CA-SPRING_2010-LORES

PRST STDU.S. Postage

PAIDPermit #50

Fort Atkinson, WI

$9.95 Spring 2010Volume 5, No. 1Li

sa C

onig

lio, P

hoto

Run.

NET

Coaching Spring10:Coaching Spring 09 6/15/10 9:20 PM Page 1

Coaching Spring10:Coaching Spring 09 6/14/10 12:49 AM Page 2


COACHINGCOACHINGCOACHINGCOACHINGCOACHINGAT H L E T I C S qua

rterly

6 Publisher’s Noteby Larry Eder

7 Indoor Track of the Yearby Mary Helen Sprecher

8 Outdoor Track of the Yearby Mary Helen Sprecher

10 Best Racing ShoesSummer 2010by Cregg Weinmann

12 Basics of ResistanceTrainingby Chase Kough, NSCA-CPT

14 400 Meter Training:Ideas for TrainingDesigns, Part 1by Jim Hiserman

27 The 4x100 Meter Relayby Clayton Davis

30 Has USATF Declared Waron U.S. Coaches?by James Dunaway

and Larry Eder

Volume 5, Number 1Spring 2010

Group Publisher: Larry Eder, [email protected], 920-563-5551, ext. 112

Group Editor: Christine Johnson, [email protected]

Advertising: Larry Eder, [email protected], 608-239-3785

Writers/Contributors: Chase Kough, Clayton Davis, James Dunaway, Jim HisermanMary Helen Sprecher, Cregg Weinmann

Photographers: Lisa Coniglio/PhotoRun, Victah Sailer/PhotoRun

Layout/Design: Kristen Cerer

Editor: Toby Cook

Pre-Press/Printer: W. D. Hoard & Sons Company, Fort Atkinson, WI

Special Projects: Adam Johnson-Eder, [email protected],

Special Thanks To: Kristen Cerer, Sue Hall, Alex Larsen, Debra Keckeisen, TimGarant, Tom Mack, Mary Ward and Sydney Wesemann

Dedicated to: Fr. Ralph Passerelli, S.J., Jim Marheinecke, Steve Pensinger, Dan Duranteand Terry Ward, a.m.d.g.

phone 608-239-3785; fax 920-563-7298

Coaching Athletics Quarterly is produced, published and owned by Shooting Star

Media, Inc., PO Box 67, Ft. Atkinson, Wisconsin 53538-0067, Christine Johnson,

President, Larry Eder, Vice President. Copyright 2010 by Shooting Star Media, Inc. All

Rights Reserved. Publisher assumes no liability for matter printed, and assumes no

liability or responsibility for content of paid advertising and reserves the right to

reject paid advertising. Opinions expressed are those of the authors and not

necessarily those of the Publisher. No part of this publication may be reproduced or

stored in any form without written permission of the Publisher.

Coaching Athletics Quarterly is not related to or endorsed by any other entity or

corporation with a similar name and is solely owned by Shooting Star Media, Inc.

Publisher recommends, as with all fitness and health issues, you consult with your

physician before instituting any changes in your fitness program.

COACHINGCOACHINGCOACHINGCOACHINGCOACHINGAT H L E T I C S qua

rterly

Above: Asafa Powell, 2010Ostrava Track Meet, photo by JiroMochizuki, Photorun.NET.

On the Cover: Allyson Felix andVeronica-Campbell Brown battlein the adidas Grand Prix 200meters, on June 12, 2010. Photoby Lisa Coniglio, Photorun.NET.

4 Coaching Athletics Quarterly - Spring 2010


C A M E R A AT H L E T I C A : S A LU T E S C H AU N T E H OWA R D - L OW E

Jiro Mochizuki, www.photorun.NET 5Coaching Athletics Quarterly - Spring 2010

Chaunte Howard-Lowe,Pictures from the 49th Spike/Ostrava Track Meet

Congratulations on ChaunteHoward-Lowe’s AmericanRecord, High Jump, 2.04m, 6'-8.25", set May 30, 2010,Cottbus, Germany


6 Coaching Athletics Quarterly - Spring 2010 Photo by: Andrew McClanahan, PhotoRun.NET

publisher’s note

I spent 4 days in New York, June 10–14. I was there for several reasons.

Reason #1 was to attend a press conference on a new take on compression training

and recovery wear by Saucony, called AMP PRO2. Research notes that it increases the

oxygenation of blood in capillaries, therefore, increasing the speed of recovery. I told

them we’ll test the product and tell our readers. Watch for that review!

Reason #2 was to ensure that the program for the adidas Grand Prix arrived and that

we covered the press conferences for the Diamond League, as well as met with the

coaches, athletes and agents who came to the event.

Reason #3 was to provide samples to the AAM—the agents and managers group—of

their new athlete guide for 2010. The AAM, in cooperation with the athletes, meet

management and federations, is working on professionalizing our sport.

Reason #4 was to see Doug Logan and Stephanie Hightower of USATF. In AT&F, we

wrote an editorial criticizing USATF for the way it had handled the coaches registry,

which we think, is a good idea, but poorly implemented. I have rerun the editorial in

this publication, on page 30. Please tell us what you think about that review and the

registry.

And Reason #5, and most important, was to witness the adidas Grand Prix. In its 6th

year, the Grand Prix is the culmination of the dream of Todd Klein, then at Reebok,

and Mark Wetmore, manager of Global Athletics Quarterly. The first meet had 12

weeks’ prep and 3,500 fans. Six years later, 10 meet records, four world leaders were

enjoyed by 10,000 fans on the hot, sunny, humid day!

Teddy Tamgho tripled jumped 17.98m or 59 feet, 1⁄4 inch—the longest jump in 12 years!

For me, the Allyson Felix vs. Veronica Campbell-Brown duel over 200 meters lived up

to the hype, as Veronica held off Allyson 21.98 to 22.03. The crowd went wild!

Our sport is all about epic competitions. That’s something that we must constantly

remember.

P.S. Please welcome our new managing editor, Toby Cook, who began working on this

issue. You will see more of his work in the Summer, Fall and Winter issues.

Larry Eder, Publisher


A22-year-old college fieldhouse that needsupdating? Well, let’s just say a lot has changed

since it was built. After all, standards are different,rules have undergone considerable revisions and,naturally, the technology has advanced.

Obviously, the update is needed. Now comesthe hard part: Can the entire renovation job be doneduring the college’s four-week winter break?

That was the challenge facing Kiefer SpecialtyFlooring, Inc. of Lindenhurst, Illinois. Central Collegeneeded a total overhaul of its Kuyper Fieldhouse,and the Pella, Iowa–based institution had thetightest of deadlines.

“We had a timeline of December 15th to January13th,” writes Brion Rittenberry of Kiefer. “Bearing inmind the Christmas holiday, this was a veryaggressive timeline.”

The facility and the college that owned it alsohad a few specific limitations, including financialconstraints.

“The owner had an existing prefabricatedsurface,” notes Rittenberry. “Due to budget andtime constraints, the owner did not wish to removethe existing surface. This presented severalproblems. There were significant areas that wereloose, and the existing surface had to be properlyprepared to assure adhesion of the new surface.”

It required considerable ingenuity on Kiefer’spart. Rittenberry recalls, “We had to pull back allloose areas to allow the concrete substrate to dryproperly. Large fans were brought in to helpfacilitate the drying process. Once the concretesubstrate had dried, we sandblasted all exposedareas to remove all dried adhesive from thesubstrate. We re-glued all loose areas with a specialwaterproof epoxy adhesive. Once the loose areashad been repaired, we had to prep the existingsurface with riding belt sanders. Once this wasaccomplished, the entire floor was scrubbed toremove dirt and dust. We then adhered the new pre-fabricated surface to the old, using a specialpolyurethane adhesive. Lastly, the surface wasstriped to adhere to the NCAA’s regulations.”

