Mike Boyle Banned by the NSCA

Off Topic
1

On a mail list for Mike Boyle, just received this email this morning, here it is in full. Not that I necessarily agree with everything Boyle teaches, but shouldn’t it be about making your mind up for yourself anyway?

I received word a few months ago that I have been
uninvited as speaker by the NSCA for this summers
national conference. I struggled with whether or not to
make this public but, after much thought I have decided
to post it here. Unofficial word is that I am too controversial.
Itâ??s funny that I could speak effectively for free, be one
of the highest rated speakers at a number of different
NSCA conferences, draw a large audience and suddenly
find out that I am no longer qualified.

The reason I have
decided to make my situation public is that it appears the
NSCA is in the censorship business these days.

Suddenly Iâ??m too controversial.

Seems strange to me.

NSCA Executive Director Robert Jursnick had this to
say in response to my email questions about my â??banâ??
â??The NSCA Conference Committee has the right and
obligation to select qualified presenters and content to
present at all NSCA Conferencesâ?¦ The decision made
regarding your not presenting at the 2010 National
Conference followed all the correct processes and procedures.â??

Strange but sources have told me the conference
committee doesnâ??t meet at mid year. Itâ??s even more
strange that suddenly my qualifications and content are
deemed inadequate for the NSCA.

Why did this happen you ask?

Here are the reasons I have gathered. However, for some
reason no one from the NSCA wants to go on the record
beyond the quote above. I have spoken to people with
NSCA ties who have even asked that I not even make
this ban public.

1- My views on lower body training and aerobic
conditioning are frowned on by members of the selection
committee. I really hope this is not the reason. This
would be the highest degree of censorship.

2- I have openly criticized the NSCA on my website.
Guilty as charged. I did write a strengthcoach.com forum
post critical of the certification process and I stand by
what I said. â??the NSCA certification test is the opinion of
certain members of the NSCA committee. If you want to pass,
simply study the answers in the bookâ??.

The NSCA certification also lacks any practical experience
component allowing anyone to be a CSCS with no actual
on-the-floor experience. I have said that before and I will
say it again as it is true. I also stated â??The NSCAâ??s primary
method of revenue generation is through the selling of
certificationâ??. Does the NSCA have another major
revenue method I am unaware of?

3- I have been unprofessional in my criticism of other
practitioners. I think this part is clearly unjustified. I
have openly criticized concepts and ideas espoused by
other professionals. I have often done it while the people
whose ideas were being discussed were in the room.

Anyone who has seen me speak knows that I always
make the point of distinguishing between disagree and
dislike. I donâ??t think it is healthy to adopt an attitude of
never criticizing another speaker or writer. We are all
big boys. If we choose to write articles, speak at conferences
and sell educational products then we should expect critiques.

Just for the record, has anyone looked at an NSCA speaker
contract. An NSCA speaker is entitled to a $150 dollar
honorarium for their talk as well as coach airfare not to
exceed $300 dollars. In addition, the NSCA picks up
one nights hotel stay. The truth is it actually costs money
for most speakers to present at the NSCA if they are not
sponsored. We speak because we want to educate, not for
money or fame.

Education appears to be no longer in style. I guess you need
to be careful not to question any other theorists or theories.
Seems that any attempt at innovation or advancement of
learning is deemed a crime unless accompanied by university
research. Coaching innovation is no longer desired or
encouraged. The wisdom that made the NSCA was the information
gleaned from presentations by coaches working in the field.

What the NSCA appears to desire now at NSCA meetings
are presenters who will echo the feelings of the association
while taking into account the feelings of fellow presenters.

Mike Boyle
http://www.FunctionalStrengthCoach3.com

PS- make sure you donâ??t question anything that the
NSCA believes to be true. It appears that dissent will not
be tolerated. Any of those failing to carry the party line
will be swiftly punished by exclusion. If you think this is
unfair, please let your NSCA Board Members know.

There emails are below.

President Jay Hoffman - hoffmanj@tcnj.edu
Vice President Greg Haff- ghaff@hsc.wvu.edu
Secretary/Treasurer Jeff Stout- jrstout@ou.edu
Board Member Jill Bush- jillbushphd@yahoo.com
Board Member Mike Nitka- mnitka@mnsd.k12.wi.us
Board Member Juan Carlos Santana- jcs@ihpfit.com
Board Member John McCarthy- mccarthy@uab.edu
Board Member Chat Williams- chat@oklahomastrength.com
Public Member- Karen Ballek- kballek@comcast.net

2

I just got that email too.

It doesn’t surprise me. The NSCA seems married to its dogma.

At a state NSCA clinic I was at, I had the displeasure of having to sit through some salesman talk about why functional training is so great, and how to do everything he used on an every day basis. These Herculean challenges included jumping from colored spot to spot resembling hop scotch, balancing on one foot on a rubber half-ball (or as I called it, the Ankle Fucker 5000) and, yep you guessed it… exercise ball squats.

