or outdoor seasons that year. Once I was medically cleared to start physical activity, I gradually moved back into practicing pole vault and, as I did this, I began to experience apprehension and negative anxiety toward the event. Specifically I was having trouble even planting my pole in the box for takeoff. When I did manage to take off, I would not drop in on the pole with enough force to get into that ideal vertical position the way I did before the accident. Considering what happened, it made sense that there would be some mental hesitation toward vaulting. With a strong desire to get back to my original form and put the whole incident behind me I sought out the help of an educational sport psychologist from whom I had taken an undergraduate sport psychology class. With her help, I began to use a combination of mental training tools and was eventually able to increase my confidence, lower my negative anxiety levels, and learn to control my negative imagery and negative self-talk. From my own experience with injury and successful return to competition, I realized the benefits of mental training. There were times I wanted to walk away from track and give up vaulting all together but with the help of these mental training tools I finished my collegiate career in style. However, an athlete does not have to be recovering from potential career-ending injury to reap the benefits of consistent mental training. Mental training is also beneficial to those athletes who have experienced minor injuries (sprained ankle or torn hamstring) or have, for some reason, lost their confidence and doubt their ability. I feel that these tools can be used to help develop a more well rounded and competitive athlete. The following is a mental training program designed from my own experience and research that may be helpful for other athletes. Further, it is important to note that any sport psychology mental training program should be planned and implemented with the supervision of a qualified sport psychologist (Weinberg & Williams, 2010). In pole vault there are a wide range of physical and mental skills critical for success. While there are many mental training tools or areas that can be practiced to increase performance the three topics that will be covered in this article specifically are (a) goal setting, (b) mental imagery, and (c) self-talk. These three mental training techniques, if implemented correctly and con-

february 2013

techniques

St ainiger Ph oto grap hy

mental training track & Field

sistently, can provide a base for important mental dispositions such as confidence and motivation. It is important to remember that mental training, like physical training, takes time. The mental training program presented in this article will start in early September and continue through June with off-season training recommendations for the months of late June through August. The off season training will serve to keep the athlete fresh for the following preseason in September. When incorporating a mental training program, think of it as a physical training program. In physical training the preseason training serves as developing a foundation of strength and endurance. Once a good foundation is built training moves to fine tuning skills and technique; the same is true for mental training.

Three guidelines for athletes/coaches: Start out easy and progress to a more complex level Periodically evaluate and adjust each mental training technique being used Practice, practice, practice. Mental training like physical training, takes time Probably the most important reason to use goal setting, mental imagery, and self-talk is that these techniques can help improve an athleteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s performance if implemented correctly and can have positive effects on an athleteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s performance (Gould, 2010; Vealey & Greenleaf, 2010; Zinsser, Bunker, & Williams, 2010). Specifically goal setting provides athletes with direction, feedback, and provides them with objective knowledge about when and if they are making progress. Mental imagery can be

techniques f e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3

used to help achieve goals, adjust pre-competitive and competitive mood and energy levels, and can also be used to learn new skills (Mental Toolbox, 2004; Vealey & Greenleaf, 2010). Appropriately monitoring self-talk can help an athlete regulate arousal and anxiety, provide self-instruction and reinforcement, and build confidence. Research shows that there are numerous benefits to the use of these techniques.

Goal Setting Goals are set tasks or standards that involve a timeline for us by which to achieve them (Gould, 2010). In order to set effective goals, it is important to make them specific, measurable, attainable, recordable, and timely (Gould, 2010; Sport Psychology, 2004; Mental Toolbox, 2004). While there are many different types of goals, the primary focus in this program will be on outcome goals (the result), performance goals (the achievement of personal objectives) and process goals (which focus on learning specific skills which can result in achieving performance and outcome goals, such as being tall at take-off or swinging to vertical) (Weinberg & Gould, 2007).

Implementing Goal Setting Goal setting should be implemented at the start of the training season. Athletes should set one or two long term, realistic, outcome goals such as placing top three in conference or qualifying for nationals. These long term outcome goals set the stage

Example Mental Skills Training Timeline for Collegiate Track Season

for short term performance and process goals. “This week I will jump higher than last week” is an example of a performance goal ,while “I will keep my hands moving throughout the vault” is an example of a process goal. When setting goals, it is important to set them for both practice and competition. Starting with fewer goals is important. Setting too many goals at the beginning can cause athletes to feel overwhelmed and lose interest (Gould, 2010). It is most appropriate, according to Gould (2010) “…to prioritize goals and focus on accomplishing the one or two most important ones...then focus on the next most important prioritized goals” (p. 214). But,

it should be noted that setting goals is simply not enough. After a goal is established, you then have to look at the goal and determine how that goal is going to be achieved. It is also important to consistently evaluate goals to make sure they are still realistic and attainable and, if not, modify them to be more practical (Weinberg & Williams, 2010).

