It just goes on to confirm that the people preparing Asafa are not as competent as everyone would like to think. Every year it’s something else. If it’s not a torn pec from a ass-backwards weight training program, it’s a pulled groin (which I have never seen in any sprinter I’ve worked with - football, hockey, basketball - yes), or he has mental/confidence issues. As Charlie said, “Injuries do not happen because of bad luck or muscle imbalances. Injuries occur because of shitty training.” In Ben’s case, he was getting injured because he was not following the principles of training laid out by Charlie. Ben was flying around the world doing promotional events for his sponsors (i.e. two flights to Japan in less than 10 days) and the injuries resulted from disruptions in training.
Regardless of how competent his physical therapy staff are, if the training is not organized in an appropriate fashion, there will be problems. All of the interviews from his coach point to a common thread - Coaching arrogance and a lack of responding to the needs of the athlete on a day-to-day basis. Here is an interview excerpt I pulled from another thread:
[i]"SF - Yes it is long to short. High volume, short recovery leading on to low volume, long recovery, high intensity. We don’t do much low intensity work either. I read in a book a while back that to run longer than 20 mins continuous will affect your speed so the longest run we do is 20 mins. The women tend to do 20% less volume than the men. I believe you can work hard on successive days ¡f you are working different energy systems, e.g sprints to 30m one day and then speed endurance the next day. The athlete needs to do a certain amount of work and this is more important than any theory about CNS and its recovery.
I think you need to do 15 distinct sessions per week and so sometimes it is not what the theories agrees with but that’s just how we do it."[/i]
Key things to pick up on:
- “We don’t do much low intensity work” - Why not? Can’t you do extensive tempo rather than running 20 minutes? Their lack of low intensity work may be part of the bigger problem.
- “I read in a book…” - Well, at least he didn’t read it in Men’s Health.
- “The women do 20% less volume than the men” - Charlie’s work with Marion and Tim confirmed that women need more volume than men, due to the differences in output and performance (i.e. world class men have significantly higher intensity in their runs, thus need lower volume and more recovery.
- “I believe you can work hard on successive days…” - Maybe for developing athletes who do not have the speed in their SE work to create a problem. But in an athlete that runs sub-10 sec in 100m?
- “…this is more important than any theory about CNS and its recovery” - Again, for elite sprinters… bullshit.
- “…it is not what the theories agrees with but that’s just how we do it.” - Chalk it up to arrogance…
If someone posted this on the forum and we didn’t know who they coached, we would all think this person was an idiot. Powell’s results (not the coaching approach) have brought the spotlight on Francis. It is easy to detect the arrogance in his responses. I would rather have had him say that “experience with my athletes has shown” or “my coaching mentors have passed on these theories” rather than “I read it in a book” or “that’s just how we do it”.
When I visited John Smith, back when Mo Greene was finishing his career, John was very careful to say that, “We need to heed the science behind everything we do. As coaches, we can make adjustments day-to-day based on the needs of our athletes. There is a feel component to coaching, but we must not forget the science that guides our decision making.” Charlie agreed that John has done a good job in preparing athletes for the big meets, when they need to perform. Stephen Francis could do well in paying a visit to John Smith and just listening to what an experienced coach has to say.