The 54,000-square-foot facility, a steel framebuilding with cinderblock walls and a forced airventilation system, now has a 200-meter track thatmeets governing body standards. The six-lane trackhas an eight-lane sprint straightaway. There’s onechute and a common finish. The track surface isvulcanized rubber, dark grey in color, with light greyand red accents. There are practice areas for fieldevents, including long jump, triple jump and highjump, as well as shot put.

The finished facility has retractable basketballnets (a total of five basketball courts, meaning 10nets) as well as movable bleachers that can be used

during events. Drop-down netting holds balls andother equipment to keep athletes and spectatorssafe.

For all the facility’s advantages, though,Rittenberry is still proudest of meeting the school’stight turnaround—less than a month from start tofinish. “We achieved this deadline,” he notes.“Normally, this timeline is needed just for a newinstallation. We achieved the timeline doing all theprep work as well.”

In addition to school administrators andathletes, someone else is impressed with thefacility—the American Sports Builders Association(ASBA), which named the Kuyper Fieldhouse itsIndoor Track of the Year for 2009. The award waspresented at the Association’s recent TechnicalMeeting, held in Savannah, Georgia. (The ASBA isthe national organization for builders and suppliersof materials for athletic facilities. It presents itsannual awards to recognize outstanding sportsfacility construction.)

Note: The American Sports Builders Association(ASBA) is a nonprofit association helping designers,builders, owners, operators and users understandquality construction of many sports facilities,including track and field. The ASBA sponsorsinformative meetings and publishes newsletters,books and technical construction guidelines forathletic facilities, including running tracks andsports fields. Available at no charge is a listing of allpublications offered by the Association, as well asthe ASBA’s Membership Directory. Info: 866-501-ASBA (2722) or www.sportsbuilders.org.

7Coaching Athletics Quarterly - Spring 2010

Indoor Track of the Yearby Mary Helen Sprecher

Photo by: Jiro Mochizuki, PhotoRun.NET

2009 Indoor Track of the Year, American Sports Builders Association

Central College, Kuyper Fieldhouse, Pella, Iowa

Specialty Contractor: Kiefer Specialty Flooring, Inc.;Architect/Engineer: Central College; General Contractor: Central

College; Suppliers: Mondo USA; Governing body: NCAA



The overused expression, “time is running out,”was never more accurate.

When Texas Tech University wanted its runningtrack demolished and rebuilt, it had a specificdeadline in mind: the school had to be ready to hostthe 2009 Big 12 Championships. That meantadministrators needed not only a competition-leveltrack facility, but field events to match.

New Mexico–based builder Robert Cohen Co.,LLC took the design/build job. The scope of workincluded design and construction of a unique layoutwhereby the track infield contained four pole vaultrunways, four long jump/triple jump runways andeight sprint lanes for the 100m and 110m dash andhurdles. In addition, throwing events (two shotputs, two hammer throws, two discus and twojavelin areas) were located at a dedicated throwingarea at a separate location.

“Time constraints were critical to prepare forthe Big 12 meet,” wrote Robert L. Cohen. “Unusuallysevere weather impeded our progress. We workedseven days a week for a portion of the project.Extremely flat conditions in Lubbock, where theproject was located, made drainage difficult. Gradesinside the oval were super-critical to achievedesired drainage.”

The track was built to NCAA standards with ared vulcanized rubber surface, beige exchangezones and beige sprint lanes. The track had eightlanes on the oval, plus eight sprint lanes. A concreteheader curb was built flush with the asphalt, with araised aluminum curb on lane 1. Existing surfacedrains were utilized in the project.

Absolute attention was paid to the grading ofthe project. Inclination of the oval in the runningdirection was 0%, while the lateral inclination was6%. Long jump and triple jump events, as well asthe pole vault area, were constructed to similargrading standards. Hammer, shot put, discus andjavelin, which were located at areas removed fromthe oval, used specific landing areas well tailored toeach event.

“Our goal was to bring to life the vision of TexasTech head track coach Wes Kittley,” wrote Cohen.“Wes believes that throws constitute a hazard torunners, particularly during practice, and should belocated away from the track oval. In addition, hewanted to showcase his jumpers and sprintersinside the oval for the enjoyment of the spectators.We were asked to furnish construction and designand construction services to make this possible.Although it looks simple, the complex gradingrequirements of the runways, sprint lanes and ‘D’zones conflict, and required critically preciseexecution to pull it off.”

Not only was the project completed on May 15,

2009, in time for the Big 12 Championships, but itreceived its own honor: being named the OutdoorTrack of the Year by the American Sports BuildersAssociation (ASBA). The award was presented at theAssociation’s recent Technical Meeting, held inSavannah, Georgia. (ASBA is the nationalorganization for builders and suppliers of materialsfor athletic facilities. It presents its annual awards torecognize outstanding sports facility construction.)

Outdoor Track of the Yearby Mary Helen Sprecher

2009 Outdoor Track of the Year, American Sports Builders AssociationTexas Tech University Track—Lubbock, Texas

Architect/Engineer: Graef, Anhalt, Schloemer & Associates, Inc.; Specialty Contractor: Mondo America, Inc.; Suppliers: UCS Equip-ment, Mondo America, Inc.; SportsEdge; Subcontractors: LubbockMasonry, West Texas Paving, Amco Electric, Bear Lake Enterprises;Governing body: NCAA

Texas Tech University needed its existing running track (shown above)demolished and rebuilt so that it would be ready for the school to host the2009 Big 12 Championships. It also needed new field events.

The completed project was comprehensive, complex and creatively laid-out, according to builders. The vision for the project belonged to TexasTech head track coach Wes Kittley, whose opinion it was that that throwingevents constituted a hazard to runners, particularly during practice, andshould be located away from the track oval. In addition, Kittley wanted toshowcase his jumpers and sprinters inside the oval for the enjoyment ofthe spectators.




Best Racing Shoes Summer 2010 by Cregg Weinmann

Our annual review of new and newly updated racers looks at eight models that trade training shoe protection forspeed. As a general guideline, we’ve noted the recommended distance range for the various shoes to assist you

in making your racing shoe choices. We define efficient strikers as runners who are very light on their feet andgenerally land on their forefoot. Heavy strikers land heavily on the heel and/or carry a few extra pounds of bodyweight. Because biomechanics and racing distances differ, it may be necessary for you to purchase more than oneracer. Just make sure that whatever shoes you choose accommodate your foot shape, footstrike, and foot motion.

ASICS Gel Hyperspeed 4 $75The fourth round of the Hyperspeedmaintains the focus of the original:

value, protection, andperformance. The

shoe gives specificcare to its most

essential componentsand improves where it

can on previous versions.Unchanged are the generous SpEVA midsoleand the Magic Sole outersole, which is well-

ventilated and has rice husks added to theforefoot rubber compound to improve traction in

wet conditions. The fit is that of a great racer—a snugheel and roomier forefoot—thanks to a more closely woven mesh andmore effective stabilizing overlays, a synthetic suede support under the

ASICS stripes on the lateral side, and a closed mesh panel on themedial side. The fit, flexibility, and overall cushioning are its claims to

fame, while the attractive price provides extra value. It should come asno surprise that the Hyperspeed earned our Best Racing Shoe award.

