Sounds a lot like vertical integration…
Check out: http://www.t-mag.com/nation_articles/259per.jsp
xlr8
Staley answered my question on the T-mag forum. He was very polite and acknowledged that Charlie has had a strong influence on his thinking, but he didn’t get any more specific than that.
Gee! Do you think? I had an extensive discussion with him around 3 years about this, at the request of a mutual acquaintance.
Just another case of a two-bit, self-proclaimed strength guru copying good, innovative ideas from others and trying to mold it into their own creation. I’ve had just enough from these clowns like Staley. Come up with something original or cite references to the people who deserve the real credit Staley.
More or less what the Russians called conjugate periodisation.
doesn’t matter what it’s called does it?
:baddevil::
I know i am probably opening a can of worms, but here are my two cents. I am sick and tired of Ad Hominem arguments and insults towards other coaches on this forum. I think this forum should be mature enough to be polite. I remember a bit ago, when John Davies was in the line of fire. I admit, i don’t like a lot of his ideas, but that is no reason to attack him personally. Calling people names and insulting them does not cause anything except for wasted energy. Let us debate ideas, not people. This type of pettiness works both ways. Usually, when i mention Charlie’s methods to anyone among my track buddies, they generally make a statement attacking him over the steriod issue. If we want this to change, we must be more mature.
Staley is not a two-bit coach. He has produced results in many atheletes. To attack him over similarities in training methodologies is petty. For the most part Staley is really good about giving other people credit. If he really stole an idea, tell him about it. Don’t complain behind his back. These type of complaints do little more than raise blood pressure. So let us not waste our time and get back to discussing what we all care about: training.
Listen Quark, I see where you’re coming from, but we have pretty convincing evidence that Staley could have been a little more forthcoming on referencing Charlie’s work.
Charlie developed vertical integration in the the 1980’s. Now Staley has an article about a new concept called “diagonal summation” that he magically developed, coincidentally 3 years after speaking with Charlie. Not only does it sound the same, it takes the same flavour in the naming of the terms.
People on this list aren’t bad-mouthing coaches without due cause. There are a number strength coaches out there marketing the hell out of themselves and their supposedly “innovative” ideas. Maybe if they just stuck to training and told it like it is, we wouldn’t be having these discussions. A little professional courtesy could go a long way in this industry.
NumberTwo, I know what you mean about the frustration of seeing someone’s work not given due credit. If Staley developed his idea with the help of Charlie’s (which it appears to be the case), he should mention the reference. That is the standard practice in other fields. Although i rarely get asked why i train the way i do (i don’t coach anyone), i try to tell them exactly where i got it from (usually my high school coaches, their sources, or this forum and charlie). I will definately agree with your statement of CS’s “two-bitted”-ness if someone asked him directly on it.
I think that CS is still on the T-mag guest forum, if anyone wants to ask him about it. I might be able to, if i can get some problem sets done for my classes tomorrow. 
I think Charlie knows a little bit more than anyone else on this forum, so I don’t think we should be trying to patronize him.
Prophet,
I am not trying to patronize charlie. I was mostly commenting on NumberTwo’s statement that CS is “a two-bit coach”. There are better ways for one to state the same thing without being hostile.
NumberTwo, i agree that the issue with referencing is suspicious. My point was that this bad-mouthing is worthless. Sure we know that some strength coaches “overmarket” themselves, but all we have to do is mention the facts. (i.e. This person actually came up with this idea) rather than being so hostile (i.e. This person is a liar). I know that this seems like i am splitting hairs, but i generally like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I definately agree that professional courtesy is long overdue. Maybe if people just cared about making people fast/strong rather than making a quick buck, we would have a few more records.
Charlie, I appologize if my statement offended you. I hope that it didn’t sound like it was condescendingly aimed at you. You know better than anyone if Staley plagerized your training techniques without giving due credit.
Quark… I’ll be the first one to formally invite Mr. Staley to the CF forum to explain his concept of Diagonal Summation and how he came about developing it.
I agree that we should not slam people haphazardly… My comments come out of frustration. Having followed Charlie’s works closely for the last 15 years, I easily get my nose put out of joint when I see people stealing his work without giving him credit. Many of these copy-cats know that Charlie has a dark shadow hanging over him (mostly imposed on him by the uninformed press and public), and know that Charlie is not in the easiest position to call them on it.