The kicker of it all is that the salesman douchebag said that this functional time wasters should be “most” of an athlete’s non-sport-specific training. Do they really think we can train competitive football players with this shit? Sure, I could see it being worth an hour or two a week, but there’s no element of overload and little progression in functional training.

But I guess that’s the way it’s going. Whatever they can do to sell more certs is all they care about.

3

I run an organization. I censor people that don’t want to toe the party line. I agree it’s about making up your mind for yourself, but you can go do that somewhere else (referring to people that want to use my organization to teach views opposite of mine).

Think about it…take it to the extreme…what if an organization that got together to teach people it was wrong to teach dogs to fight invited a speaker they felt supported them and then members complained the guy was in support of dogs fighting…wouldn’t it be their right to say, “Thanks,but not thanks?” If this involved holding a special meeting, then so be it.

Whatever ammendment addresses free speech is talking about the Federal government not being allowed to step on your right to free speech. The NSCA is not the Federal government as far as I can tell.

4

I really hope that it is reason number 2, the criticism of the NSCA itself; the other two options are in my opinion childish reasons to prevent someone from sharing their knowledge.

This is the first time I have heard of ‘dogma’ being preached by actual institutions in regards to exercise physiology (prevalent in nutritive sciences, sadly), I always thought that the BOSU-ball epidemic trainers were running around blind, rather than being taught that by a respectable institution.

I can’t see any benefit to the NCSAs decision, don’t new and better theories come from disagreements with the standing theory that are given time to debate?

5

Seems like he burned the bridge with that email.

If #1 and #2 are true, then that’d be grounds enough for me to not have him be a part of the organization or it’s functions. He clearly doesn’t agree with the NSCA, and there really should be a parting of ways.

6

[quote]silverhydra wrote:
I really hope that it is reason number 2, the criticism of the NSCA itself; the other two options are in my opinion childish reasons to prevent someone from sharing their knowledge.

This is the first time I have heard of ‘dogma’ being preached by actual institutions in regards to exercise physiology (prevalent in nutritive sciences, sadly), I always thought that the BOSU-ball epidemic trainers were running around blind, rather than being taught that by a respectable institution.

I can’t see any benefit to the NCSAs decision, don’t new and better theories come from disagreements with the standing theory that are given time to debate?[/quote]

I agree here… I never thought of the NSCA as an organization that holds so firmly to certain beliefs that it doesn’t even want any opposing ideas discussed at all. Its very possible people who can think for themselves would realize Boyle’s approach to doing Bulgarian Squats instead of back squats is dead wrong, and this may be proved over time. But to uninvite him?

I started a post on the value of the CSCS certification sometime last year, how there are too many people going around with that certification that don’t know what they are doing to make it really worthwhile. I’ve actually let my CSCS lapse and am looking to get certified by something else. I might take the CSCS exam again just because it is the cheapest. So I can then again be certified by one of the “leaders in the field” and I can just do my own research that is applicable to what it is that I do instead of the CEU’s my co-workers complete but somehow they still don’t know how to teach a lat pulldown, one arm row, squat or deadlift. Or better yet, they teach it wrong.

There’s got to be some higher quality certification that doesn’t cost 3,000.

7

[quote]sen say wrote:
what if an organization that got together to teach people it was wrong to teach dogs to fight invited a speaker they felt supported them and then members complained the guy was in support of dogs fighting…wouldn’t it be their right to say, “Thanks,but not thanks?” If this involved holding a special meeting, then so be it.[/quote]
I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. It would be more like an anti-dog fighting group inviting a speaker who says the best way to stop dogs from fighting is with a rolled-up newspaper across the nose, rather than with positive reinforcement. Different methods, same end goal. As long as that end result is the same, isn’t the method at least worth learning?

It’s an issue of people having an idea about how things “should” be done, and them not being open for other effective alternatives. That’s a sad state of affairs in the fitness world. Hell, if CrossFit can invite Dave Tate to be an instructor, you’d think the NSCA could be similarly open-minded.

A few years ago, Mark Rippetoe officially resigned his CSCS certification and also parted ways with the NSCA. He was literally one of the first people certified by them, but he said that their focus had shifted too far from actual strength and conditioning (the SC in NSCA) for him to be maintain a comfortable affiliation.

8

And another thing. There was an email sent out by Precision Nutrition’s Berardi talking about how the best trainers all have multiple certifications. My own experience is that those are some of the worst trainers. Why? They have redundant certifications that in general cover the same material. It says nothing about how much research an individual does on his or her own to really try to learn. Instead, those certifications are a cover for what someone really knows.