Sizes: men 4–13,14 (unisex) Weight: 7.3 oz. (men’s 11) Shape: semi-curved Fit: snug heel, wide forefoot For: medium- to high-arched feet with neutral biomechanics

Range: efficient runners - up to a marathon; heavy strikers - up to 20K or a bit beyond

Brooks Green Silence $100The Green Silence is Brooks’ first new

racing shoe in a decade. The shoedemonstrates that

performanceand

sustainabilityare compatible;

many of thecomponents are made from

recycled plastics and the shoe is built with water-based adhesivesand uses soy-based inks. The new midsole geometry provides

flexibility and cushioning, with just enough outersole for tractionand durability. The upper is open mesh with a nicely cushioned

tongue that opens only on the lateral side in order to provideextra medial support. The shoes have a unique appearance, as

the contrasting red and yellow colors are transposed, so the shoesaren’t identical, and the midsole of the right is red, while the left is

yellow. The curved shape favors the higher-arched feet, howeverthe roomy forefoot may allow enough wiggle room for lower-

arched feet to find an acceptable fit.

Sizes: men 4–12,13,14 (unisex) Weight: 8.0 oz. (men’s 11) Shape: semi-curved to curved Fit: snug heel, wide forefoot For: medium- to high-arched feet with neutral biomechanics

Range: efficient runners - up to a marathon; heavy strikers - up to 20K or just beyond

Karhu Racer Fulcrum-Ride $115The Racer Fulcrum-Ride is the first of the

current crop of Karhu Fulcrum shoedesigns dedicated to top-endperformance. The upper is a

very open air mesh,close-fitting for

support and witha saddle of

closed meshcinching the midfoot. The

midsole is low profile, with the fulcrum adjusted to the loweredgeometry. The outersole is a matrix of tiny polyurethane Ts layeredover a spongy, cushioned foam. Larger Ts in the medial heel andlateral forefoot assist in the transition as the fulcrum rocks the foot

forward for toe-off. The ride is responsive, with a nicely cushionedfeeling—in part from the polyurethane innersole—and with very

good flexibility in the forefoot. Its range makes the Fulcrum-Ride agood choice for tempo runs and speedwork, as its durability and

weight exceed that of many of the racing shoes.

Sizes: men 8–14; women 6–11 Weight: 8.2 oz. (men’s 11); 6.1 oz. (women’s 8) Shape: semi-curved Fit: snug heel, wide forefoot For: medium- to high-arched feet with neutral

biomechanics to very mild overpronation Range: efficient runners - up to a marathon; heavy strikers - up to 25K or just beyond

K-Swiss K-Ruuz $85The swiftest member of the K-Swiss running

family features the same serious focusas the rest of the line. It also

features a few triathlon-inspired touches:

laces with link-sausage-like

texture to staytied, drainage

through the shank, andperforations at the toe and heel for air flow (which K-Swiss calls its

“FlowCool System”). The upper is open mesh with HF-weldedmidfoot overlays. The midsole is very low profile with a Superfoam

crash pad and Strobel board for cushioning. There’s a smallmedial post for stability, which is especially useful in a racer since

fatigue usually results in reduced biomechanical efficiency (youknow, your form breaks down as you near the end of a race).

Overall, the K-Ruuz is an excellent racer for the speedy, but it’s solightweight that it’s better suited to shorter races.

Sizes: men 8–12,13,14; women 5.5–10,11 Weight: 6.0 oz. (men’s 11); 4.6 oz. (women’s 8)Shape: semi-curved Fit: snug heel, close-fitting forefoot For: medium- to high-arched feet with

neutral biomechanics to very mild overpronation Range: efficient runners - up to 35K orbeyond; heavy strikers - up to 15K

SUMMER 2010

BEST SHOERacing



Saucony Fastwitch 4 $85Round four of the Fastwitch is well-

defined: it’s a light, stable, versatileracing shoe. The upper

features evenmore of the

openairmesh ofversion 3,

carrying it onto thetongue which has a plush, sueded lining. The overlays have been

pared back and repositioned with no noticeable change in weight.The lightweight midsole formulation remains unchanged, along

with the flexible segmented forefoot that’s ventilated forbreathability. The midfoot is well supported by an effectively-placedshank and moderate medial second density—also unchanged fromversion 3. The good news is that the Fastwitch continues to deliver

speedy performance for a variety of runners and uses.

Sizes: men 7–13,14; women 5–12 Weight: 7.2 oz. (men’s 11); 5.4 oz. (women’s 8) Shape: semi-curved Fit: snug heel, roomy forefoot For: medium- to high-arched feet

with neutral biomechanics to mild overpronation Range: efficient runners - up to a marathon;heavy strikers - up to 20K or just beyond

Nike Zoom Streak XC 2 $70The Zoom XC may be the most versatile of

the competition shoes that bearthe Swoosh. A hybrid of

sorts, it drawsfrom a numberof models. The

upper is veryopen mesh with a

midfoot band of syntheticsuede to shore up the fit (you may have seen it in Nike’s steeplechase

model). The midsole is a new foam formulation called Cushlon LT, alightweight version of the resilient foam in the Bowerman line. The

outersole is a mini-waffle pattern, a tip of the hat to its use for crosscountry, as well as on the track and the roads. The low profile, greatfit, and light feel are enhanced by the bargain price; in fact, it could

be called the bargain champion of this review. The Zoom Streak XC 2is well placed in the versatility department, working almost equally

well on the track, roads, and cross country.

Sizes: men 4–13,14,15 (unisex) Weight: 6.0 oz. (men’s 11) Shape: semi-curved Fit: snug heel, close forefoot For: medium- to high-arched feet with neutral biomechanics

Range: efficient runners - up to 25K; heavy strikers - up to 15K or just beyond

Zoot Ultra Speed $110 Zoot has established its place in the triathlon

market and has fans on the running side,as well. The Ultra Speed is a new shoe

that complements the Ultra Race, theZoot long distance racing

shoe. Thetriathlonfeatures

include liningthroughout for barefoot

use, lace-free for quick entry,and vents for drainage and the additional benefit of cooling. The

upper is TekSheen, a two-way stretch compression fabric whichprovides an excellent fit as long as you have a curved foot, sincethe monosock construction is difficult to fit on low- arched and/or

high-volume feet. The shank is carbon fiber and offers goodtorsional rigidity and rolls well to toe-off. The midsole is a low-

profile Z Bound/EVA blend that nicely combines resiliency andcushioning, and effectively splits the fine line between speed and

protection.

Sizes: men 8–12,13,14; women 6–11 Weight: 6.9 oz. (men’s 11); 6.5 oz. (women’s 8)Shape: semi-curved to curved Fit: snug heel, close-fitting forefoot For: medium- to high-arched

feet with neutral biomechanics Range: efficient runners - up to 35K or beyond; heavy strikers - up to 15K, possibly beyond

Scott T2C $110 Scott’s entry into the U.S. market affords

racers more quality footwear choices.The T2C is one of two Scott shoes

specifically developed fortriathlon racing.The T2C is the

more traditionalof the two, with

laces and a typicalmesh upper, in this case with

sublimated graphics and welded overlays that offer good support andcomfort, even when worn barefoot. Vents around the midsole

perimeter and a mesh Strobel board and perforated innersole allowdrainage, as well as a measure of cooling—important for both

triathlons and road racing. The geometry of the shoe revolves arounda slightly convex bottom (“Ergologic Ride”), which allows the foot to

roll through the transition smoothly, regardless of footstrike. Thegenerous slab of EVA and rubbery inserts at heel and toe are

responsive and protective, giving the T2C a lengthier range forcompetition—even better than most other shoes of the same weight.

