Upon Further Review: An Examination of Sporting Event Economic Impact Studies

U.S. Sports Academy2016-10-12T11:40:57-05:00February 14th, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Facilities, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|

As pointed out by Soonhwan Lee (2001) in a recent issue of The Sport Journal, there exists a great deal of debate about the validity of economic impact studies of sporting events. Economists widely believe that studies sponsored by leagues and events exaggerate the economic impact that professional franchises and large sporting events make on local communities. Such overstatement results from several factors.

First, the studies often ignore the substitution effect. To the extent that attendees at a sporting event spend their money on that event instead of on other activities in the local economy, the sporting event simply results in reallocation of expenditures in the economy, rather than in real net increases in economic activity. Next, the studies usually ignore the crowd out effect. Many large sporting events are staged in communities that are already popular destinations for tourists. If hotels and restaurants in a host city normally tend to be at or near capacity during the period in which a competition takes place, that contest may simply supplant, not supplement, the regular tourist economy. Third, the studies may fail to address whether money spent at a sporting event stays within the local economy. Much of the money spent by out-of-town visitors pays for hotel rooms, rental cars, and restaurants. To the extent that hotels, car rental agencies, and restaurants are national chains, their profits associated with a sporting event do not further the welfare of the local citizens, but rather accrue to stockholders around the country. Similarly, revenue from ticket sales is often paid to a league or to a sport’s ruling body instead of local organizers. Fourth, sporting events’ non-economic costs—traffic congestion, vandalism, environmental degradation, disruption of residents’ lifestyle, and so on—are rarely reported (Lee, 2001). Finally, since economic impact studies are often used by sports boosters to justify public expenditures on sports infrastructure, the ultimate question for anyone reading such studies is whether analysis conducted by agents with a vested interest in the research outcome can ever be considered an objective examination of events’ true economic impacts.

Empirical Analyses of Economic Impact Statements

It is one thing to point out bias that could potentially be introduced in impact studies. It is another thing altogether to examine whether actual economic impact studies are, in practice, truly flawed. One tool that can be used to determine the accuracy of economic impact studies is ex post comparisons of predicted economic gains to actual economic performance of cities hosting sporting events. Empirical studies have been conducted on the observed economic impacts of large sporting events as well as on the construction of new sport facilities.

On the sport facility side, numerous researchers have examined the relationship between new facilities and economic growth in metropolitan areas (Baade & Dye, 1990; Rosentraub, 1994; Baade, 1996; Noll & Zimbalist, 1997; Coates & Humphreys, 1999). In every case, independent analysis of economic impacts made by newly built stadiums and arenas has uniformly found no statistically significant positive correlation between sport facility construction and economic development (Siegfried & Zimbalist, 2000). This stands in stark contrast to the claims of teams and leagues, who assert that the large economic benefits of professional franchises merit considerable public expenditures on stadiums and arenas.

On the events side, nearly every national or international sporting event elicits claims of huge benefits accruing to the host city. For example, the National Football League typically claims an economic impact from the Super Bowl of around $400 million (National Football League, 1999), Major League Baseball attaches a $75 million benefit to the All-Star Game (Selig et al., 1999), and the NCAA Final Four in Men’s Basketball is estimated to generate from $30 million to $110 million (Mensheha, 1998; Anderson, 2001). Multi-day events such as the Olympics or soccer World Cup produce even larger figures. The pre-Olympics estimates for Atlanta’s Games in 1996 suggested the event would generate $5.1 billion in direct and indirect economic activity and 77,000 new jobs in Georgia (Humphreys & Plummer, 1995).

In many cases, variation in the estimates of benefits alone raises questions about the validity of studies. A series of economic impact studies of the NBA All-Star game produced numbers ranging from a $3 million windfall for the 1992 game in Orlando to a $35 million bonanza for the game three years earlier in Houston (Houck, 2000). The ten-fold disparity in the estimated impact of the event in different years serves to illustrate the ad hoc nature of these studies. Similarly, ahead of the 1997 NCAA Women’s Basketball Final Four, an economic impact of $7 million was estimated for the local economy in Cincinnati, while the same event two years later was predicted to produce a $32 million impact on the San Jose economy (Knight Ridder News Service, 1999). Such increases cannot be explained by changes in general price levels or growth in the popularity of the tournament. Instead, they are explained by the fact that economic impact studies are highly subjective and vulnerable to significant error as well as manipulation.