9

[quote]sen say wrote:
I run an organization. I censor people that don’t want to toe the party line. I agree it’s about making up your mind for yourself, but you can go do that somewhere else (referring to people that want to use my organization to teach views opposite of mine).

Think about it…take it to the extreme…what if an organization that got together to teach people it was wrong to teach dogs to fight invited a speaker they felt supported them and then members complained the guy was in support of dogs fighting…wouldn’t it be their right to say, “Thanks,but not thanks?” If this involved holding a special meeting, then so be it.

Whatever amendment addresses free speech is talking about the Federal government not being allowed to step on your right to free speech. The NSCA is not the Federal government as far as I can tell.[/quote]

Exactly, you don’t call the boss a fucking idiot and expect to be kept around. If Boyle had a staff member who was running around openly criticizing him I doubt he would keep them on either.

And giving out the board member’s personal emails on the web so they will be flooded with hate mail from Boyle’s fanboy club is very childish and unprofessional.

But don’t worry as got the “Banned Part 2” spam today where Boyle uses the issue to plug his other products and seminars. Get the fanboys all emotionally wound up then use it to make some cash. Very classy.

10

[quote]Shadowzz4 wrote:
And another thing. There was an email sent out by Precision Nutrition’s Berardi talking about how the best trainers all have multiple certifications. My own experience is that those are some of the worst trainers. Why? They have redundant certifications that in general cover the same material. It says nothing about how much research an individual does on his or her own to really try to learn. Instead, those certifications are a cover for what someone really knows.[/quote]

I agree with this. But, you have to remember JB was trying to sell a certification. Which is fine, but I still disagree with someone needing a bunch of certs.

11

[quote]GreenMountains wrote:
But don’t worry as got the “Banned Part 2” spam today where Boyle uses the issue to plug his other products and seminars. Get the fanboys all emotionally wound up then use it to make some cash. Very classy.
[/quote]

You got me all curious. What was the 2nd email?

12

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

[quote]sen say wrote:
what if an organization that got together to teach people it was wrong to teach dogs to fight invited a speaker they felt supported them and then members complained the guy was in support of dogs fighting…wouldn’t it be their right to say, “Thanks,but not thanks?” If this involved holding a special meeting, then so be it.[/quote]

I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. It would be more like an anti-dog fighting group inviting a speaker who says the best way to stop dogs from fighting is with a rolled-up newspaper across the nose, rather than with positive reinforcement. Different methods, same end goal. As long as that end result is the same, isn’t the method at least worth learning?

It’s an issue of people having an idea about how things “should” be done, and them not being open for other effective alternatives. That’s a sad state of affairs in the fitness world. Hell, if CrossFit can invite Dave Tate to be an instructor, you’d think the NSCA could be similarly open-minded.

A few years ago, Mark Rippetoe officially resigned his CSCS certification and also parted ways with the NSCA. He was literally one of the first people certified by them, but he said that their focus had shifted too far from actual strength and conditioning (the SC in NSCA) for him to be maintain a comfortable affiliation.
[/quote]

I agree my comparison isn’t perfect.

Using your comparison of paper smacking rather than positive reinforcment though…I’d say take a hike if you want to teach positive reinforcement…you might think we’ll get the same end result, but me and my organization have determined (maybe based on ignorance, but it’s our ignorance) that we’re right and you’re wrong…if you want to call me and my org close-minded then so be it…go form your own organization…

I’m not trying to be a jerk and I see your point entirely…I like Mike and think the NSCA is a bunch of clowns, but if the NSCA isn’t making Mike happy he should do what Rippetoe did rather than bitch and whine.

13

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
It’s an issue of people having an idea about how things “should” be done, and them not being open for other effective alternatives. That’s a sad state of affairs in the fitness world. Hell, if CrossFit can invite Dave Tate to be an instructor, you’d think the NSCA could be similarly open-minded.

A few years ago, Mark Rippetoe officially resigned his CSCS certification and also parted ways with the NSCA. He was literally one of the first people certified by them, but he said that their focus had shifted too far from actual strength and conditioning (the SC in NSCA) for him to be maintain a comfortable affiliation.
[/quote]

Dave Tate was not invited by Crossfit, he was hired and paid to do a private seminar. The same way Louis Simmons is being paid to do the Crossfit barbell certs now.

Crossfit is finally taking some of the criticism to heart and making everyone who was previously certified come back and do another certification. Except this time there will be a test at the end of it, and you simply don’t pay a grand to get a piece of paper entitling you to coach people who don’t know any better. At least they are working on some quality control issues, which will filter out the nutjobs who do one crossfit workout then decide they are going to open a crossfit gym and start training people.

Rippetoe’s criticisms of the NSCA are expaned upon in his “Strong Enough: Thoughts from 30 Years of Basic Barbell Training”. It’s a cronyistic organization, and most of the people who publish the journals are also the ones writing or editing the papers. There is no oversight or pressure within the organization to evolve or even put out quality material. The studies are retarded and generally involve poor science.