The outersole features high-traction synthetic rubber backed withfabric, common but effective for road racing shoes.

Sizes: men 7–13,14; women 5–12 Weight: 7.0 oz. (men’s 11); 5.2 oz. (women’s 8) Shape: semi-curved Fit: snug heel, roomy forefoot For: medium- to high-arched feet with neutralbiomechanics Range: efficient runners - up to a marathon; heavy strikers - up to 25K or beyond

CREGG WEINMANN is footwear and running products reviewer for Running Network LLC. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected] © 2010 by Running Network LLC. All Rights Reserved. No part of this article may be stored, copied, or reprinted without prior written permission

of Running Network LLC. Reprinted here with permission.



An appropriate program

of resistance training

can improve athletic

performance in every track

and field event, and at every

level from beginner to

Olympic champion. Of

course, such training is

most beneficial when it’s

not only based on the requirements of each event, but

also on the needs and capabilities of each specific

athlete.

This article is intended to help you as a coach plan

the optimal resistance training program for each of the

many athletes you train.

Requirements of the eventEach track and field event requires a different

combination of physical skills.

The coach can learn these requirements either by

reading, studying photo sequences, filmed or taped

instructionals, contact with other coaches, attending

seminars and the like, as well as by a close

observation of athletes in the flesh. Whatever the

means, it’s a worthwhile investment of your time — the

knowledge gained will be useful throughout your

coaching career.

Your objective should be to analyze the

movements involved in performing each event, and

break them down into components that can be worked

on in the training program. To put it another way, an

effective strength training program mimics as closely

as possible the movements involved in the event itself

— so that the athlete will be able to transfer the new

strength gains into improved performance.

There are the three major considerations in

analyzing each event:

1. Break down the body-movement patterns by

muscle involvement and limb actions.

2. Assess the physiological requirements of the

event, such as muscular endurance, flexibility,

strength, power and/or hypertrophy.

3. Injury prevention: Know the injuries common to

each event and know how to prevent them through

proper training.

Planning for the individual athleteThe key elements to be considered are the athlete’s

fitness level, work capacity, recovery rate, and

technical experience in the event. No two athletes will

be similar in all of these areas. Let’s look at a couple of

extreme examples.

One is a 16-year-old male who just recently joined

the track team and wants to be a high jumper. After

basic fitness tests, he appears healthy; however, he is

5'10" and weighs 195 pounds, at least 15 pounds

overweight for his age and musculature. He says he

enjoys sports, but currently does not perform any other

physical activity outside of track practice.

In coaching him, you’ll want to start him on

exercises to improve his general fitness level.

Following dynamic warmup, have him perform very

basic plyometric drills, bounding exercises and body

weight–reactive jump exercises to improve his own

body weight explosiveness. His weight training should

be comprised of basic movements to strengthen the

legs, lower back and abdominals 1–2 times a week.

Additionally, while not sport-specific, 15–20 minutes

of cardio 2–3 times per week may be needed to

promote extra fat loss. The rest of the time should be

spent on basic high jumping principles that include the

proper approach, takeoff, flight pattern, leg clearing

and landing.

Example two is an 18-year-old senior who has

been high jumping for six years, starting in middle

school. He’s fit, and has excellent high-jump

technique. To jump higher, he needs a program that

will help him produce more power.

His workouts should be a combination of event-

specific weight training and plyometric drills. Weight

training can be performed 3–4 times a week, made up

of powerful movements that strengthen the legs and

core. Example exercises for this athlete should be

power cleans, squats, jump half squats, deadlifts,

knee lifts, abdominal variations and explosive

plyometric drills. No additional cardio would be

needed, and in fact, it would only be a hindrance to his

speed and explosiveness.

Thus, even though both athletes are performing at

the same event, and possibly even at the same track

meets, their training regimens should be different and

specific to their individual needs. And for them to get

the most out of their training, you should explain each

exercise and how and why it will help them reach their

goals.

Basics of Resistance Trainingby Chase Kough, NSCA-CPT


Physiological requirements of the various eventsMMuscular Endurance Events. For athletes who perform

repetitive movements for a prolonged time, i.e.,

distance runners, the focus should be on muscular

endurance. The weight training prescription needs to

be light-weight loads of less than 67% of the athlete’s

one repetition maximum (1RM). You should have them

perform 2–3 sets of each exercise for a minimum of 12

repetitions. Rest periods should be short, no longer

than 30 seconds.

Events That Require Strength. For your athletes in the

shot put, discus and javelin throw, a prime

requirement for success is strength. When training for

strength, they should use weight equivalent to 85% or

more of their 1RM. Each exercise should be performed

for 2–6 sets with 1–6 repetitions. You can allow them

longer rest periods of 2–5 minutes so that they can

continue to use heavy-weight loads throughout the

duration of the workout.

Events That Require Power. Power is a main

component of many track and field events, including

the high jump, long jump, triple jump and sprints.

Speed is an important component of power; for that

reason, it’s important that you don’t have your athlete

use maximal weight when performing lifting exercises.

The weight should range between 75–90% of 1RM, and

be performed explosively for 1–5 repetitions. Rest

periods should be 2–5 minutes so that each set can be

performed explosively.

Events That Require Muscle Hypertrophy. Throwers

can also benefit from muscle hypertrophy. Their

training should rely on volumes of 65–85% of 1RM for

6–12 repetitions. Generally rest periods should be

between 30 seconds to 11⁄2 minutes.

Exercise Order. Exercise order is another key

component of a successful resistance training

program. In most cases, you’ll want your athletes to

begin with power and multi-joint movement exercises

first, proceed to other core movements, and finish with

the remaining single-joint movements. Another simple

approach to designing a program is arranging

exercises from larger to smaller muscle groups.

Training Frequency and Duration. The number of

sessions you have each athlete perform each week is

important. While it’s common that at least 48 hours be

provided between training the same muscle group,

there are many other factors you should note when

designing your training program. Elements to consider

include the athlete’s level of fitness, the type of

exercises performed, if the athlete is currently in or out

of their sports season and if the athlete is involved

with any other training activities. In general, you

should design strength training sessions to take no

longer than 60 minutes to complete. Longer sessions

may become ineffectual due to the reduction of athlete

mental attentiveness, exercise form and intensity.

Recovery. For sufficient recovery time, beginner

athletes may require fewer training sessions per week

when compared to advanced athletes. Likewise, if

advanced athletes are performing several other modes

of training simultaneously, they, too, will need to

reduce their strength training to ensure proper

recovery. It’s imperative that you ensure each athlete

understands proper sleep patterns, nutrition, and

stretching to enhance recovery quality.

ConclusionWhile the basics of resistance training may seem

elementary, it’s imperative that program design begin

with fundamental training principles for each event.

Likewise, each athlete must be individually assessed

for his or her own needs. By doing so, proper

development and optimal performance will be created.

Future articles will focus on proper strength training for

the high school athlete, strength training for sprinters,

as well as proper pre-season strength training

protocols.

Chase Kough (pronounced “Coe”), a summa cum laudegraduate of Oral Roberts University in health andexercise science, is an NSCA Certified Personal Trainerand has been Tyson Gay’s strength coach for the pastthree years.

13Coaching Athletics Quarterly - Spring 2010Photos by: Yohei Kamiya, PhotoRun.NET

Your objective should be to analyze the movements involved in

performing each event, and break them down into components that

can be worked on in the training program.



Development of 400 meter sprinters is a complex task that requires a thoroughunderstanding of sprint mechanics, maximum speed development, strength and

power development/maintenance, development of Metabolic Adaptations necessary forlong sprint performance and development of a cycle-length training pattern design withwhich to implement all of the above factors. It would also be helpful to have a basicunderstanding of the implications of different muscle fiber concentrations and body typesof 400 meter sprinters to better design individual training plans for the various types oflong sprinters.