Mental Imagery Imagery is another common and powerful technique that can be used to help athletes improve performance. With that in mind, mental imagery and goal setting should be used

february 2013

techniques

mental training track & Field

together in a mental training program. Mental imagery is defined by Vealey and Greenleaf (2010) as “using one’s senses to re-create or create an experience in the mind” (p. 268). While it is beyond the scope of this article to review the complex psychophysiological basis of imagery in depth, it is important to note that mental imagery can have either positive or negative effects on an athlete’s performance depending upon how it is used (Vealey & Greenleaf, 2010). Mental imagery requires a large amount of practice in a systematic and purposeful manner for it to be successful at enhancing the athlete’s performance (Vealey & Greenleaf, 2010; Sport Psychology, 2004). Research shows that athletes who use imagery extensively and systematically are more successful than those who do not (Vealey & Greenleaf, 2010).

Implementing Mental Imagery Weinberg and Williams (2010) suggest that “the best time to initially implement psychological skills training is during the offseason or preseason” (p. 366). Mental imagery practice should start out simple. It is best if imagery is first learned in a quiet environment. Non-threatening and non-stressful images should be used to develop the athlete’s imagery skills before moving on to sport skills and competitive situations (Sport Psychology, 2004). When imagery is used the athlete may see the image from an internal perspective (though their own eyes) or through an external perspective (as though watching a video of themselves). As athletes develop their imagery skills they should start focusing on the vividness and controllability of the image. A vivid image is one that is detailed and simulates reality as much as possible (Weinberg & Gould, 2003). For example, an athlete may begin with simple, vivid images such as the look and feel of a vaulting pole, the shape and make-up of the pit, or even the clothing he or she is wearing. Controllability of an image is being able to manipulate an image so that it mirrors what the athlete wants to achieve (Weinberg & Gould, 2003). For example, a controlled image would be seeing a perfect vault from start to finish either internally, externally, or a combination of both approaches. Finally, it is important to encourage that all images are positive and that the athlete is visualizing what he or she wants to happen during the vault. The mental imagery phase will begin with a survey to assess the athlete’s imagery skills. Some example questions include: How clearly do you see yourself performing a skill? How often do you use imagery? When do you use imagery? How clear are the images you create; and what senses do you incorporate when practicing imagery? You may also want to consult sport psychology questionnaires such as the Sport Imagery Questionnaire (Hall, Mack, Pavio, & Hausenblaus, 1998) which can help determine how athletes use imagery. Once the athlete has become proficient at simple imagery skills they can move on to more complex sport-related images. For example, a vaulter can image different phases of the vault, such as the plant phase or the swing and inversion phase which are more complex images. When the mental imagery phase begins, it is important to continue to practice mental imagery skills a minimum of 10-15 minutes a day (Sport Psychology, 2004). Just as in goal setting, mental imagery should be assessed consistently throughout the training/competitive season. Feedback from the athlete helps to make necessary changes and adjustments in the program and provides information about the effectiveness of

techniques f e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3

the image and how much control the athlete is gaining over his or her imagery.

Self-Talk People naturally engage in self-talk everyday. Self-talk can occur as an inner dialogue or it can occur out loud (Zinsser, Bunker, & Williams, 2010; Sport Psychology, 2004). Positive self-talk is like looking at the glass as half full for every situation rather than half empty. Johnson, Hrycaiko, Johnson and Halas (2004) suggested that self-talk leads to the desired behavior through the act of focusing on the desired thought. Like imagery, self-talk can have both positive and negative effects on an athlete’s performance. If used properly, positive self-talk can “empower the athlete to feel greater control over his or her athletic performance and lead focus to the ‘right thing at the right time’ during competition” (Naylor, 2009, p. 28). Zinsser, Bunker, and Williams (2010) state that “self-talk becomes an asset when it enhances self-worth and performance…[and] help the athlete change cognitions, regulate arousal and anxiety, stay appropriately focused, and cope with difficulties” (p. 311).

