How high throughput methods could revolutionize drug testing in sport
By Laura A. Cox, Ph.D., Department of Genetics, Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research, San Antonio, TX - Alamo Area Aquatics Association, San Antonio, TX
Posted: November 13, 2008

Did you see the new television show “Life on Mars”? The main character is a police detective who is transported back in time from 2008 to 1973. During an investigation the main character asks his 1973 fellow-police detectives how long it will take to find out if fingerprints from a crime scene match any records in the database. One 1973 detective replies that it will take about 2 weeks. While the 2008 detective is thinking that two weeks is an incredibly long time and in 2008 it would only take a few hours, the second 1973 detective interjects that it’s amazing what technology can do to get the results back so quickly. As with crime detection, quick accurate results in sports drug testing can dramatically improve the odds of catching the bad guys.

This fictional story reminds us that technologies we take for granted today were beyond the realm of science fiction only 30 years ago. What does this have to do with drug testing in sport? Methods that are currently available for testing biological samples to identify genes, proteins, and many other substances were beyond imagination 30 years ago.

The classical approach in biology and medicine has been to test for one substance in one sample at a time. Tweaking the testing protocols might allow for increased throughput, i.e. faster sample processing, for testing for one substance in as many as 20 or 30 samples at one time. These methods were standard in the 1950’s through the early 1990’s. The convergence of increased computing power, implementation of stringent quality controls on reagents for testing, development of specialized software tools and machines in the late 1990’s has led to the development of methodologies that allow for testing of hundreds and even thousands of substances in a single sample.

In addition, these new technologies allow for analysis of hundreds of samples at once and require very small amounts of sample material. That is, using today’s technologies it is feasible to analyze samples from a few hundred individuals quantifying hundreds or thousands of substances at one time. And even though the current methods require much less sample material from each individual, the results are far more precise than previous methods. Because samples can be run in parallel, using less sample material and less time, these new technologies have dramatically reduced the cost of sample analysis for each substance from dollars to pennies and reduced the time to analyze samples from weeks to days.

In addition to more rapid testing and analysis, these new capabilities provide a “profile” on the thousands of genes or proteins in a sample and this profile is extremely sensitive to substances such as cigarette smoke and prescription drugs to name a few. This profile, which has been referred to as a physiological profile or a “physiological passport”, provides a detailed physiological fingerprint for each individual. Consequently, these new technologies allow us to not only ask: Do we find evidence of “Banned Substance X” in the sample from this athlete? But also allow us to ask: Do we see changes in a person’s physiological profile that suggests use of a banned substance?

In an era when some cheaters are collaborating with chemists for access to the latest designer steroid or growth hormone rather than using “Banned Substance X”, the availability of testing methods that identify abnormal profiles without prior knowledge of all substances currently in use by cheaters is a powerful tool. Biomedical scientists and clinicians transitioned to high throughput methods more than 7 years ago; maybe it’s time to increase the odds of catching the cheaters and leave behind the decades’ old approaches for drug testing in sport. If not, it’s just “Life on Mars” for clean athletes.

Why An Elite Athlete in Swimming Should Want The Focus on Themselves and Not on Technology.
By John Leonard
Posted: October 31, 2008

The Olympic Sport of Swimming has always been characterized by one outstanding feature...it is FAIR.

Athletes line up next to each other, each having prepared as well as possible for the “big moment”. They have abided by the rules of the game, done their legal best to be ready to give all they have to give in pursuit of personal excellence and achievement.

Then the gun goes off, great performances ensue and accolades follow...and the next morning in the paper, a substantial amount of the credit goes to a swimsuit company? This radical change in the sport, dating from January 2008, is perverting the entire outlook of our sport for the future.

No longer will the athlete who has trained the hardest, learned skills the best, steeled their nerves best to the demands of high level competition, necessarily win the race. Instead, superior suit technology, produced by research and development by scientists in labs, likely determine the winners.

Worse, not all suits are equal. The “fitted suit”, made specifically for the individual athlete and their body, is a far superior innovation compared to the “off the shelf model” of the same suit that is tried on by myriad athletes before one decides “this fits well enough”. In point of fact, there is considerable debate in scientific terms of whether a non-fitted technical swimsuit is in fact better than good fitting older suits.

This means that 99% of the athletes competing at the World Championships are at a disadvantage to the few athletes who are indeed measured as the prototypes of the suits. A serious disadvantage.