Attempts to devise training plans for 400 meter sprinters seem to have producedmore methods than can be counted. However, there are many conclusive facts that havebeen documented that can provide coaches with a “to do” list of necessary components.These essential “to do” components can provide a challenge to coaches to creativelyweave these components into a training plan for the specific types of 400 sprinters theycoach.

In researching the volumes of articles aimed at 400 meter training, it’s apparent thatthe long-to-short and short-to-long philosophies both seem to be based on principlesfound to be necessary for success in the longer sprint. However, taking a critical look at thelist of essential components for 400 meter success, it should be obvious that a blend ofboth methods can provide a wider range of benefits to aspiring 400 meter sprinters.

What seems to be lacking in some or all of the Phases of the Yearly (Seasonal in HS)plan is a consistent presence (varying in volume) of Maximum Speed Work and Maximumstrength/power work. This appears to be more true for the preparation phase of the yearlyplan and the pre-season/early season phase for high schools.

Of course, individual strengths and weaknesses will dictate the actual doses of eachcomponent that adequately address each athlete’s specific training needs. The challengeto the coach is to identify strengths and weaknesses of each athlete so the various trainingplans can reflect the components most critical to the individual athletes involved. Ofcourse, all the necessary components must be present in each plan but more time can beallotted for the weaknesses of each individual.

Training for the 400 must address the factors identified as essential to successful 400meter performance. These factors are:

• Proper sprint mechanics aimed at mastery of ground contact phases to increase theeconomy of sprint efforts at high speeds. (Mechanics of Sprinting and Hurdling,Chap. 10/Critical Performance Descriptors for the Long Sprints, Dr. R. Mann, 2007)

• The development of maximum speed. Gajer et al. found that better 400 performerswere able to achieve higher absolute and relative velocities (% of best 200 times).

(Velocity and stride parameters in the 400 meters, Gajer et al. NSA/IAAF, Vol.22, #3,2007)

• Regarding the development of explosive strength and explosive strength enduranceMiguel & Machado found higher levels of explosive strength and explosive strengthendurance resulted in faster 400 meter performances (Miguel & Machado, SpeedStrength Endurance and 400m Performance, NSA/IAAF, Vol. 19, #4, 2004) whileMann (see reference in first point) points out that 400 meter success is determinedby the ability to generate great amounts of explosive strength at the proper time(combination of mechanics and strength).

• The development of the the following metabolic pathways: aerobic power, anaerobic

400 Meter Training: Ideas for Training DesignPart I by Jim Hiserman

Photo: Victah, www.photorun.NET

The challenge to the

coach is to identify

strengths and

weaknesses of each

athlete so the

various training

plans can reflect the

components most

critical to the

individual athletes

involved.


capacity, anaerobic power, alactate anaerobiccapacity and lactate tolerance. Training ofthese specific energy pathways through avariety of sprint training methods have shownto improve long sprint performance throughstrength gains, improvement in inefficiency ofmovement and speed of movement, aerobiccapacity development and improvements inthe muscles’ capacity to tolerate acidaccumulation through development ofbuffering capacity. (Wilmore & Costill,Physiology of Sport and Exercise, HumanKinetics, 1994)

Including training methods that address all theabove components requires a working knowledge ofeach component and successful methods ofimproving each component. In addition, knowledgeof proper sequencing of training methods andchoice of cycle-length patterns best suited fordesigning year-round training are required.

This brings the conversation back to theblending of short-to-long and long-to-shortmethods. All of performance factors mentionedabove that have been found to be critical to 400meter sprint success can addressed through theproper blending of specific training aimed atdevelopment of each of these necessarycomponents into a rotating four week block design.

Blending short-to-long and long-to-shortmethods should begin in the preparatory phase (orpre and early season for high schools) with one ortwo days per week devoted to maximum speedtraining (short-to-long) and two days devoted toanaerobic and aerobic capacity training (long-to-short).

Since speed needs to be present in all phasesof yearly training, starting with speed would involveacceleration/sprint work up to 20–30 meters at thestart and progress through 50–60m distances intothe 80–150m speed endurance at the end of thepreparation phase and the first half of the pre-competition phase.

Energy system development can start with bothlong (300–600m) and short (100–200m) reps ofextensive tempo work and progress in volumethrough the first half or three quarters of thepreparation phase before decreasing volume,increasing rest and velocity of reps until Intensive

pempo is reached around the end of the prep phaseor start of pre-comp phase. This gradually evolvesinto special endurance I and II by the competitiveseason.

Devoting 1–2 days to development ofmaximum/absolute speed not only addresses theneed for development of greater absolute speed,but also for high speed rehearsal of sprint drills toimprove sprint mechanics. In addition, this nervoussystem–oriented work fits in well withstrength/power training placed after these tracksessions.

Placing anaerobic and aerobic capacity work onopposite days allows for the nervous system torecover from the speed/strength sessions whileshifting the training to the less intensemetabolic/energy System training usingextensive/intensive tempo type training.

In corresponding with high school coaches thisseason, this author has found a lack of maximumspeed (short)work in pre/early season and a alsoabsence of a mix of maximum speed work and racemodeling using speed endurance/specialendurance I. A mix of speed and speed endurance isa great way to make sure the efforts are above 90%of maximum speed. Examples of these types ofmixed workouts can be found in A Program DesignMethod for Sprints and Hurdles (Jim Hiserman,2008).

An example of how to mix short-to-long (maxspeed) and long-to-short (energy system training)using a four week block design appears in the charton the next page.

Using the chart as an example, coaches wouldbuild in volume increases (total meters) movingfrom 20m sprints upward to 60m sprints on speeddays. Volumes of energy system work wouldgradually increase in volume from the first half ofthe preparation phase until the later prep phasewhere decreases in volume accompany a switchfrom ext. tempo to intensive temp0/spec. end. I & IIby the late pre-comp phase.

The speed moves from short-to-long (20m >60m), while the energy system work moves fromlong-to-short (600 > 300m reps) mixed with shorterext. tempo reps (100–200) to allow for adaptationsto higher speeds with shorter rest.

Part II will discuss various speed/speed




endurance/special endurance I training sessions and how to implement them into high schoolseasons with meets on Tuesdays, Wednesdays orThursdays with invitational meets on someSaturdays.

PART IIIn working with some high school coaches thisseason, this author has become keenly aware of theproblem with planning training for a short (12–14weeks) season coupled with schedules that call formeets in the middle and ends of many weeks.

Planning training for this type of schedulerevolves around application of proper sequencing oftraining components within each day and, moreimportantly, from day to day.

Briefly stated, this means alternating days ofneural work (max speed, strength/power) withenergy system work (lactate tolerance). Speedshould precede strength/power and be coupled inthe same day. Elastic strength can be done prior toenergy system work the day after speed/strength(neural). Aerobic capacity work (using tempo and/orextensive tempo with either short (100–150) orlonger (150–200) repetitions can be used forregenerative purposes after lactate tolerance workdays or competition days.

Individual workout plans are best designed bycoaches who know their teams well. Each coachshould be aware of his/her athletes’ abilities,recovery capacity, training volume capacity, trainingintensity capacity, prior injuries, additional stresses

(school, home, lack of sleep, poor diet, etc.), andthe overall importance of each competition (interms of training and/or preparation for theleague/section championships).

