BirdsofaFeatherFlockTogether

Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline

ISSN 1099-5862 Vol 8 No 9 September 2005

Contrary to the view espoused by Philippe Liotard, professor at the Sports Faculty of theUniversity of Montpellier (

France

), “…the real ethical debate rests solely on medical practice…” [13]. By this, I believe he is referring to the “practice of medicine” not that the debate rests only within medicine. Obviously, it is not the sole responsibility of the medical profession or even the exercise physiology profession. The use of sports supplement is widespread, thus requiring the involvement of dietitians and other health professionals, including the League of Fans [14] that says, “…athletes are guinea pigs for the sports supplement industry, with no guarantees of safety, effectiveness or even ingredients.”

Just as the World Medical Association expects every physician to “oppose and refuse to administer or condone” methods that are reported to produce “…an unnatural increase….[in] performance during competition….’ [13, 1981 Declaration on Principles of Health Care for Sport Medicine, amended in 1999], the American Society of Exercise Physiologists expects exactly the same from its members [15]. Professionals must do the right thing for the right reasons. Moreover, it is imperative that they do so if they are to stop the craze that surrounds sports supplements. Cyphers and O’Keeffee [16] says, “…these pill-popping jocks and the companies who serve them are changing the culture of sports, and creating, in the eyes of experts, a public health menace.” This is a critical twist on something special (trust). Unfortunately, today, it is okay to cheat in sports. Tomorrow, it will be okay to cheat in business.

This thinking isn’t new. It is time to stop these “birds gone wild.” The unethical practices capitalize on the greed of sports nutritionists who do not think about the consequences of their behavior on exercise physiologists. It is apparent that the behavior of the “wild birds” is driven by the money and position. Both abuse the trust of clients (and students). Birds gone wild need to end their unethical behavior by:

Getting out of the pie-in-the-supplement-schemes. If it’s too good to be true, you can bet that it is unethical.
Joining a professional organization that has a Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice. Professionals must find a balance between opportunity and responsibility.
Embracing the exercise physiologist’s core mission of the profession (i.e., to provide healthcare). This mission may not appear to contribute directly to the bottom line of the profession but, in fact, it does. The credibility of the professional is directly linked to the credibility of the healthcare provider.
Living the belief that good teaching equals a good education. It cannot become a perishable commodity [17].
Thinking straight about performance-enhancing supplements. It is ridiculous to believe the following statement by Mark Myhal [18]: “And they [referring to dietitians and other health professionals] have to drop the ‘negative bias’ they have against ergogenic aids – products that athletes use to help build muscle and burn fat.” This is absolute nonsense!

“Thinking straight” is a major concern for all exercise physiologists of the same feather (thinking). Mark’s comments are such that if you can’t get with the value of using performance-enhancing supplements, then you have no business saying anything negative about them. This is an interesting mix of techniques to bring all healthcare professionals in agreement with his group’s norms, values, and goals. What is that group? Weightlifting! Can he actually believe that “…a universal denunciation of ergogenic aids results in a loss of credibility for scientists and health professionals…” – get serious. This kind of conformity leads to poor decision-making that precludes alternative thinking. These birds are flying North during the winter season. Fundamentally, this is the problem faced by the ASEP flock of birds.

The quest for an “edge” isn’t by itself an ethical dilemma or a controversial behavior. However, when the quest is fueled by amphetamines, anabolic steroids, caffeine, blood doping, beta2 agonists, creatine monohydrate, and chromium picolinate, it “…poses an ethical dilemma…” [19]. And, within decades, genetic engineering poses even greater risks and concerns [20]. Genetic engineering of athletes is crazy and nonsensical. Honestly, even speculation that a gene injected directly into a target muscle to create a fast and stronger athlete is against everything I know and value about human beings and sports. Is it true? Are the authors (Michael Bahrke and Charles Yesalis) of the paper, The Future of Performance Enhancing Substances in Sport correct when writing, “…the genie is out of the bottle…and there is no returning it….” [21]?

If so, then, is this article and any concerns that parents, fans, athletes, teachers, and researchers may have a complete waste of time? Should performance-enhancing substances be legalized, as suggested by the authors [21]? The answer to both questions is absolutely “no.” It is not a waste of time to express one’s concerns or to have a different viewpoint on a given subject. Decades ago no one believed they wouldn’t be allowed to smoke anywhere they pleased. I believe it is possible that at some point in the future the public sector will have its fill of supplements and drugs and the destruction of moral character and sports. Talk about leveling the playing field, this is when the birds of the same feather will stand up and run the pushers out of town. This will happen because sports play too big a role in society, and our youth are too important to be guinea pigs for the industry. The entire concept of winning will undergo critical analysis. There will come a time when the public will turn off the television set and not watch sports!

So two primary questions are, “What price is the profession worth?” and “What price is your self-respect worth?” Other important questions are, “Is big money, winning-is-everything mentality worth the grip on certain birds?” and “Have you had enough of the athletes who cheat and birds who supply them with the rationale for doing so?” From my viewpoint, it is an open and shut case. The conflict of interest is too great. The incentive to do the wrong thing for the wrong reason is misleading and “wrong.” Arguably, it is better to flock with the birds that help young people grow with integrity and self-respect. The American Society of Exercise Physiologists setting has the advantage of having the first-ever Code of Ethics for exercise physiologists. Indeed, it is the only setting where there is a recognized accreditation of academic programs, board certification of exercise physiologists, and published standards of professional practice to guide the work of exercise physiologists as healthcare professionals. The benefits of flying with the right birds for the right reasons are enormous.

To this end, why not become a bird of the same feather and flock with the members of ASEP? After all, as Margaret Wheatley [22] observed, “Most people want their work to serve a greater good, to help other people. But we seldom pause and reconnect with the initial idealism and desire to serve that led us into our professions.” Forget about feeling constrained to get involved. Life is always going to be challenging. Forget about feeling afraid that others will penalize you. There will always be resistance to change. Someone or organization will always want to control you. The implications are clear. If you are an exercise physiologist, you are part of the change process. In a nutshell, get out of the 20th century foxhole way of thinking and get out there and take back your profession!