The next consideration is the issue of where praise SHOULD lie. Does the sport want praise to be for the money to develop new technology, or old-fashioned hard work, attention to detail and competition hardened experience?

Next, every child-swimmer wants to “be like Mike” and the other international heroes of our sport. They will naturally ask their parents to spend $300-600 for a technical suit and many, not wanting to be seen as “bad mommies or daddies” will capitulate, at least once....(or until they discover that the suits have a very limited useful shelf-life...who wants to spend $500 for a 12 year old that will be useful for a dozen swims? pretty expensive swims!)

The more subtle and much more destructive influence will be on those athletes whose parents cannot possibly afford a suit of that expense. Now their children are relegated in large part to the back of the pack, the essential “fairness” of the sport is lost, and children will leave the sport in DROVES, if success in swimming is now perceived to be something you can BUY for your child. The fine-tuned sense of fairness of the child will immediately see that winning can be purchased. And they already know who’s parents have all the money.

The Olympic Sport of Sailing has it right. Every Olympic Sailor sails the exact same boat. The emphasis is on the skill and abilities of the sailor. Swimming needs to change its rules to eliminate high tech suits and keep the emphasis of our sport where it has always been...on the effort, skill and preparation of the athlete.

Ski jumping is the same case. Years ago, commercial companies started making jump suits that acted like sails...the governing body said “NO” loudly and firmly and now regulates the suits that jumpers may wear. The athlete, not the attire, is the focus of the performance.

The argument has been made that if the companies can’t sell these high tech suits, they can’t afford to financially support the athletes. This is nonsense. They supported athletes before the new tech suits came out, they support them now, with the suits limited NOT FOR SALE and only available to the world-level athletes, and they will support athletes in the future because they need the elite athletes to endorse their product, in order to gain marketing advantage. Mr. Phelps could endorse a burlap bag if it had a Logo on it, and still be richly rewarded by the company and should be.

Finally, our swimming athletes should realize that vast numbers of golfers and tennis players are sponsored by equipment companies, despite the fact that equipment in both sports are strictly regulated. The commercial companies need the endorsement of swimming’s top athletes just as they do in every other sport. All existing records and results should be unaffected by a change in these rules since they conformed to the rules existant at the time of performance.

The latest nonsense is that Parents or Companies will “sue” someone if they create rules that retain a level equipment field. This is utter nonsense. Most every sport regulates equipment. Do you see parents suing little league so their kids can wear metal spikes? Any governing body has every right to decide on appropriate attire and equipment and enforce those rules.

Where do we want the emphasis in our sport? On the manufacturers or the athlete?

Please support the roll-back on suit rules to an earlier, simpler suit for men and women.

John Leonard
American Swimming Coaches Association Executive Director

What Swimsuits to Wear, When and By Whom:
By John Leonard
Posted: October 22, 2008

The array of swimsuits now on the market are daunting to parent, athlete and coach alike. Throughout history, marketing has mixed with design to first make suits that covered less and less, and now to make suits that cover more and more of the human body, under the assumption that certain engineered fabrics move more easily through the water than human skin. And in the works since early in 2008, suits that cover large portions of the body in order to control, via resiliant panels, the sort of “body line deterioration” that always results when an athlete tires.

And along the way of course, the manufacturers have raised the prices of all suits to astronomical levels, where the top suit on the market now costs more than the average age group swimmer pays to practice for the entire year.

So what is “suitable” for what athlete in what situation?

Here’s a guide for coaches:

At the Novice Level......regardless of age.....the emphasis in our sport should be on learning to swim the strokes correctly, which includes maintaining good body position in the water unaided by a high-tech swimsuit. The appropriate suit? The simplest competitive suit made by any of the manufacturers. Good fit is important. Snug, simple, basic. Encourage parents not to purchase suits that athletes will “grow into”...by the time they do so, the suit will be exhausted and in need of replacement. A good suit will last the ordinary age grouper about 3 months if worn to both practice and swim meets. More if a suit is only worn to swim meets. These should be “minimal coverage suits”...for boys, knee to navel, or less, females, Shoulder straps to hips. (not over the shoulder suits.) Many boys, especially those new to the sport, will balk at using the old style small “Speedo”. They want the jammers to the knee. This is about modesty and societal associations.....good to go with the Jammers, mon.

