http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/08/coachs-trio-disintegrates/
According to the article, Erin Donohue and John Cook recently ended their athlete-coach relationship after they had a disagreement about Donohue's long-term potential. This occurred after Cook stated to Donohue that she lacked the talent to run the times that she wanted to run and earn the medals that she wanted to win.
I am guessing that most of us have an idea of what we believe our fastest times will be. In addition, it is probably easier for us to accept the mediocrity of these times as none of us are professional runners. However, those who are competing at the elite level have personal identities which strongly revolve around the fact that they are runners. They train to win, to achieve. Their running goals will match their ambitions, however unrealistic they may be. For example, Adam Goucher wants to run a 13:00 5K and earn the American record in the 10K. The fact that most people believe he is physically incapable of accomplishing these goals only further demonstrates the determination and winning mindset motivating these high-level runners.
Accordingly, telling an elite-level athlete that he or she will be unable to run a certain time in his or her chosen event is equivalent to telling a mediocre NFL team that they will never be able to win the Super Bowl. True, the athlete may realize that he or she will not have a world-class season, but a characteristic universal to all human beings is hope. These athletes want to be the best. Telling these athletes that they will "never" reach their goals is equivalent to placing a wall between them and their dreams. It shatters their primary source of motivation. If they can "never" be the best, or one of the best, then their efforts are for naught. How many people, even in the running community, have heard of Eric Mack? To elite runners, true success comes when one is able to run at a level unmatched by the majority of their opponents. Only this will give them the satisfaction of distinguishing themselves from the other elite runners which make up their peer group.
I believe John Cook could have been a little more prudent in voicing his opinion to Erin Donohue, especially when Donohue's own achievements were eclipsed by her faster training partner, Shannon Rowbury. He could at least have told her something along the lines of, "We'll see how you progress and keep working towards faster times." If Donohue were to accept Cook's assessment, then the only thing left for her would be many future years of staring at Rowbury's back. Yes, mental toughness and realistic short-term expectations are important athletic traits but when you are dealing with an athlete's reason for existence, a little sensitivity is in order.
Thus concludes my humble opinion, based only on limited personal experience, hearsay, and speculation. Do you agree or disagree? Has this situation ever happened to you or somebody you know? Write it up!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
i feel like there are a few separate issues in here:
1) i'm not sure if i'm sold on the concept of the "theoretical maximum" of achievement. certainly for the majority of us, and probably even for some elite athletes, who can ever know what would have happened if one were to train a different way, got daily massages, had less stress in one's life? when you die, you have a lifetime PR, but how does that compare to how well you COULD have done with your particular DNA? is it particularly relevant to speculate on such? for elite athletes, it may be highly relevant, as career choices may hinge on such, but to some degree, you set goals and you work towards them if YOU believe they are achievable, and if you get fulfillment out of that, then good for you. if you believe that they are achievable in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and at the cost of much emotional torment... then maybe not so much good for you.
from the perspective of coaching, putting a lifetime ceiling on an athlete that has just made a breakthrough or is still evolving as a runner is somewhat myopic... but i can see that it would be fairly reasonable to make "X is not achievable" statements in cases where consistent lack of improvement over many years, or a smaller amount of catastrophically awful performances (exhibit A: me, 100-400m) are observed.
2) honesty between coach and athlete. i'm in no way condoning cook's handling of this situation, but i do think that honesty is an essential in coaching. if this is cook's opinion, its for the best that it is communicated. personally, i would want to know if my coach thought that my potential was less than what i believed, because i would not want to be coached by someone who thought that... but this isn't really the essential point.
the essential point is the related issue of alignment of (short term) goals. given that a lot of training plans involve phrases like "at race pace" or "at goal pace", if you think your 5K race pace is 14:30 and your coach thinks it is 16:00, you obviously have a problem when it comes time to run intervals or discuss what your race strategy should be. it seems only natural that a coaching arrangement would be most beneficial if you are both working to approximately the same short term and preferably long term goals.
a similar sort of issue is if you have a disagreement with your coach regarding the impact of an injury, or how much of a priority injury prevention should be. whatever the issue is, beliefs and assessments that affect how a coach might structure your training are things that i think have to be honestly communicated and at least partially accepted by you in order to have an effective coaching situation.
3) sensitivity towards destroying identity-based dreams. i kind of feel like this similar to breaking up with a significant other that is extremely attached to you. best practice is to do it promptly and without unnecessary cruelty... but to some degree, no matter how kind and classy you are, it doesn't really temper the basic message. if the person views your decision as a rejection of them as a human being and everything that they represent, then... well... there may be a limited amount that YOU can do to prevent that outcome. this should not influence your decision to or not break up with them. if a coach or athlete wants to end the relationship, they basically only have a responsibility to do what they believe is right for them. a decent person will do it professionally and graciously.
i do feel bad for erin donohue, i get the impression that people doubted that she would even get this far. however, if she really values running as a career and believes in her goals, i think she'll be just fine. someone at some point will most likely tell you you can't achieve what you want.
RE: personal experiences... its my personal philosophy that if you don't believe that i can achieve a goal that i've set for myself, then you can go F*** yourself.
people told me that i would likely not get into caltech. but i did.
in terms of running--even in my relatively short tenure in the running world, i've seen a lot of people who've trained diligently over many years and seen really amazing improvement.
i ran XC for the first time as a senior, and can objectively say that it was kind of a disaster. there were some 5Ks where i didn't break 8 minute miles... i got shin splints, and then a calf strain, and then a stomach virus 2 days before regionals where i had to spend time in the emergency room on a morphine drip. i was something like 5th from last in a field of 100+ in my last collegiate race.
i took a month off to heal my calf strain, and then decided to run a half marathon that was 4 weeks away. when asked what my goal time, i blurted out "1:40!" without thinking through the implication (7:45 miles for 13 miles--i'd never even run more than 10 miles) to which basically everyone expressed concern... "ehhh, i don't think that's realistic, how about 2 hours?". (including: "ummm maybe... you should NOT try to go out at 7:30 pace." --Scott)
deeply offended, i set off to train my ass off for 4 weeks to prove these people wrong. i ran 1:41:56 in the race, and felt vindicated in my arbitrarily set goal.
**it is worth noting that since scott nor any of the other people involved coached me in any way for my half marathon training, there were no conflicts experienced other than emotional consternation resulting from the lack of belief of team mates and coaches... which in the grand scheme of things is not really a big deal. this story is more about how it's not always easy to predict future achievement from past results.
Post a Comment