In further cases, the size of an estimate can strain credulity. The Sports Management Research Institute estimated the direct economic benefit of the U. S. Open tennis tournament in Flushing Meadows, NY, to be $420 million for the tri-state area, more than any other sporting or entertainment event in any city in the United States; this sum represents 3% of the total annual direct economic impact of tourism for New York (United States Tennis Association, 2001). It is simply impossible to believe that 1 in 30 tourists to New York City in any given year are visiting the city solely to attend the U. S. Open. Similarly, the projected $6 billion impact of a proposed World Cup in South Africa in 2006 would suggest that soccer games and their ancillary activities would represent over 4% of the entire gross domestic product of the country in that year (South Africa Football Association, 2000).

As in the case of sports facilities, independent work on the economic impact of mega–sporting events has routinely found the effect of these events on host communities to be either insignificant or an order of magnitude less than the figures espoused by the sports promoters. In a study of six Super Bowls dating back to 1979, Porter (1999) found no increase in taxable sales in the host community compared to previous years without the game. Similarly, Baade and Matheson (2000) found that hosting the Super Bowl was associated with an increase in employment in host cities of 537 jobs, for a total impact of approximately $32 million, less than one-tenth the figure trumpeted by the NFL. In a study of 25 Major League Baseball all-star games held between 1973 and 1997, Baade and Matheson (2001) found that, in the case of three all-star games in California (1987, 1989, 1992), the events were correlated with worse-than-expected employment growth in host cities and were furthermore associated with an average reduction in taxable sales of nearly $30 million. Finally, Baade and Matheson’s examination (1999) of the Olympic Games held in Los Angeles in 1984 and Atlanta in 1996 found total observed increases in economic activity of $100 million and of $440 million to $1.7 billion, respectively. While the range of the economic impact for Atlanta exhibits a great deal of uncertainty, even the most favorable figure is only one-third of the amount claimed by the host committee.

Discussion and Recommendation

There are theoretical reasons to believe that economic impact studies of large sporting events may overstate those events’ true impact. In addition, evidence suggests that in practice the ex ante estimates of economic benefits far exceed the ex post observed economic development of communities that host mega–sporting events or stadium construction. The best recommendation is simply for cities to view with extreme caution any economic impact estimates provided by sports franchises, sponsoring leagues, or event-organizing committees.

References

Anderson, T. (2001, January 19). St. Louis ready to raise NCAA flag if Atlanta can’t. St. Louis Business Journal.

Baade, R. A. (1996). Professional sports as a catalyst for metropolitan economic development. Journal of Urban Affairs, 18(1), 1–17.

Baade, R. A., & Dye, R. (1990). The impact of stadiums and professional sports on metropolitan area development. Growth and Change, 21(2), 1–14.

Baade, R. A., & Matheson, V. A. (2000). An assessment of the economic impact of American football, Reflets et Perspectives, 34(2–3), 35–46.

Baade, R. A., & Matheson, V. A. (2001). Home run or wild pitch? Assessing the economic impact of Major League Baseball’s All-Star Game. Journal of Sports Economics, 2(4), 307–327.

Baade, R. A., & Matheson, V. A. (in press). Assessing the economic impact of the summer Olympic Games: The experience of Los Angeles and Atlanta. Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on the Economic Impact of Sports, Athens, Greece.

Coates, D., & Humphreys, B. (1999). The growth effects of sports franchises, stadia, and arenas. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 14(4), 601–624.

Enquirer Sports Coverage. (1999, March 25). Final Four’s financial impact hard to gauge. Retrieved August 30, 2001, from http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1999/02/25/spt_final_fours.html.

Houck, J. (2000, January 21). High-stake courtship. FoxSportsBiz.com. Retrieved September 14, 2000, from http://www.foxsports.com/business/trends/z000120allstar1.sml.

Humphreys, J. M., & Plummer, M. K. (1995). The economic impact on the state of Georgia of hosting the 1996 summer Olympic Games (mimeograph). Athens, GA: University of Georgia, Selig Center for Economic Growth.

Lee, S. (2001). A review of economic impact study on sport events. The Sport Journal, 4(2).

Mensheha, M. (1998, March 27). Home-court edge: Final Four promises to be economic slam dunk. San Antonio Business Journal.