I make sure that all of the athletes and coaches I work with know where I get my information. They have a right to know that it comes from one of the brightest minds in the history of sprinting - Charlie Francis.
If Mr. Staley doesn’t have the stones to admit that he developed his concept from Charlie’s ideas, then I stand by my comment regarding his two-bittedness.
Quark, Forum
If it helps clarify the websites position, we constantly find people ripping off Charlie’s work. Note that we’re extreamly efficient at finding this “borrowed” material, and we make it a priority to seek out and unmask these hustlers for what they’re worth. So accept a little coach bashing, its to be expected-in this case. The rule is simple, if you don’t want to get bashed, credit your sources…
Note to hustlers: We are watching you…
Rupert
CharlieFrancis.com
Intellectual property theft is very serious, please don’t undermine the weight of this problem.
Thanks…
Rupert
CharlieFrancis.com
I will say on this matter that I’m extremely offended by Staley’s move here! I met with him only at the request of Gia Johnson, who I’d seen regarding a chronic injury, as he was training her at the time.
The article Staley presents, with a slightly modified title, is not his idea developed with input by me. It is my conversation with him, virtually WORD FOR WORD. (Though he has not given me credit for my material, I will give HIM credit for paying attention). Those of you in school will know that handing in other people’s work is frowned on! It’s called PLAGERISM, plane and simple, and they’ll kick your ass out for it.
I know Dr Verkoshanski can support my contention, as he attended my presentation of this very material in Holland in the fall of 1994.
Bringing up another BS artist and false credit taker, John Davies as a defense is pretty lame!
Hold on for a second, I am not defending plagerism or undermining intellectual property. I am merely stating that bashing and name-calling people about it is unnecessary. There are better ways to deal with this problem (legal action is most apparent).
In regards to John Davies, i used him as an example because i thought some of the attacks on him were unwarranted. After your post i looked on the old forum and found out otherwise. This is exactly the problem with this type of bashing. To a person who doesn’t know all of the issue it appears juvenille. If there is more reasoning behind the verbal assualt, with all of the evidense presented, it appears more valid. This presentation of evidence with less name calling is what my original post was about.
I am sorry if i am appearing to defend plagerizers. As i mentioned earlier, I am pretty sure that CS stole your idea Charlie. I am sorry if appeared to say otherwise. I only ment to direct the commentary about this plagerization towards being more contructive rather than petty.
It seems that alot of experts borrow (or steal) ideas from other coaches.
I can remember a coach telling me that there are know secrets to training it is how you put it together.
I have been ridiculed about my plan for training.
Intellectual property or the stealing of this is ongoing and occuring more regularly. But it is hard to prove.
Referencing the ideas or information is the only way to go. If Staley mention Charlies name in the introduction would that of been sufficient?
Thanks Charlie people might think it is easy to take your information because you give your time freely to us and others 
Charlie,
you should sue:D
Call a spade, a spade. If someone steals your ideas and claims them as his own, he’s a thief. As an intellectual property attorney, I have to say that this kind of stuff can be hard to enforce as a practical matter, especially if the original source was not written (i.e. taken from a conversation). Although I would recommend that Charlie write a letter to T-mag and lay out the facts. A more effective (and cheaper) approach is to get the word out about people who do this. Now that Charlie has a viable platform from which to communicate his ideas, it’s (relatively) easier to set the record straight.
Reputation is critical in this business, and the best way to punish someone who steals your ideas is to expose him, which taints everything else he says, a high price to pay in the long term. Charlie has always maintained his credibility among coaches and athletes because of his brutal honesty, which has cost him dearly at times.
You don’t need to bash anyone. All you have to do is clearly point out what they’ve done. The facts speak for themselves, and they can be brutal all by themselves. Sometimes, there’s simply no nice way to say it.
Flash.
How many cases in percentage terms are succesful in court for intellectual property.
I would of thought it would be the last thing you would do - go to court
DMA,
I really don’t know. I’m not a litigator, so it’s not something I would know off the top of my head. In addition, it will vary from country to country. IP law is not radically different between countries, but litigation can vary substantially. Most countries are not as litigation friendly as the US. And your instinct is right, litigation is really a last option, but the threat of it might be put on the table up front as a pressure tactic, simply because everyone wants to avoid it.