At the elite age group level, coaches should still ENCOURAGE athletes to wear “normal suits” with a good fit, with the same coverage rules as above. The longer into their careers that the athlete can improve without the “silver bullet” of “suit enhancement”, the better. At certain zone level competitions, its possible that coaches will begin seeing a majority of “technical suits” of various types. Some actually work, some are just placebo effect improvements from the hype of putting on a new suit. At this level, the coach has to make a choice as to the effect of having their athlete wear their “normal suit” while the competition is in something exotic. This is a tough area. Remember that chances are, once the suit comes off in the next meet, times may slip back to where they were previous to the “super suit swim”. This can be tough to handle for the athlete, the parent and thus, the coach. The temptation will be for Mom or Dad to say “little Susie is soooo disappointed in her time...why don’t we let her wear the super-dooper suit all the time?”

What Mom may not realize is that that $300-$500 dollar swimsuit may only be effective for 6-12 swims. Then it becomes a very expensive bag of water. And now Susie needs a new suit every two meets...or maybe that means twice a month. Gee, the sport suddenly got very expensive!

Coaches, keep the children out of the “super suits” as long as possible! And when they do wear it, remind them that there is difference in their performance levels and once it comes off, their times may not be the same as with it on.

So where IS it appropriate to wear that Super Suit? Well, Olympic Trials sounds good. Senior and Junior Nationals sounds likely. If the times at Seniors set the qualifying times for Seniors, the athlete may have to use the suit to Qualify for Nationals, at the Regional Meet. Maybe not.

The ordinary club meet, Junior Olympics for accomplished swimmers? Ordinary high school meet? I’d recommend you stay in your “normal” suit. High School State Championships? If you’re a senior, you probably are going to wear the best thing you have, which may be the super suit. If you’re a junior, can you live with wearing your “normal suit?”

The key to remember here is that once you put on the Super Suit, you are likely to now establish two standards for yourself...your best time WITH the suit and your best time WITHOUT the suit.

These suits work well. Most of us, including this writer, would like to see them banned from all competition, so the emphasis in our sport stays on the athlete and their hard work, dedicatio and attention to learning. But while they are still legal, you, whether a new age group coach or an experienced professional, have a lot of challenges to face and decisions to make. Chose wisely.

JL

Disquieting Thoughts...Fallout from the Great Swimsuit Debate of 2008
Editorial by John Leonard
Posted: October 15, 2008

I’m proud that the ASCA Board took a firm stance opposed to the use of the new high tech swimsuits introduced in 2008 at its most recent Board Meeting in September of 2008. I’m gratified that the Board asked me to work on solving this issue in a reasonable way. I’m happy that the USA Swimming House of Delegates voted to restrict, in a “beginning” sort of way at its most recent meeting in Atlanta in Sept. I’m delighted that various Local Swimming Committees of USA Swimming have chose to enact even more restrictive legislation within their own LSC since then.

Its nice to know that a very authoritative source tells me that nearly 100% of Australian Coaches agree with us and want the tech suits banned for all ages including internationals.

And then the gnawing doubts start.

First, we’ve heard virtually nothing on this topic from Australia in official terms, except that they will follow the FINA rule. Australian Swimming is heavily sponsored by a major swimsuit manufacturer. Ok, well, surely the Australian Coaches will speak up as ASCA has done? No? Well, ASCTA is heavily sponsored by Australian Swimming. No independence there at all.
I’m sure USA Swimming will speak up officially from the leadership. No, the official silence is deafening. Volunteers at USA Swimming are leading the way in restricting the suits for age groupers. Good. USA Swimming also has a contractual relationship with a swimsuit manufacturer as does virtually every National Govering Body in the sport.

Now like a lot of people, when i am thinking something through, i argue with furniture a lot. Or my dashboard in the car. Or scenery on a run.
That dang couch is stubborn, the dashboard is downright obstinate, and the palm trees here in South Florida are downright arrogant!

As i argue with the couch, the dashboard and the palm trees about the suit issue, i say to them, “well, guys, if worst comes to worst, since all the coaches hate the new suits, we simply can tell our kids not to wear ‘em.”

In fact, a high ranking volunteer (and coach) in USA Swimming told me, “while i agree with your premise, I am irritated that my coaches association is telling me, via pushing these rules, what to have my kids wear and don’t trust me to make the right decision on my own!”

I can’t even argue with that. I agree with him.