National Football League. (1999). Super Bowl XXXIII generates $396 million for South Florida [Report 58(7)].

Noll, R., & Zimbalist, A. (1997). Economic impact of sports teams and facilities. In Sports, Jobs and Taxes. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.

Porter, P. (1999). Mega–sports events as municipal investments: A critique of impact analysis. In Fizel, J., Gustafson, E., & Hadley, L. (Eds.), Sports economics: Current research. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Rosentraub, M. (1994). Sport and downtown development strategy. Journal of Urban Affairs, 16(3), 228–239.

Seigfried, J., and Zimbalist, A. (2000). Economics of sports facilities and their communities. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 95–114.

Selig, B., Harrington, J., & Healey, J. (1999, July 12). New ballpark press briefing. Retrieved August 29, 2000, from http://www.asapsports.com/baseball/1999allstar/071299BS.html.

South Africa Football Association. (2000). World Cup bid details. Retrieved January 9, 2002, from http://www.safa.ord.za/html/bid_det.htm.

United States Tennis Association. (2001). 2000 U.S. Open nets record $420 million in economic benefits for New York. Retrieved January 9, 2002, from http://www.usta.com/pagesup/news12494.html.

Artists & Athletes: A Perspective on the 2002 Olympic Arts Festival

U.S. Sports Academy2017-08-07T15:10:44-05:00February 14th, 2008|Sports Facilities, Sports History|

It is right and proper that cultural programs are a required part of the Olympic Games. To a certain extent, history has driven the integration of cultural programs into the Olympic Games. And, just as both Olympic and Paralympic winter games highlight the accomplishments of our athletes, it is noble and right to similarly celebrate, through Cultural Olympiads, the achievements of our artists.

Thanks to the tireless efforts of archeologists and anthropologists, we have come to appreciate the significance of the Ancient Games and their role in merging sport and culture. Surely this had influenced, in the late 19th century, Baron Pierre de Coubertin and his interest in the integration of art, principally through competitions, as an element in the re-establishment of the modern Olympic Games. Today, Conrado Durantez, president of the International Pierre de Coubertin Committee, keeps interest in de Coubertin and his Olympic legacy thriving.

David Gilman Romano, Ph.D., the gifted classical archaeologist from the University of Pennsylvania, in an essay it was my privilege to commission, said “[C]ultural programs as required elements of the modern Olympic Games are totally in keeping with the origins and history of the ancient festival, where sculpture, poetry, music, and political idealism were bound together with athletic competition and religious celebration.” Romano reminds us that the Delphi festival originated as a musical tribute to Apollo Pythios. Contests in singing to the flute appeared in the sixth century BC, and it was only later that athletic contests were added. I find it both compelling and fitting that the very earliest text in the entire Greek world is scratched into the shoulder of a terra-cotta vase found buried in an Athenian grave. It is a hexameter poem that describes the winner of a dancing contest from about 740 BC. It reads, “[H]e who dances most nimbly of all, take this [the vase] as your prize.” For me, this suggests not only a substantive chronicling of the Olympics, but the influential role artists have played, over the centuries, in the Olympic Movement. The Olympic motto, Citius—Altius—Fortius, invites artists to excel.

In his work The Forgotten Olympic Art Competitions, Richard Stanton explores the program of a conference in Paris in April 1906 called by de Coubertin, at which choreography, letters, music, painting, sculpture, and other disciplines were detailed and discussed. The inclusion of arts and letters in the modern Olympics was under way.

Today, the Olympic Charter binds organizing committees to “promote harmonious relations, mutual understanding and friendship among the participants and others attending the Olympic Games,” in part through the establishment of a cultural program. With proper latitude for local customs and traditions—combined with oversight from the International Olympic Committee’s Commission on Culture and Olympic Education—today’s organizing committees can, through a well-curated Olympic Arts Festival, impact the games and leave a cultural legacy for them.

These few examples of ancient and contemporary history have helped define the role of the 2002 Cultural Olympiad, or Olympic Arts Festival, surrounding the Olympic and Paralympic winter games of 2002. Essays on the Ancient Games, on the role of artists who live with disabilities, and on the connection of human rights within the context of Olympic ideals have all helped provide a perspective and point of view to my selection of programming for the XIX Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City. So, too, has a commissioned work by the 39th poet laureate of the United States, Robert Pinsky, who in his poem calls upon the ancient Greek poet Pindar.