For this reason, it’s not intelligent to “cut andpaste” workouts from other coaches, books, etc.,for use without tailoring it to the specific needs ofthe athletes. It’s also important that the trainingplan for the whole season be kept in focus. Thismeans each week should have an emphasisrepresented by the volume level, intensity level,recovery/restorative volume level and competitionlevel of the athletes within each program.

Using these general guidelines to plan forweeks where two meets are scheduled would looksomething like the examples below.

LLate Season Training Week for High Schools withThurs./Sat. MeetsMonday: Neural training components: Speed &

strengthTuesday: Energy system components: Spec.

end. I or II or mix (lactate tolerance)Wednesday: Neural/light volume: Speed/powerThursday: Competition (speed, speed

endurance, lactate tolerance or mix)Friday: Recovery/restorative: TempoSaturday: Competition (speed, SE, LAT or mix)


Training PhaseWk. 1/

End./Regen.Wk.2/PowerSpeed Wk. 3/ Max Strength Wk. 4/ Speed

Preparation

1–2 days speed, 1day short(100–200 reps)ext. tempo, 1 daylong (200–500)ext. tempo

2 days speed, 2days short(100–200 reps)ext. tempo

1 day speed, 2days long(200–500) ext.tempo

2 days speed, 2 days short(100–200 reps)ext. tempo

Pre-Competiton

1–2 days speed, 1speed end, 1 daymix of long(250–450)intensive tempo &short ext. tempo

1 day speed, 1 dayspeed end., 1 daymix ofspeed/speedend., 1 day spec.end. I

1 day speed, 1 day1 day spec. end. I,1 day spec. end. IImixed w/shortext. tempo

2 days speed, 1day Speed End., 1 day Spec. End. 1 Race Modeleffort w/short ext.tempo.

Competition

1 day speed, 1 dayspec. end. IIw/short Ext.tempo and 1comp. day, 1 dayspeed end. orrecovery if only 1meet/week

1 day speed, 1 day of mix ofspeed/speedend., 1 comp day,1 spec. end. I +ext. tempo day ifonly 1 meet/week.

1 day speed, 1 dayspec. end. II, 1speed end., Icomp day.

2 days speed, 1day speed end. or1 day each ofspeed and speedend. & 1 day ofmixed speed/sp.end., 1 comp day.


LLate-Season Training Week for High Schools withThurs. Meet OnlyMonday: Neural training components: speed

and strengthTuesday: Energy system components: Spec.

end. I or II or mix (lactate tolerance)Wednesday: Neural/light volume: Speed/powerThursday: Competition (speed, speed

endurance, lactate tolerance or mix)Friday: Recovery/restorative: TempoSaturday: Neural/energy mix: Speed or speed

endurance using race models w/ lowvolume and long rests. Easy tempowork following race models

Late-Season Training Week for High Schools withWed./Sat. MeetsMonday: Energy system components: Spec.

end. I or II or mix (lactate tolerance)Tuesday: Neural training components: Speed

and strengthWednesday: Competition (speed, speed

endurance, lactate tolerance or mix)Thursday: Recovery/restorative: Tempo Friday: Neural/light volume: Speed/power Saturday: Competition (speed, SE, LAT or mix)

Late-Season Training Week for High Schools withWed. Meet OnlyMonday: Energy system components: Spec.

end. I or II or mix (lactate tolerance)Tuesday: Neural/light volume: Speed/power Wednesday: Competition (speed, speed

endurance, lactate tolerance or mix)Thursday: Recovery/restorative: Tempo Friday: Neural training components: Speed

and strength Saturday: Neural/energy mix: Speed or speed

endurance using race models w/lowvolume and long rests. Easy tempowork following race models.

Weeks involving only a mid-week meet can alsoswitch the example plans from Friday with those ofSaturday or use the Saturday or Friday examples onFriday and use easy tempo for restoration/recoveryon Saturdays. Pool work is another great variation ofrecovery work if a pool is available.

The above plans are intended as examples only.Coaches need to design progressions to developspeed and speed endurance/lactate tolerance sothat increases in training volume and intensity aredictated by the following:

1) Development of proper sprint mechanics

should be the foundation of speed training.

2) Sprints at higher intensity over shorter

distances should be used to improve technical

efficiency of sprint mechanics.

3) Development of maximum speed should done

with distances starting at 10–20m and

progress to 60m as athletes show the ability to

execute proper mechanics over the entire

distance.

4) Speed endurance work can begin at 50m and

progress to 150m, depending on ability to

execute proper mechanics.

5) Intensity should be kept between sub-

maximum (SE) and maximum (Sp) with

athletes allowed to sprint as far as their

individual technique allows.

High school coaches who are faced with shortseasons and multiple-competition weeks need tobe as creative as possible to make sure trainingencompasses a variety of methods to increasemotivation and engage the enthusiasm thataccompanies the learning of new skills. Trainingthat employs a variety of methods that are rotated inalternative weeks (use of 3- or 4-week block isperfect for this) allows for athletes to be challengedwhile also creating an environment whereby theathletes can experience improvement in the varioustraining skills that are consistently rotatedthroughout the season.

This mixing of training modes for speed andpower into a specific session will serve as anexample of how a neural training day can be usedprior to a mid-week meet. The following trainingsession plan should involve low volume and longrest periods between reps and exercise modes.Examples of exercise modes, volume and recoverytimes are included.

Wednesday:Neural training: Speed/power emphasisAthletes rotate through a circuit that involves 4stations alternating speed with power.

Station #1Overhead backwards med ball tosses 3x2 reps (1stw/no hop, 2nd w/1 hop, 3rd w/2 hops) w/ 1'/repsand sets

Station #2Block starts 2–3x15–20m w/ 2–3' rest.

Station #3Counter movement box hops 2–3 x3 w/30"–1'/repsand 1.5'/sets.

Station #4Ins/outs 2x60m examples of how to vary this highvelocity drill include:(15m accel, 15m max speed, 15m relax, 15m maxspeed) or (20m accel, 10m max speed, 20m relax,10 max speed)




Large groups of sprinters can be split into groups ofeight or nine, depending on number of lanesavailable on track for starts. School with eight lanescan easily rotate 32 sprinters through the circuitwith each group of eight starting at a differentstation and rotating as a group when finished.Schools with one or more coaches for sprinters havethe luxury of making sure the exercises are done ina quality manner with feedback that allows for alearning situation for the athletes.

Emphasis on learning to be technically efficientmust be a consideration when designing sprinttraining plans for each day. Young athletes with alack of training and conditioning cannot beexpected to be able to handle lactate tolerancework with proper technical efficiency if thedistances used are those used by traditional LTworkouts of older 200/400 sprinters. To allow formechanical/technical efficiency of young sprinterswhile doing lactate tolerance work needed toprepare them for the 200/400, it is best to useshorter distances run at high intensity w/shortrests. Examples of these types of lactate toleranceworkouts are listed below.

Effective Lactate Tolerance Workouts UsingShorter Distance Reps200 meter LAT workout examples: 4 x 4 x 60m w/ 2' and 4'2 x 2 x 100 w/1' & 8'

400 meter LAT workout examples: 2 x 200 w/1' & 10', 3 x 100 w/1"2 x 150 w/1' & 10', 4 x 60 w/2' 3 x 100 w/1' & 10', 2 x 150 w/1'

*Based on Biochemical Evaluation of RunningWorkouts Used in Training for the 400-m Sprint bySaraslanidis, Manetzis, Tsalis, Zafeiridis, Mougiosand Kellis, Journal of Strength and ConditioningResearch, Vol. 23, #8, 2009.