Implementing Self-talk For a track and field athlete, the act of becoming aware of and practicing positive self-talk should be implemented in early September. Implementing self-talk strategies before the competitive season allows the athlete to enhance clarity of purpose and minimize stress (Naylor, 2007). The first step in utilizing self-talk is to determine an athlete’s current self talk tendencies. Once the athlete has become aware of his/her self-talk the next step is to gain control of it using thought stopping techniques. Thought stopping techniques are simple words like stop or park it that an athlete can use when negative self-talk is identified and then replaced by positive self-talk (Zinsser et al., 2010; Sport Psychology, 2004). As suggested by Mikes (1987) general selftalk should consist of short, specific phrases that are positive in nature and that are consistently repeated (as cited in Weinberg & Gould, 2007). From this point, practice makes perfect. As with the other mental training techniques that have been discussed in this article, it is essential to periodically asses the use of selftalk strategies and how the athlete is responding to the use of self-talk. Again, using the pole vault as a sample event, the following is a timeline for applying these three mental training techniques for a collegiate pole vault season. This mental training program implements each sport psychology tool during the preseason. Goal setting and self-talk are the two skills that the vaulter would start in September and mental imagery would be added in October. Finally, it is important to note that any sport psychology mental training program should be planned and implemented with the supervision of a qualified sport psychologist (Weinberg & Williams, 2010). This mental training program, which encompasses goal setting, mental imagery and self talk strategies, was designed specifically with collegiate pole vaulters in mind. However, since this program was designed around the collegiate training and competitive seasons this program could also be adapted to other event groups. According to the sport psychology literature and research, mental training techniques, if implemented correctly and consistently, can lead to improved athletic performance.

Furthermore, implementing these mental training techniques may provide a basis for increasing confidence and motivation for athletes and can enhance enjoyment of training and competition. For more specific strategies to implement mental training, please refer to the US Olympic Committee workbook titled Sport Psychology Mental Training Manual. This manual can be used as a guide when implementing a mental training program and can be obtained from http://videos.usoc.org/athleteservices/Mental_Training_Resorces.pdf.

Gould, D. (2010). Goal setting for peak performance. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (pp. 201-220). Boston: McGraw Hill. Hall, C. R., Mack, D., Pavio, A., & Hausenblas, H. A. (1998). Imagery use by athletes: Development of the Sport Imagery Questionnaire. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28, 1-17. Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., & Theodorakis, Y. (2007). The moderating effects of self-talk content on self-talk functions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 250-251. doi: 10.1080/10413200701230621 Mental toolbox: Achieving success through mental excellence (NA). (2004). Retrieved from http:// www.usaswimming.org/USASWeb/DesktopDefault .aspx?TabId =470&Alias=rainbow&Lang=en Naylor, A. H. (2009). The role of mental training in injury prevention. Injury Prevention and Performance Enhancement, 14(2), 27-29. Robazza, C., Pellizzari, M., Bertollo, M., & Hanin, Y. L. (2008). Functional impact of emotions on athletic performance: Comparing the perception approach. IZOF model and the directional Journal of Sports Science, 26(10). 1033-1047. doi: 10.1080/02640410802027352 Sport psychology: Mental training manual (8th ed.). (2004). Colorado Springs, CO: United States Olympic Committee. Thelwell, R. C., Greenlees, I. A., & Weston, N. J. (2006). Using psychological skills training to develop soccer performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18, 254-270. doi: 10.1080/10413200600830323 Thomas, O., Maynard, I., & Hanton, S. (2007). Intervening with athletes during the time leading up to competition: Theory to practice II. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 398-418. doi: 10.1080/10413200701599140 Vealey, R. S. & Greenleaf, C. A. (2010). Seeing is believing: Understanding and using imagery in sport. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (pp. 267-304). Boston: McGraw Hill. Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. (2007). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Weinberg, R. S. & Williams, J. M. (2010). Integrating and implementing a psychological skills training program. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (pp. 361-391). Boston: McGraw Hill.