So i picture myself walking into every coaches meeting i attend in the next two years and saying “Listen Guys, even if FINA can’t see beyond their noses here, and the national federations are kowtowing to the suit companies, we can solve this problem on our own by just telling our kids they can’t wear the suit. Problem solved”

And i know intuitively, that i am dead wrong. 100% wrong. Or more accurately, 92% wrong. Because that 8% is the number of coach owned or coach run programs in the United States of America.

IF you own or run your own club in the good ole US of A, and if you are brave enough to risk the estrangement of the parents on your team, or financially independent enough to not care, you can say “Guys, NO FANCY SUITS! Swim fast with hard work, attention to detail and guts, like its always been done, has always meant to be done and SHOULD be done.”
Stand up for “no shortcuts”, no magic pills, no buying of success. Stand up for what you believe in.

But for the 92% of the clubs in the USA who are NOT coach owned or coach run, those coaches work, directly or indirectly, for parents. And THOSE coaches, are not going to be free to make the beautiful speach in the paragraph above, unless they want to risk their employment and their families regular eating of meals on their support of principle here.

Because “a lot” of parents will want to be “good mommies and daddies” and buy their children the latest and greatest gear for their activities....including fancy technical swimsuits that they can “grow into” (another gag line we’ve heard recently) that will make them magically faster than they are now, today, right now, without any additional work, effort or attention to stroke technique and detail. Buy some succcess, in other words.
And if they DON’T do it, in many of their communities, they will be doing their children a dis-service, and look like “bad mommies and daddies” to their kids and the other swim families around them.

And of course, the suits actually WORK to make poor swimmers better and good swimmers great. So all it takes is one or two parents with more money than sense, and values, and competition is no longer fair. And our sport, at the very local level of your community pool, is no longer about talent, hard work and attention to detail. Its about buying technology to give you what you are unwilling to work hard enough for.

And the entire nature of our sport, changes.

Do you want to coach kids to think they can buy success?
I don’t. I won’t. Its not what I’m in the sport to help teach.

But for those coaches out there who work for a parents group that is “in charge”, they likely won’t have a choice to reject the suits. Their parent groups will stand up four-square for their right to spend money to make their child faster with a magic suit. I heard just last week that it was “un-American” to set rules that limit what you can buy for your child.

Wow. I had no idea. I thought rules were for the betterment of society. And sport.

Most sports have rules. Rules about equipment. We don’t, because a group of men and some women who are called the FINA Bureau don’t understand our sport well enough to know what they set loose on the sport when they allowed the manufacturers to set the uniform rules. And the FINA Bureau is supposed to be the guardians of our sport and its legacy.

Some guardians. Some legacy.

So, what SHOULD coaches be telling their athletes to be wearingin competition? That will follow on the ASCA home page shortly. The bottom line, coach is that YOU need to be the guardian of the philosophy of our sport that you believe in.

The Leadership Issue, Exposed by the SwimSuit Issue.

The fact is, the FINA Bureau and their buddies running most sport federations are the last amateurs left in the Olympics.

Most disturbing is that 92% of American Coaches who are economically unable to direct their club as they see fit, because of their employment situation.

The suits bring all that to light, you see. If you can’t tell your athletes what you believe they should be wearing, in order to guard the integrity and fairness of our sport, what exactly are you in charge of?

I salute the 8%. I hope each of you who is in the 92%, is thinking immediately after reading this, “how can i join the 8%? “

Coaches need to guard the values and philosophies of our sport. Coaches need to lead. These are sobering conversations. Have them with your fellow coaches today. This suit discussion provides you with the perfect opportunity to exhibit and develop leadership whether you own your own swim club, or are the director of your swim club, or not. Coaches understand the sport. Many parents do not. This is a chance to rationally direct the conversation about suits to the conclusion that best serves the athlete and the sport. Leaders guard values and philosophies and help set them. And frankly, unless you have been involved in the sport for a significant period of time (as most coaches have) you will have a hard time understanding the damage that can be done by the Magic Bullet solution of buying better performances.

Coaches, exercise your leadership here.

John Leonard

ASCA Seeks Nominations for the 2009 Peter Daland Award
Posted: October 2, 2008

The Daland Award Committee, chaired by USA-Swimming Head Coach and National Team Director Mark Schubert, is seeking nominations for the Daland Award for 2009.

The Daland Award is presented to a coach who has made significant contributions to the governance of our sport, while at the same time contributing significantly to the international swimming success of the USA.