The aim of this article is provide examples oftraining design using short-to-long (speeddevelopment) and long-to-short (lactate tolerance)that can be applied to a typical high school season.Specifics of design, energy system training, strengthtraining, sprint mechanics and volumes of researchand reference sources for sprint training can befound in A Design Method Program for Sprint andHurdle Training (Published 2008 by Jim Hiserman).

A Program Design Method for Sprint and HurdleTraining and Strength and Power for MaximumSpeed are available on speedendurance.com for24.95 and 22.95 respectively with 4.95 Priority Mailin the US for both books together and/or just theProgram Design book and 2.95 for just the Strengthand Power book.


Emphasis on learning to betechnically efficient must bea consideration whendesigning sprint trainingplans for each day.














26 Coaching Athletics Quarterly - Winter 2009/2010 Photo by: Victah, PhotoRun.NET


Over the years, I’ve had reasonable success with our 4x100 meter relays here at

Shelby High School. We’re a small Class B high school of 160 students and

practice on a cinder track. Because of our facility and numbers, we have had to

become fairly good technicians. We’ve also had to become creative at times.

This article focuses on several aspects of coaching the sprint relay that I feel are

important to having success in this event.

The first thing I look at is participants. I use a democratic system where anyone interested

in running the short relay must run the 100 meter dash to qualify for the team. I keep a precise

depth chart with both the boys’ and girls’ times. Two or three times again during the season they

must qualify, especially if they’re not normally running the 100. What I’ve found is that jumpers

and hurdlers oftentimes are just as fast as true sprinters. Don’t overlook those field event athletes.

They may become important contributors to your relay.

I find that hurdlers and jumpers do a great job on the first leg. They get out of the blocks

quickly, are explosive, and run that first corner well. I use a different approach than most coaches

on the second leg. Our best relay teams over the years have had the fastest runner on the back

stretch. Give that runner a long, straight line and they can really open it up. The other advantage is

that this gives your team the lead and then you can simply ask the last two legs to keep it. I’ve

always believed it’s easier to run when in front rather than from behind. It gives the other runners

a lot of confidence when they see the lead their team has.

The most powerful runner should be third, especially someone who runs a good 200 meters.

They need to control that gravitational pull and stay on the inside of their lane. A weaker runner

will tend to be pulled out and away from the inside of their lane.

The last runner should be a strong finisher, not one who tires quickly or fades the last 20

meters or so. Remind them to run through the tape and not to the tape.

Unlike some other programs, I coach my relays to use the entire acceleration zone. I want that

exchange to be at top speed with as little time lost as possible. Speed wins relays, yes, but smooth

and efficient exchanges are vital to success. An average sprint relay team with excellent exchanges

can be much better than average. One thing that still puzzles me after 30 years of coaching is 400

meter relay teams from schools with all-weather tracks that struggle with exchanges. If you’re

fortunate enough to have an all-weather surface, you should have the opportunity to really fine-

tune those handoffs.


The 4x100Meter RelayBy Clayton Davis, Shelby High School Head Track Coach, Shelby, Montana

I’ve always believed it’s easier to run when in front rather

than from behind. It gives the other runners a lot of

confidence when they see the lead their team has.




With girls’ teams, I start 14 shoe lengths back

from the beginning of the acceleration zone. The

outgoing runner stands at the back of the zone on

the small triangle and walks back 14 shoes. That’s

where she puts her tape marker. Depending on her

speed or experience, I may adjust that somewhat,

but not a great deal. We don’t do full relays in

practice. We save that for meets. In practice I have

the incoming runner start about 20–25 meters away

and then run into the zone. I emphasize the

exchange happening within the first 10 meters of

the zone. I don’t believe in two runners alongside

each other for 20 meters and then a handoff. We get

in and then get out. The other advantage of an

exchange within the first 10 meters is that you have

room for some margin of error if for some reason the

runners aren’t ready or in the proper position. If a

team waits until the last 10 meters of the exchange

zone and then has trouble, that team won’t make a

legal exchange.

I have our boys’ team measure back from the

small triangle in the acceleration zone 17 shoes.

Once again, a piece of tape goes there. Some teams

use more than one. We use one. If I have a runner

who doesn’t accelerate as fast, I will leave the tape

at 17 and move him up two shoes ahead of the small

triangle. This takes time and you have to have

patience working with them. My teams learn this on

a cinder track and then just have to make minor

adjustments warming up at meets.

Once a good running order is established, don’t

change it. A few years ago I had a very fast boys’

team and decided to change the order. It threw

everything off, and they didn’t respond well to it at

all. A team is only going to run so fast. You can’t

take two seconds off by changing order. Don’t fix

what isn’t broken.

As far as exchanges are concerned, I coach right

to left to right to left. Our method is blind, overhand

exchanges with the thumb pointed in. I prefer this

because if the incoming runner is too high, he or

she can slide the baton down the lower arm to the

hand. The outgoing runner is responsible for a

quick, explosive start and extending the arm on the

signal. We stay away from signals like “stick’ or

“hand” because many teams use those cues. I

make the cue personal with short, one-syllable

commands using either first or last names in a

shortened form. I also instruct the outgoing runner

not to feel or grab for the baton. That responsibility

lies with the incoming runner. What typically

happens in a poor exchange is both runners are

reaching around to deliver or receive the baton and

they work against each other. Once again, the

responsibility of delivering the baton lies with the

incoming runner.

Another critical coaching point for the outgoing

runner is to focus on their team’s lane and their

team’s lane only. Younger athletes get caught up

emotionally in the race and see the other seven

teams approaching. Their basic instinct is to take off

or their team will be behind. The result is leaving

early and the exchange is either stretched out far

too long or the exchange doesn’t happen at all.

Relay runners need to understand they can only

control their team and there is nothing they can do

to influence the other relay teams in their heat.

Practice exchanges every day. Our exchanges

are done every day right after the team warms up.

Don’t practice exchanges at the end of practice or

after a hard interval night. Relay members need to

be fresh for exchange work. It doesn’t take a long

time, but working on it every day leads to good meet

performance. We get to meets one hour early with

ample time for all our athletes to have a proper

warmup. After the team warms up, I take both the

boys’ and girls’ sprint relay teams immediately to

the first exchange and practice. I want those teams

to work on exchanges before the track gets busy

with all the other schools.

Relays develop a sense of camaraderie and

excitement within a group of young athletes. It also

gives athletes a chance to go on to the divisional

and state meets when they never had an

opportunity to qualify in individual events. Relays

are the truest form of teamwork in the sport of track

and field.

Another critical coaching pointfor the outgoing runner is to

focus on their team’s lane andtheir team’s lane only. Younger

athletes get caught up emotionallyin the race and see the other

seven teams approaching.



C A M E R A AT H L E T I C A :

S A LU T E S B E R N A R D L AG AT A N D C H R I S S O L I N S K Y

Jiro Mochizuki and Andrew McClanahan, www.photorun.NET

Above: Bernard Lagat,American Record, 5,000meters, 12:54.12, June 4, 2010

Left: Chris Solinsky, AmericanRecord, 10,000 meters,26:59.6, May 1, 2010




FIRST came the appointment of a USATF “Director of Coaching.” Who knew we needed one?

THEN came the gutting of the Coaches Education program—a program created and run entirely by

coaches without any help from USATF for most of its 25 years—a program that educated more than 20,000

American high school and college coaches —a program that visibly raised the level of U.S. track and field

coaching, and U.S. performances—in short, the most successful initiative in USATF’s history.

Earlier this year, most of the distinguished coaches who led Coaching Ed for the past decade suddenly

resigned because of changes that were being made in Indianapolis. Said USATF, “We’ll get new coach-

instructors who will be just as good.” We’re still waiting to be told who they are.