The ancient Olympic practice of chariot racing and the forgotten Olympic art competitions of the 20th century have suggested to me the legitimate placement of ice sculpting and the cultural experience of rodeo as a part of the 2002 festival, with accompanying cultural participation medals.

With all of this, however, the raison d’être of the 2002 Cultural Olympiad is the commissioning of new works by contemporary artists. This alone will define a cultural legacy for these Olympic Games. My programming includes a new modern dance work choreographed by Judith Jaimison for the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater, the world cultural ambassador of black heritage. With music by America’s jazz great Wynton Marsalis, the inspiration behind this new work is the life of the gifted Olympian Florence Griffith Joyner. It seems to me a fine way to merge sport and art. Another example is the commissioned work of the Pilobolus dance company that will combine humor with athleticism.

In his work One Hundred Years of Olympic Congresses 1894–1994, Norbert Muller reports that the aforementioned 1906 Paris conference recommended (in point of fact demanded) that dance be returned to a “more athletic way of expression.” I suggest that the Ailey and Pilobolus works will fulfill the 1906 mandate.

The monumental glass sculptures of Dale Chihuly resist categorization, yet if sculpture were an Olympic sport today, Chihuly would be an Olympian. Similar examples in theater, poetry, music, and the visual arts abound in this 2002 Cultural Olympiad.

It is fitting as well that the Olympic Arts Festival was called upon to produce the opening ceremony of the 113th session of the International Olympic Committee. This program of protocol, pageantry, and culture will reflect the vision of the 2002 Olympic Arts Festival: to highlight the achievements of athletes alongside the accomplishments of artists. This is what we aspire to. To get there, the Olympic Arts Festival established a mission to highlight Americans’ contributions to the arts and humanities, to celebrate Utah and its heritage, and to embrace the West and its cultures.

Artists live and work in community and have the singular ability to find the uncommon in the commonplace. The 2002 Olympic Arts Festival is artist driven. For, like athletes, artists live on the verge of peril.

The indigenous peoples of North America (the American Indians) play a significant and contemporary role in the arts festival. All the tribes of the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau will gather together to curate an exhibition whose message is durability. The monumental sculptures of Allan Houser, a descendent of Chiricahua Apache Indians and one of America’s most influential and respected artists, will be on view throughout these Olympic Games.

While athletes inspire the world through peaceful competition at the 2002 Olympic Winter Games and Paralympic Winter Games, I have invited the 13th Reebok Human Rights Awards to the Olympic Arts Festival to recognize activists who have made significant contributions to human rights through nonviolent means. Norwegian photographer Karin Beate Nosterun will celebrate the work of Olympic Aid in an exhibition of vivid photographs documenting the organization’s efforts for refugee children in Africa.

In music, iconic American ensembles and soloists with international careers—such as the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, Itzhak Perlman, Frederica von Stade, and many others—will be featured.

For perhaps the first time, we will celebrate as well the culinary arts. Following select cultural experiences, I’ve called upon the James Beard Foundation to arrange for celebrity chefs to complement the artistic offerings. Some 50 chefs will celebrate “the art of the table.”

In addition, historical subjects will be addressed, in the light of current research. The 1936 Berlin Games are explored in an exhibition curated by the National Holocaust Museum. Another exhibition, “Homeland in the West,” traces the history of Jews in Utah. Additionally, in “Athletes in Antiquity: Works from the J. Paul Getty Museum,” art and artifacts illustrating Greece’s cultural legacy are showcased.

In all, some 15 exhibitions, 60 signature performances and special events, and 15 community celebrations will welcome both world visitors and 3,500 athletes from 80 countries. These audiences are assured, in an important way, of a place in the Olympic Movement. Their participation in the 2002 Olympic Arts Festival will help define the atmosphere of the games. If history is any judge, it will be an atmosphere fondly remembered.

Author Note

Raymond T. Grant is artistic director of the 2002 Olympic Arts Festival.

Prior to joining the Salt Lake Olympic Committee, he headed the performing arts and film area of the Disney Institute, a division of the Walt Disney Company. He previously served as general manager of the American Symphony Orchestra in Carnegie Hall in New York City.

He is a graduate of the University of Kansas and holds a master of arts degree in arts administration from New York University.

