Courrier des lecteurs

US a viable choice

To the editor:

After reading Bill Crothers’ comments in Running great remains outspoken (Champion, May 1981), regarding Greg Joy and me, I felt that there was a need for some response. I think it was a distasteful and illogical suggestion by Bill that Greg and I were “individualistic” and “anti-comformist” because we went to an American university instead of one in Canada.

It is a sad fact that many Canadians in various cultural and professional activities have and will continue to go south in order to be challenged and to find an environment where their skills can be further developed. I made a choice to go south because I felt I had an opportunity to develop my athletic skills to the highest level possible while I attended university. As a student athlete at Oregon, I had opportunities that I could not get anywhere in Canada. Since returning, I realize there have been several changes and I hope that there will be further improvements. But looking at what is offered in university track and field programs across Canada, I must say that I would still go south because I see the opportunity to combine an educational program with a viable track and field program.

To suggest that Greg and I were the only Canadian track and field athletes to benefit from such a program is also misleading. At Oregon, for example, many fine Canadian athletes were able to pursue their talents to the limit and gain a sound university education in the process. Among them are decathlete Dave Steen, seven-time NCAA champion hammer thrower Scott Neilson, and javelin thrower Phil Olsen.

There are many ways to excellence and different individuals must pursue their endeavours in different ways. Crothers and his East York colleagues chose one route, others went another route with perhaps equal or better degrees of success.

If this issue of American vs Canadian university track and field programs needs to be promoted, it does not serve our athletes’ best interests to do so with blind patriotism or with an attitude of ‘my way is the best way’. Perhaps you should do a thorough investigation of all the factors which produce a first-rate sports program and see which university system scores better. But even then I would hope you do not feel compelled to generalize that one is better for all of our country’s athletes. Such an investigation would, however, begin to clear the air of all the misconceptions that currently surround the issue.

I must say I am disappointed in Champion for printing such negative and unnecessary personal remarks. I hope in the future that the staff would carefully scrutinize their copy before press.

Harry W. Jerome O.C., M.Sc., B.Sc.

Author Tom West replies:

Thank you for the courtesy of sending me a copy of your letter. Naturally I knew that Bill Crothers’ opinions would be very controversial but I did not regard it as my responsibility to editorialize on what he said. I believe the Looking Back series tries to tell the readers about our athletes from the past and, as faithfully as possible, to record their opinions. I would have been remiss had I edited out Bill’s viewpoints on the utility of Canadians accepting American scholarships. Moreover, I don’t think his comment on you was negative. Rather, I detected a certain admiration for your way of achieving success.

I apologize for the fact that you took his remarks so personally since they certainly were not intended to be a personal attack on you. And, if you consent, you will have your opportunity to present the other side when a Looking Back article is done on you.

And more stimulation

To the editor:

Because I am quite familiar with the literature on electrical stimulation (ES) of muscle, and because I have recently completed two controlled experiments using ES with humans, I feel that I must respond to the letters of Charles Francis and Jozef Cywinski Ph.D. in Champion (May 1981).

I am convinced that ES is a very useful procedure for maintaining the functional capacity of muscle when the muscle cannot perform normally because of partial or complete joint immobilization secondary to injury and/or surgery. Moreover, I believe that ES is a useful procedure for restoring muscle when traditional isotonic and isometric exercises are difficult or impossible to perform because of pain. Dr. Cywinski is also in agreement with this as the reports he mentioned in his letter were all based on the uses I have just described. However, these reports were not based on improvement in muscle function in normal healthy limbs, although Dr. Cywinski implies this.

I do not believe that ES training of selected muscles of athletes is warranted. I say this not for moral, ethical or safety reasons, but because no one has satisfactorily demonstrated using controlled experimental conditions that ES training produces better results for athletes than traditional training. The fantastic results attributed to Russian workers (e.g. Cummings, 1980) not only have not been duplicated, but the claims made run counter to what is known about muscle physiology. Certainly if the benefits attributed to ES training were only partially valid, I would have expected to see an explosion of outstanding performances by Russian sprinters, jumpers and throwers over the past decade. This has just not materialized. Moreover, the results of our controlled experiments at the University of Waterloo comparing the effects of intense ES with heavy dynamic isotonic exercise training using healthy adult males and females reveal that the ES training is not worth the time involvement.

Finally, I must strongly refute the impression created by Dr. Cywinski that surface electrical stimulation of a muscle can produce a contraction that is equal in strength to a maximal voluntary contraction by activating the very deepest parts of the muscle as well as the surface aspects. This is not so, as Drs. R.H.T. Edwards and A. Trnkoczy have stressed. Moreover, we have measured the metabolite concentrations in middle to deep muscle biopsy samples of maximally stimulated quadriceps muscles. Our results suggest only mild involvement of the middle and deeper muscle fibres although the surface fibres were intensely activated.

I am very sensitive to the problems and frustrations experienced by dedicated Canadian coaches such as Charles Francis who want their athletes to have the same opportunities and advantages as their foreign competitors. Unfortunately, some of our coaches are ready to believe that the Russian, East German, etc. athletes employ fantastic new training equipment and techniques. They neglect to see that the success of these athletes is primarily based on rigorous selection, carefully planned training, and perhaps most importantly, immediate access to superb medical and rehabilitative care. We certainly have medical and scientific specialists in North America who are the very best in the world. I agree with Charles Francis that these people could provide more assistance.

Michael E. Houston Ph.D.

Program a blessing

To the editor:

The Sports Division of the XII Commonwealth Games Australia (1982) Foundation Limited is responsible for producing five Technical Reports during 1981 and 1982. These relay technical information concerning the 1982 Games to overseas Commonwealth Games Associations who then distribute the publications to their national sporting bodies.

I am contacting you because we would be most interested in including some of the cartoons from Champion in our Reports. As an Australian, Champion is obviously new to me but it was easy to acquire an appreciation of the articles as well as the cartoons. Perhaps one day when Australia is blessed with something like Game Plan, a publication like Champion might follow.

Rhonda Bushby, Technical Officer — Sports Division.