NOW comes USATF’s Coaches Registry, which more than one well-known coach has called “blackmail.”

That’s not our word, but it was spoken by coaches known and respected in our sport.

Blackmail, because if you don’t sign up, you can’t get a coach accreditation for USATF championships.

Which means you can’t get into the practice and warmup areas to work with your athletes on the important

days and hours before they compete. No matter how good a coach you are.

One well-known coach, a former Olympic medalist and world champion, said, “I don’t like it at all, but I

signed up because my athletes need me and expect me to be there.”

There several other important “privileges” not available to non-registered coaches, but the issue of

greatest concern is the coach accreditation for the championships.

Sam Seemes, who leads the U.S. Track and Cross-Country Coaches of America, reports that most of the

comments he has received about Coaches Registry were unfavorable. The day after USATF announced the

program, Seemes and USTCCCA president Curtis Frye send a message to members which included the

following:

“USTFCCCA Members should know that the USTFCCCA neither supports the Coaches Registry program,

nor did we develop the program. We are disappointed that USATF implied in their press release that the

USTFCCCA was supportive of the Coaches Registry program they have established. Furthermore, we disagree

with the statement that the USATF Coaches Registry ‘will identify and acknowledge the coaches who

represent the profession’s highest standards.’”

USATF CEO Doug Logan said, “No group is more important to the development of our athletes than

coaches.” He certainly has a strange way of showing it. One wonders why USTFCCCA wasn’t informed of

Coaches Registry before it was announced, and why USTFCCCA wasn’t asked to participate in developing a

program specifically involving its membership?

Just as bad was USATF’s timing. Here is a new program, affecting the professional lives and status of

more than 30,000 coaches, and USATF announces it at the most important time of the year, when coaches at

every level are deeply involved in championship-level competition, and USATF gives them five weeks to

decide. That may be legal, but it is certainly not fair to the coaches.

In politics, that’s called an ultimatum. And it is usually followed by a war.

Has USATF DeclaredWar on U.S. Coaches?By James Dunaway and Larry Eder

See USATF and Coaching

Athletics Response


Dear Larry Eder:On June 11, your publication released an editorial co-signed byJames Dunaway and yourself entitled "Has USATF DeclaredWar on U.S. Coaches?" The piece contained many factual errorsand invalid assumptions. As Chair of USATF's Board ofDirectors and President of USATF, I wanted to respond.

The Coaches Registry is part of our commitment toimplementing "best practices" that are on a par with the best-runsports in America. It was designed for very simple and importantpurposes:1. To provide an easily accessible system that will enable

coaches in good standing to be publicly recognized as such.2. To provide a mechanism for athletes, their parents and others

to know if a coach they are considering has met certainbasic professional and ethical standards.

3. To ensure that USATF benefits and privileges are going toindividuals who do not pose a risk to the reputation ofcoaches, athletes, the sport and/or the organization. ForUSATF to distribute funds, credentials and team staffpositions without any vetting process is at best ill-advisedand at worst legally risky.

The two key elements of the Coaches registry are having coachesundergo a criminal background check and agreeing to abide bya Code of Conduct that states, among other basic points, that acoach shall not advocate the use of performance-enhancingdrugs, have inappropriate contact with athletes, or exploit aconflict of interest to financially benefit from an athlete.

USA Track & Field's Coaches Registry is a directive ofUSATF's Board of Directors - not CEO Doug Logan - that hasbeen in the works for more than three years. The first call cameat the 2006 USATF Annual Meeting when the CoachesAdvisory Committee - comprised entirely of coaches who alsoare members and in some cases officers of the USTFCCCA -called on USATF to come up with a system that would keepcoaches in good standing from being lumped in with the "badactors". Specifically, the role of coaches in the lives of athletes

had become a national focus in the wake of Justin Gatlin'spositive drug test, and the sanctioning of coaches such as RemyKorchemny and Trevor Graham by USADA was another blow.

One of the reasons for hiring a Director of Coaching was togive American coaches the voice in the organization that theyoften felt they lacked. With proper staffing in place, our Boardof Directors issued a directive to the National Office to devise a"certification" plan for coaches.

In recent months, USATF has sent emails to USTFCCCAofficers asking for their opinion on the Code of Conduct and theRegistry as a whole. We also have had numerous telephonediscussions and in-person conversations with them.

We realize that having more than five weeks for coaches toregister, prior to our Outdoor National Championships, wouldhave been ideal. But recent events have provided a Call toAction. One NGB, whose vetting system had previously beenmore substantive than ours, has come under intense mediascrutiny and faces litigation for not doing more to keeppedophiles from their athletes. As a result, the U.S. OlympicCommittee has made clear it will be instituting minimalstandards to NGBs for "athlete protection." Rather than playingdefense, USATF sought to do the right thing proactively bydeveloping a system our coaches have asked for since 2006.

Of course there are those who don't like the system, but wehave received feedback from scores of prominent coaches sayingthis is long overdue.

In the end, this is not "us against them." This is everybodydoing what is best for athletes, coaches and our sport. It is ourintent to work together with coaches in a positive and productiveway to make sure we are serving them as well as our athletes.

Is this blackmail? Not by any stretch. But transparency andaccountability for our sport ... absolutely!

Sincerely,Stephanie Hightower, USATF President and Chair

B. Response to Stephanie Hightower

(from Larry Eder, June 15, 2010):

Ithank Stephanie Hightower for stating her organization's position in such eloquent terms. Unfortunately,

in my mind, the fact remains that the five week time period given for coaches to register comprises the five

most important weeks in a high school, college or elite club coaches season in North America. They are

already putting 28 hours of work into a 24 hour day. My concern lies in the fact that, somehow, this was not

seen as an issue. For me, this is the issue: no one in a position of power appreciated how this Call to Action

would impact the majority of coaches.

We at runblogrun.com (RBR), AT&F and Coaching Athletics Quartery welcome USATF's concern over the

need for a Coaches' Registry. However, one of USATF's challenges is to convince many of the coaches who

support this sport, to change their opinion of an organization that has been, in the past, less than

understanding of the needs of the coaching community. To some of the coaches who have spoken to RBR,

the implementation of the Coaching Registry shows little consideration for coaches’ actual work loads.

Perhaps, in the enthusiasm to develop a worthwhile program, no one in the discussions realized how

challenging the time period was for coaches.

In that light, we encourage coaches to reach out to Stephanie Hightower ([email protected]), to

express their opinion regarding the Coaching Registry and other subjects dear to the coaching community.

True to her word, Ms. Hightower responded, and we will take her at her word. She wants an organization with

transparency and accountability, and she needs information to do that. We will endeavor to provide Ms.

Hightower and her team with information on the needs of the coach. We thank her for her response.

–Larry Eder

A. Letter of Response from Stephanie Hightower, President & Chair/USATF, (received via email, 3.30 PM CST, June 15, from Jill M. Geer):


DESIGNED INCALIFORNIA KSWISS.COM

SUPERFOAM.CRAZY.THE KEAHOU II IS ALL ABOUT CUSHIONING. IT’S ALSO ALL ABOUT

STABILITY WITH THE GUIDEGLIDETM MID-SOLE AND VENTILATION

WITH THE FLOW COOLTM AIR SYSTEM. ALL THAT, AND IT’S STILL LIGHT.

PHYSICS, MAN. CRAZY.

32 KSWISS:Layout 1 6/15/10 10:02 AM Page 1

Date post:	09-Feb-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	fortius-media-group-llc-running-network
View:	214 times
Download:	1 times

CA-SPRING_2010-LORES

Documents