Plus Chris, as you mentioned there is the ‘dinosaur’ aspect where you have guys controlling the information and material. I don’t know if they are worried about keeping their jobs or what, but it is stupid and discourages the natural tendency of science to expose new insights that change the current theories.

It’s pretty sad. Same thing with certified nutritionists.

The good thing is, there is now room for qualified people who have good material that can help change people’s lives for the better getting in on it. Berardi’s got his Precision Nutrition Certification out and Rip started his own barbell certification business. Its only a matter of time that these guys start getting the credibility they deserve, and the information starts trickling down to your typical slob American.

14

This seems to be a trend in fitness industry organizations.

A friend of mine has been involved in an organization that does a certain type of treatment for muscle adhesions and whatnot. He has instructed at the highest levels, promoted the treatment as per their program, worked with a stable of college level and professional athletes, the whole nine yards.

When he asked about being paid for his time and effort as an instructor though, the organization got very cold to him very quickly. All of a sudden his services were no longer necessary.

Seems Boyle has run into the same wall with the NSCA. These fitness organizations don’t seem to respond well when a “respected” member tries to reverse the flow of money. They become former members very quickly.

15

Whats the big deal? Mike Boyle pisses on everyone and expects some sort of differential treatment because he’s Mike fucking Boyle, the dude who can’t teach his high school softball players to power clean correctly. Check out his Youtube Channel, seriously some of the most atrocious shit I’ve ever seen:

The dude gets into the business of sniping at other professionals as a means of promoting himself and he gets burned. Sounds appropriate to me.

Perhaps the fact that Boyle and his opinions on the aforementioned areas are in agreeance with the vast MINORITY of S&C professionals should tell us something here. The guy is a kook and trying to sell his shit on the grounds that it must be better because it’s different.

The idea that Boyle and his philosophies are being rejected on the grounds that they are DIFFERENT is stupid. New and entirely different methodologies and modalities are constantly being introduced and embraced. It’s when someone introduces something entirely idiotic and then continuously pushes it and takes jabs at those who don’t accept his ineffective, entirely idiotic position that they are rejected.

Those who know their shit don’t need gimmicks to drum up attention or business. Mike Boyle’s entire philosophy is based solely on an ever changing array of gimmicks. I don’t blame the NSCA for distancing themselves from him.

16

Fuck the NSCA.

17

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Check out his Youtube Channel, seriously some of the most atrocious shit I’ve ever seen:

[/quote]

Those are some really bad cleans.

18

[quote]lavi wrote:

[quote]GreenMountains wrote:
But don’t worry as got the “Banned Part 2” spam today where Boyle uses the issue to plug his other products and seminars. Get the fanboys all emotionally wound up then use it to make some cash. Very classy.
[/quote]

You got me all curious. What was the 2nd email?[/quote]

"Just wanted to take a second and thank everyone
who emailed me, posted on my blog, replied via
Facebook, and or sent emails to our NSCA reps.

I think it is funny. One reader received an email back
from a board member that said that I was overreacting
and â??personalizingâ?? my ban and that next year I would
be welcomed back with open arms. I guess the NSCA
doesnâ??t get it. In fact, I know the NSCA doesnâ??t get it.

I donâ??t think Iâ??ll ever speak at or attend another NSCA
event. But, you never know, I do change my mind a lot.

In either case, thanks for all the kind words and support.
Itâ??s nice to know that people are concerned. The important
thing to think about is who else is not being allowed to
speak and why. Maybe we could ask the NSCA to publish a
list if speakers who are rejected? My advice, seek alternate
ways to get CEUâ??s.

As you well know you wonâ??t get a chance to hear me
speak at this summerâ??s NSCA National Conference but
there are still plenty of opportunities. Next Saturday is
the Perform Better One Day in Phoenix. Iâ??ll be there with
Gray Cook, Todd Durkin and Alwyn Cosgrove. Iâ??ll also be
speaking at the Perform Better Summits in Providence,
Chicago and Long Beach

In addition Iâ??ll be speaking in Pensacola Florida at the
Andrews Institute Injuries in Football Conference on
Saturday April 24th. I donâ??t have sign up info for this
as it looks like an MD centered event.

Iâ??ll also be speaking at two conferences in Germany in
conjunction with the 2010 World Championships the
week of May 7-15.

Last but not least Iâ??ll have the honor of speaking to
both the NBA and NHL strength and conditioning
coaches at their annual meetings in conjunction with
the their respective combines.

All in all not a bad schedule for a guy no longer qualified
for the NSCA circuit. My advice. Save your money and
hit the Perform Better Summit. Itâ??s the best education
value for the dollar available.

Thank you again for your support, I greatly appreciate it.

Mike Boyle"