Effects Music Has on Lap Pace, Heart Rate and Perceived Exertion Rate During a 20-Minute Self-Paced Run

U.S. Sports Academy2016-10-12T13:12:50-05:00February 14th, 2008|Sports Coaching, Sports Exercise Science, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|

Abstract

The general problem of this study was to determine the effect, if any, that music had on heart rate, lap pace, and perceived exertion rate (RPE) during a 20-min self-paced run completed by a group of trained participants and a group of untrained participants. The participating subjects, all males, attended a college with an enrollment of 1,200. There were 12 participants, ranging in age from 18 to 23 years. They comprised two experimental groups. Experimental Group A consisted of 6 subjects who were considered untrained individuals, because they did not partake in exercise, or only in very limited exercise. Experimental Group B consisted of 6 subjects who were considered trained individuals, because they were in the habit of running more than three times a week to reach or exceed a target heart rate. The 12 subjects signed an informed consent form before participating in the study. No pre- or post-test capable of affecting the rate at which subjects completed the 20-min run was taken. The data were collected, condensed, and analyzed to measure performance differences when running to music and running without music. Analysis of the collected data employed Microsoft Excel as well as the t-test for the two samples’ means. Findings were that music had a noticeable effect on the pace demonstrated by both groups when running. Differences in heart rate and perceived exertion were found only in the untrained group, which may be due to source of error problems. Further research is recommended involving various styles of music and forms of athletic performance other than running.

(more…)

Drug Use by College Athletes: Is Random Testing an Effective Deterrent?

U.S. Sports Academy2013-11-26T21:45:07-06:00February 14th, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|

Abstract

Incidence
of anabolic steroid use among college athletes is about 1%,
with another 12% considered at-risk in that they would use
such drugs under the right circumstances. This study aimed
to determine if volunteer drug testing, without fear of penalty,
would result in positive identification of drug use, or if
the testing alone is a deterrent. A group of 197 college athletes,
all of who denied drug use, voluntarily and anonymously supplied
urine samples. Average T/E ratio was 1.33 ± 0.86, with
two cases (1.1%) above the accepted ratio. We conclude that
T/E ratio testing is effective in detecting use of performance-enhancing
drugs and that testing itself, although an effective deterrent
to drug use, may not eliminate drug use among college athletes.

Introduction

Athletes
have used performance-enhancing drugs for decades. In 1968
the International Olympic Committee (IOC) banned the use of
performance-enhancing substances to promote fair play in competition.
At that time the banned substances were primarily anabolic
steroids and amphetamines. Other athletic associations and
sport governing bodies soon followed suit by adopting similar
bans, including the National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA) which adopted a drug-testing program to promote fair
and equitable competition and to safeguard the health and
safety of student-athletes. Since then the specified number
of banned substances has risen dramatically as athletes are
driven to finding new ways to obtain a competitive edge and/or
to avoid detection. Currently the NCAA promotes drug education
and mandates that each athletic department conduct a drug
and alcohol education program once a semester, presumably
to increase the athletes’ understanding of the drug-testing
program and to promote the avoidance of drug use.

Despite
these regulations, the incidence of anabolic steroid use among
athletes has not decreased, and, in some instances, has increased
(Catlin & Murray, 1996). In general, the decision to not
use drugs is felt to be related more to the fear of reprisal
than to health issues, and users continue to look for ways
to avoid detection rather than decide not to use these banned
substances. Tricker and Connolly (1997) reported an 8% rate
of anabolic steroid use in college athletes over a lifetime
and a 1% use within the past six months. In addition they
identified about 12% at-risk athletes, i.e., they would use
steroids under the right circumstances. Those circumstances
were largely defined as the ability to achieve their athletic
potential without testing positive for use.

The
purpose of this study was to examine T/E ratios in a group
of college athletes who volunteered for testing under the
conditions of anonymity and therefore had no fear of reprisal.
The T/E ratio was chosen because of its low false-positive
rate (0.1%). We aimed to determine if the anticipated results
of no positive test results would occur, or if there might
be any positive test results with the threat of reprisal removed.

Method

Subjects

A
group of 206 male varsity or junior varsity NCAA Division
I college athletes identified themselves as not currently
taking nutritional supplements or performance-enhancing drugs
and volunteered to provide a urine sample for testing. Because
the testing was done anonymously, there was no fear of reprisal
from submitting to the testing. Nine samples were contaminated
during processing and were eliminated, leaving a study group
of 197 college athletes, all of whom would presumably have
negative test results.