St ainiger Ph oto grap hy

References

Zinsser, N., Bunker, L., & Williams, J. M. (2010). Cognitive techniques for building confidence and enhancing performance. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (pp. 305-335). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Bio Karen Appleby, Ph.D received doctorate in Sport Psychology from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville in 2004. Currently, Dr. Appleby is an associate professor and the department chair for the Sport Science and Physical Education Department at Idaho State University where she teaches classes in sport psychology, research and writing, marketing and management in sport, and sport sociology. The 2011-12 season marked the first for Joe Silvers as a member of University of North Dakota’s track and field coaching staff. Silvers coaches the men’s and women’s combined events, pole vault and jumping events. In his first season at UND, Silvers coached four GWC Champions in the women’s triple jump, women’s pole vault, and men’s pole vault and 13 All-Conference performances. Prior to UND, Silvers coached at Idaho State University where he also competed and graduated with a master’s in Athletic Administration.

february 2013

techniques

2012 USTFCCCA national cross country COACHES & ATHLETES OF THE YEAR Division I

Robert Johnson Oregon Women’s COY

Dave Smith Oklahoma State Men’s COY

Betsy Saina Iowa State Women’s AOY

Kennedy Kithuka Texas Tech Men’s AOY

Division Ii

Jerry Baltes Grand Valley State Women’s COY

Damon Martin Adams State Men’s COY

Alicia Nelson Adams State Women’s AOY

Michah Chelimo Alaska Anchorage Men’s AOY

Division Iii

Bobby Van Allen Johns Hopkins Women’s COY

Al Carius North Central Men’s COY

Christy Cazzola UW-Oshkosh Women’s AOY

Tim Nelson UW – Stout Men’s AOY february 2013

techniques

DIVISION I 2012 USTFCCCA Regional Cross Country Coaches & Athletes of the Year great lakes region