The Award recognizes that coaches must not only coach, but must also lend their expertise to leading the administration of the sport.

Nominations for this award should be sent to Coach Schubert at USASwimming@aol.com.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.

2008 ASCA Awards
Posted: September 17, 2008

ASCA Coach of the Year
Bob Bowman

2008 Age Group Coach of the Year
LSC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coach of the Year
Adirondack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .George Hooper
Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dave Synder
Allegheny Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jim Wargo
Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Melissa Ripley
Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jim Norman
Boarder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeAnn Carr
Central California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Angela Martinho
Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Todd Schmidt
Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dennis Flores
Florida Gold Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ian Cross
Florida Swimming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sherwood Watts
Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gary Taylor
Gulf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shane McCauley
Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merri Wada Tanji
Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Todd Capen
Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Matt Lee
Inland Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . .Todd Stafek, Jennifer Tonkyn
Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adam Osweiler
Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Todd Larkin
Lake Erie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mike Wohl
Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Courtney Roedel
Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mardie LaRiviere
Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tom Yetter, Gary Mann
Metropolitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dragos Coca
Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Josh Morgan
Middle Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Eric Posegay
Midwestern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bryan Kratky
Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sue Sathre, Kate Lundsten
Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rebecca Uhl-Van Oostendorp
Missouri Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Megan Pittman
Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kirby Majerus
New England . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mike Spring, Carl Cederquist
New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cathy Corcione
New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tracey Wright
Niagara. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tim Bennett
North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robin Jacobs
North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Marv Fiest
North Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ted Carson, Heather Maher
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Todd Saltus
Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cindy Goddard
Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . James Resare
Ozark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jack Young
Pacifi c Northwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greg Gillette
Pacifi c Swimming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Erik Colwill
Potomac Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dave Greene
San Diego Imperial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kevin Eslinger,
Sierra Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Darin Mai
Snake River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brian Gallagher
South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tim Conley
South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lindsie Micko
South Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BJ Allenstein
Southeastern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark Krimm, Len Stromm
Southern California . . . . . . . . Jeremy Anderson, Chris Barber,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gyongyver Sovago, Tressa Reis,
. . . Audy Octavian Conway Yeo, Kristine Julian, Sheri Stoddard
Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Todd Etherington
Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steve Hennessy
West Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jana Floyd
West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joy Kraus
Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jacob Johnson
Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patrick Frankfort

Daland Award
Dick Hannula

Hall of Fame
Frank Busch
Ray Bussard
Paul Blair
Don LaMont
Mary Freeman Kelly Spitzer

Gold, Silver, Bronze Awards of Excellence
Gold Award of Excellence
Dave Gibson
Gregg Troy
Michael Chasson
Silver Award of Excellence
Tim Bauer
Bronze Award of Excellence
Bill Dorenkott
George Kennedy
Steven Lochte

Counsilman Memorial Lecture Contributors
As of August 18, 2008

Our thanks to the following individuals and organizations who have contributed to the financial success of the Doc Counsilman Memorial Lecture Fund. Additional contributions are sought and can be made payable to the Counsilman Memorial Lecture fund and sent to: Coach Bob Groseth, 2311 Campus Drive, Evanston, IL. 60208 . Credit card payments can be made by calling the ASCA office with the request at 800-356-2722.

OUR THANKS TO:
Bob Groseth, Ron Heidary, Jim Tierney, George Block, Butch Jordan, John Leonard, Chuck Warner, Don Gingras, Alamo Area Aquatic Association, Jack Simon, Santa Clara Swim Club, Dick Jochums, Mecklenburg Aquatic Club, Tom Musch, Orinda Aquatics, Don King, Curl Burke Swim Club, Cork King, Peter Malone, Joanne Macher, Robert Strauss, USA Swimming, Peter Linn, Forbes Carlile, Vern Gambetta, Dennis Dale, Tim Murphy, Jiang Zhan, Frank Comfort

And the following individuals have donated by dedicating their speaking fees at the world clinic to the Counsilman Fund:
Mark Schubert
Bob Bowman THANK YOU TO ALL FOR YOUR
Ed Reese GENEROSITY IN HONORING DOC!
David Marsh

04 vs 08 Trials Review
Posted: July 16, 2008

American coaches did a terrific job preparing their athletes to swim their best at the Trials. Here are some comparisons between the 2004 and 2008 Olympic Trials.

2008 Review Improved Times