Testing
Procedure

Urinary
specimens were examined for the ratio of testosterone (T)
to epitestosterone (E). The accepted standard for identifying
anabolic steroid use was used with a T/E ratio above 6:1 as
a positive indication of doping (Catlin et al.,1996; International
Olympic Committee, 1982). All urine specimens were run on
HP 599SC gas chromatography – mass spectrometry (Hewlett Packard
Company, Avondale, Pennsylvania) using standard testing procedures
(Borts & Bowers, 2000; Dehennin, 1994; Ismail & Harkness,
1966; van de Kerkhof, De Boer, Thijssen, & Maes, 2000).
Because there is a small incidence of false positive results,
it is recommended that additional testing be done on those
whose T/E ratios exceed 6:1 before legal action is considered
(Dehennin & Scholler, 1990). However, in this study, no
additional testing was done as the athlete could not be identified
and there would be no punitive action. It is also known that
there are athletes who use exogenous testosterone, yet their
T/E ratio never exceeds 6:1 (Garle, Ocka, Palonek, & Bjorkhem,
1996).

Results

The
average testosterone/epitestosterone (T/E) ratio was 1.33:1
± 0.86 (mean ± standard deviation). Two of the
197 (1.1%) athletes tested had T/E ratios greater than the
accepted international standard (12:1 and 9:1) and, thus,
had positive test results. Thus, the specificity of the T/E
testing in this study group was 195/197 (98%) as all subjects
were presumably drug-free.

Discussion

Our
data confirms that the T/E ratio testing is at least 98% accurate,
depending upon the true drug status of the two individuals
who had abnormal T/E ratios in this study. The two specimens
with ratios higher than the accepted norm were not verified
with further testing, and, therefore, it is not know whether
these two cases represented true or false positives. If we
assume that those two athletes were, in fact, taking performance
enhancing drugs, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, of
the T/E ratio testing becomes 100%.

The
fact that two athletes tested positive under the study conditions
is interesting. Although only those who professed that they
did not use any performance-enhancing drugs were recruited
for the study, perhaps those two athletes thought they might
draw attention by their lack of participation and possibly
be singled out for sanctioned testing in the future if they
chose not to participate. Since there was no fear of personal
identification or of reprisal for positive test results, they
may have felt participation was risk-free regardless, or they
simply may have felt that they could beat the system or wanted
to test the system to see if they might go undetected.

Confirmation
or refutation in the two positive cases was not pursued. However
it is felt that most likely these were true positives. The
reasons for this assumption are based on known percentages
of drug use among college athletes and previous reports of
the incidence of false positive results on initial testing.
Tricker and Connolly (1997) reported a 1% use of anabolic
steroids within the past six months in their survey of 563
college athletes. Catlin and Murray (1996) reported a similar
percentage in Olympic athletes over a nine-year period and,
over a three-year period in NCAA football players, the average
was also approximately 1%. On the other hand, Dehennin and
Scholler (1990) reported the incidence of false positives
at 15 per 10,000 (0.15%). The two positive results in this
group of 197 college athletes represented 1.1% of the study
group, and this percentage would be consistent with the anticipated
number of positive results in a random sample of male college
athletes.

The
more important issue is that the use of anabolic steroids
among athletes, although not increasing, has not diminished
under the current testing programs. Even in this study, where
volunteer athletes were recruited to participate only if they
were non-users, positive test results occurred. This is not
to say that the testing programs are ineffective, but they
are not entirely effective in acting as a deterrent to drug
use. The fear of testing positive and risking disqualification
or sanction clearly deters a certain percentage of athletes
considered at risk for drug use, but others continue to use
drugs and either hope to or try to beat the system. Testing
programs vary among sports governing agencies. At the 1996
Olympics Games in Atlanta, approximately 18% of athletes were
tested after their events including all medallists and one
or two others at random (Catlin and Murray, 1996). Random
testing leaves a chance for an athlete to avoid detection,
yet testing of all athletes one or more times during a season
is cost-prohibitive. In addition, those motivated to gain
a competitive edge, legal or otherwise, will seek novel ways
to avoid detection, including taking masking substances.