Mike McGuire Michigan Women’s COY

Mick Byrne Wisconsin Men’s COY

Juli Accurso Ohio Women’s AOY

Mohammed Ahmed Wisconsin Men’s AOY

Beth Alford-Sullivan Penn State Women’s COY

Pat Henner Georgetown Men’s COY

Nicky Akande Villanova Women’s AOY

Travis Mahoney Temple Men’s AOY

Corey Ihmels Iowa State Women’s COY

Steve Gulley Tulsa Men’s COY

Betsy Saina Iowa State Women’s AOY

Chris O’Hare Tulsa Men’s AOY

Paul Pilkington Weber State Women’s COY

Eric Heins Northern Arizona Men’s COY

Risper Kimaiyo UTEP Women’s AOY

Kennedy Kithuka Texas Tech Men’s AOY

mid atlantic region

midwest region

mountain region

techniques f e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3

northeast region

Andrea Grove-McDonough Connecticut Women’s COY

Ricardo Santos Iona Men’s COY

Abbey D’Agostino Dartmouth Women’s AOY

Mitch Goose Iona Men’s AOY

south region

Karen Harvey Florida State Women’s COY

Bob Braman Florida State Men’s COY

Violah Lagat Florida State Women’s AOY

Jakub Zivec Florida State Men’s AOY

south central region

Lance Harter Arkansas Women’s COY

John Hayes Texas Men’s COY

Marielle Hall Texas Women’s AOY

Henry Lelei Texas A&M Men’s AOY

southeast region

Kevin Jermyn Duke Women’s COY

Rick Erdmann Eastern Kentucky Men’s COY

Cally Macumber Kentucky Women’s AOY

Soufiane Bouchikhi Eastern Kentucky Men’s AOY

west region

Robert Johnson Oregon Women’s COY

Rob Conner Portland Men’s COY

Jordan Hasay Oregon Women’s AOY

Lawi Lalang Arizona Men’s AOY february 2013

techniques

DIVISION II 2012 USTFCCCA Regional Cross Count atlantic region

Steve Spence Shippensburg Women’s COY

Doug Watts Edinboro Men’s COY

Katie Spratford Shippensburg Women’s AOY

Alex Monroe Lock Haven Men’s AOY

Tracy Hellman Augustana Women’s COY Men’s COY

Runa Falch Augustana Women’s AOY

Travis Beniak Augustana Men’s AOY

Katie Rees Adelphi Women’s COY

Kevin Curtin Bentley Men’s COY

Jeptui Cherutich American International Women’s AOY

Jeff Velga UMass Lowell Men’s AOY

Jerry Baltes Grand Valley State Women’s COY

Steve Picucci Ferris State Men’s COY

Allyson Winchester Grand Valley State Women’s AOY

Matt Brooker Cedarville Men’s AOY

central region

east region

midwest region

techniques f e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3

try Coaches & Athletes of the Year DIVISION II south region

Jarrett Slaven Tampa Women’s COY

Bryan Hagopian Nova Southeastern Men’s COY

Kelly Hagan Tampa Women’s AOY

Blaise Binns Alabama-Huntsville Men’s AOY

south central region

Damon Martin Adams State Women’s COY Men’s COY

Alicia Nelson Adams State Women’s AOY

Kevin Batt Adams State Men’s AOY

southeast region

J.D. Evilsizer Columbus State Women’s COY Men’s COY

Kaley Glover Montevallo Women’s AOY

Pardon Ndhlovu UNC Pembroke Men’s AOY

west region

Gary Towne Chico State Women’s COY Men’s COY

Susan Tanui Alaska Anchorage Women’s AOY

Micah Chelimo Alaska Anchorage Men’s AOY february 2013

techniques

DIVISION IIi 2012 USTFCCCA Regional Cross Countr atlantic region

Mike Howard St. Lawrence Women’s COY

Nick McDonough NYU Men’s COY

Amy Cymerman St. Lawrence Women’s AOY

Alex Brimstein SUNY Geneseo Men’s AOY

Steve Johnson Wartburg Women’s COY

Phil Lundin St. Olaf Men’s COY

Linda Keller Minnesota Morris Women’s AOY

Grant Wintheiser St. Olaf Men’s AOY

Mark Northuis Hope Women’s COY

Brian Diemer Calvin Men’s COY

Alison Steinbrunner Ohio Northern Women’s AOY

William Jones Franciscan Men’s AOY

Bobby Van Allen Johns Hopkins Women’s COY

Tom Donnelly Haverford Men’s COY

Hannah Oneda Johns Hopkins Women’s AOY

Bobby Over Allegheny Men’s AOY

central region

great lakes region

mideast region

techniques f e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3

y Coaches & Athletes of the Year DIVISION IiI midwest region

Dan Schwamberger UW-Eau Claire Women’s COY

Al Carius North Central Men’s COY

Christy Cazzola UW-Oshkosh Women’s AOY

Tim Nelson UW-Stout] Men’s AOY

new england region

Halston Taylor MIT Women’s COY

Nicole Wilkerson Middlebury Men’s COY

Keri Lambert Amherst Women’s AOY

Coby Horowitz Bowdoin Men’s AOY

south/southeast region

Derick Lawrence Trinity Women’s COY

Doug Thomasey Lynchburg Men’s COY

Sophia Stone Mary Baldwin Women’s AOY

John Kieffer Centre Men’s AOY

west region

John Goldhammer Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Women’s COY Men’s COY

Lenore Moreno La Verne Women’s AOY

Zorg Loustalet Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Men’s AOY february 2013

techniques

Updates from the NCAA Eligibility Center

by leigh ann kennedy

appy 2013 from the Eligibility Center! In this installment of “Updates from the NCAA Eligibility Center,” I am providing you with the “Quick Reference Guide” that was provided to attendees at this year’s USTFCCCA Convention in Orlando. The guide outlines the requirements for the new initial-

eligibility standards for college-bound student-athletes and summarizes data regarding the Eligibility Center’s track and field and cross country certifications in 2012. For feedback, questions, comments or suggestions for future topics from the NCAA Eligibility Center, please contact Leigh Ann Kennedy at lkennedy@ncaa.org.

QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE Prepared for the United States Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association The Initial-Eligibility Standards for NCAA Divisions I and II College-Bound Student-Athletes are Changing Division I College-bound studentathletes first entering an NCAA Division I college or university on or after Aug. 1, 2016, will need to meet new academic rules in order to receive athletics aid (scholarship), practice or compete during their first year. What are the New Requirements? * To view the Full Qualifier and Academic Redshirt sliding scales, refer to www.eligibilitycenter.org. **International college-bound student-athletes who present international graduation credentials listed in the NCAA Guide to International Academic Standards for Athletics Eligibility will be exempt from meeting the seventh semester core-course distribution requirements. Full Qualifier: A college-bound student-athlete may receive athletics aid (scholarship), practice and compete in the first year of enrollment at the Division I college or university. Academic Redshirt: A college-bound studentathlete may receive athletics aid (scholarship) in the first year of enrollment and may practice in the first regular academic term (semester or quarter) but may NOT compete in the first year of enrollment. After the first term is complete, the college-bound studentathlete must be academically successful at his/her college or university to continue to practice for the rest of the year. Nonqualifier: A college-

techniques f e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3

bound student-athlete cannot receive athletics aid (scholarship), cannot practice and cannot compete in the first year of enrollment.

Division II Effective for college-bound student-athletes first entering a Division II college or university on or after August 1, 2013, 16 core courses shall be required for entry, as opposed to the previous 14 core-course requirement.