Drug
use is a serious concern, not only for the concepts of integrity
and fair play in competitive sports, but because of the health
threats to the athletes. Certainly drug testing programs should
continue with increasing numbers of athletes being tested
and increasing penalties for detection, since these are most
likely means of deterrence. Drug education programs must also
continue in a further attempt to curtail the use of illegal
performance-enhancing drugs by empowering the young athlete
with the information and skills to make responsible and healthy
decisions.

Conclusion

Drug
testing programs are designed to promote fair play and deter
drug use among athletes. Under conditions of anonymity a group
of professed non-user athletes volunteered for drug testing.
Two positive results were identified indicating the importance
of continued testing and need for further testing and education,
as testing alone is not a sufficient deterrent to eliminate
drug use among college athletes.

Acknowledgement

This
study was supported by a student institutional grant by and
performed at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.
References

1. Borts, D. J., & Bowers, L. D. (2000). Direct measurement
   of urinary testosterone and epitestosterone conjugates using
   high-performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry.
   Journal of Mass Spectrometry, 35, 50-61.
2. Catlin, D. H., Cowan. D.A., De la Torre. R., Donike, M.,
   Fraisse, D., Oftebro H., Hatton, C.K., Starcevic, B., Becchi,
   M., de la Torre, X., Norli, H., Geyer, H., & Walker,
   C.J. (1996). Urinary testosterone (T) to epitestosterone
   (E) ratios by GC/MS. I. Initial comparison of uncorrected
   T/E in six international laboratories. Journal of Mass Spectrometry,
   31, 297-402.
3. Catlin, D. H., & Murray, T. H. (1996). Performance-enhancing
   drugs, fair competition, and Olympic sport. Journal of the
   American Medical Association, 276, 231-237.
4. Dehennin, L. (1994). On the origin of physiologically high
   ratios of urinary testosterone to epitestosterone: consequences
   for reliable detection of testosterone administration by
   male athletes. Journal of Endocrinology, 142, 353-360.
5. Dehennin, L., & Scholler, R. (1990) Detection of self-administration
   of testosterone as an anabolic by determination of the ratio
   of urinary testosterone to urinary epitestosterone in adolescents.
   Pathologie Biologie (Paris), 38, 920-922.
6. Garle, M., Ocka, R., Palonek, E., & Bjorkhem, I. (1996).
   Increased urinary testosterone/epitestosterone ratios found
   in Swedish athletes in connection with a national control
   program. Evaluation of 28 cases. Journal of Chromatography
   B Biomedical Applications, 687, 55-59.
7. International Olympic Committee. (1982). International Olympic
   Committee Definition of Doping and List of Doping Classes
   and Methods. Lausanne, Switzerland.
8. Ismail, A. A., & Harkness, R.A. (1966). A method for
   the estimation of urinary testosterone. Biochemistry Journal,
   99, 717-725.
9. Tricker, R., & Connolly, D. (1997). Drugs and the college
   athlete: An analysis of the attitudes of student athletes
   at risk. Journal of Drug Education, 27,105-119.
10. van de Kerkhof, D.H., de Boer, D., Thijssen, J. H., &
    Maes, R. (2000). Evaluation of testosterone/epitestosterone
    ratio influential factors as determined in doping analysis.
    Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 24,102-115.

Russell
Meldrum, MD, and
Judy R. Feinberg, PhD
Indiana University
School of Medicine
Department of Orthopedic Surgery
541 Clinical Drive
Suite 600
Indianapolis, IN 46202-5111
Phone: 317-274-8318
Fax: 317-274-3702
Email: rmeldrum@iupui.edu

A Strength Training Program of “Ya-Tung” Women’s Basketball Team of Taiwan

U.S. Sports Academy2015-10-22T23:42:41-05:00February 14th, 2008|Sports Exercise Science, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology, Women and Sports|

Rebounding, jumping, shooting, and playing defense require a decent level of strength and power. A basketball player in great condition should demonstrate the endurance to run tirelessly on the court and should possess the strength to engage in the physical battles beneath the basket. There is no doubt that strength training plays an important part in building up the power to meet demands on the court (Fulton, 1992). College basketball has emphasized strength training to a great degree because it increases overall strength, flexibility, and lean body mass (Fulton, 1992). The implementation of strength training in order to increase vertical jumping ability, thereby enhancing overall sport performance, appears well founded (Renfro, 1996). This explains why college coaches prefer their players to stay involved in strength training even under the restrictive practice schedule of the NCAA.

In Taiwan, however, coaches of women’s basketball teams did not traditionally support the idea of strength training. They distrusted it (as some American coaches do, too), viewing it as a threat to players’ flexibility, athleticism, and shooting touch (Mannie & Vorkapich, 2000). Taiwanese coaches want their players to be quick and strong, but without strength training. Can such an objective be achieved?

Working since last March with the coaches of Taipei’s national women’s basketball team, the researchers observed an interesting fact. Female players with team Cathay, the perennial Taiwanese champion, were generally stronger and more “physical” than other players. The Cathay team was the only Taiwanese women’s team with a strength-training routine, so the researchers decided to study strength training in basketball more closely, designing for a rival Taiwan team called Yatung a lifting program reflecting sound basic strength-training principles.

Strength Training and Basketball

Groves and Gayle (1989) surveyed the top 100 men’s college basketball teams using data from a USA Today poll, and found that 98% of these schools had a pre-season weight-training program. In-season weight training was employed by 75% of the programs; 88% used off-season weight training for team members, and 64% used summer weight training. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that a school with in-season weight training was likely to rank higher than a school without it. While the correlation does not indicate that strength training leads to wins, but does help explain, perhaps, why 87% of coaches and athletic directors endorse strength training for their teams.

Grove and Gayle also studied physiological change in 8 college players who engaged in a year-round training program (1993). Several findings resulted from repeated ANOVA testing. First, the players experienced a decrease in the proportion of body fat. Second, lean body mass was significantly increased, although body weight did not vary much over the course of the year. Finally, players on average experienced improvement of some 27.5 lb in the bench press but did not improve significantly in terms of the height of their vertical jumps. Fulton (1992) conducted research on the combined effects of strength training and plyometrics training. In contrast to Grove and Gayle’s findings (1993), a player in Fulton’s study on average improved vertical jumps by 4.5 in following 18 weeks of training; an average player furthermore added 45 lb to his bench press performance and experienced improvement of 4% on the I-test (a test of speed and agility).

There is no data to support concerns that strength training is detrimental to shooting in basketball. Shoenfelt (1991) tested the effect of an 8-week strength-training program on the accuracy of free throws, studying 14 female collegiate players divided into two groups. Every other day, one group engaged in weight training and the other in aerobic exercise. Results showed that the immediate effect of weight training was no more detrimental (or beneficial) to free throw accuracy than the immediate effect of aerobic exercise. Kerbs (2000) studied an entire women’s basketball team, measuring free throw and speed spot shooting accuracy 8 hours after a morning weight-lifting routine. According to the study results, accuracy did not differ significantly between days when the weight-lifting routine was followed and days when it was not followed. The results, then, indicated that these players could continue with a regular lifting program on game-day mornings without losing shooting accuracy.

The results of these studies indicate that basketball players experience more advantages than disadvantages from strength training, even on game days. The conclusion reached is that strength training for basketball players is beneficial to their overall development as athletes.

A typical strength-training program for women collegiate basketball players resembles one for men’s team players (Owens, 1998). General exercises (such as the squat and the split-squat) are often used to strengthen the muscles involved in jumping and running (Renfro, 1996). Certain upper-body exercises focusing on strength, flexibility, and coordination have been examined for their effects on rebounding (Stilger & Meador, 1999). In general, a strength-training program’s goal is to increase players’ power, not just size. Sessions should be designed to prevent muscle accommodation—and boredom; they should also take into account the individual player’s particular weaknesses (Owens, 1998). Hitchcock (1988) proposed that four criteria of importance in devising a strength-training program for women basketball players: specified goals, work assigned based on performance, an equal workload, and communication with the players.

Wilmore and Costill (1994) offered a prescription for basic strength training for basketball players based on four factors: mode, frequency, duration, and intensity; the concept is illustrated in Table 1. The present researchers devised a strength-training prescription for Taiwan’s Yatung women’s basketball team that similarly incorporated the mode, frequency, duration, and intensity factors (see Table 2).

Table 1

General strength-training prescription for basketball players

Table 2

Experimental strength-training prescription for Yatung players

Discussion

Since the late 1970s strength training has become popular among college basketball teams worldwide; however, strength training is just now emerging among Taiwan’s basketball players. The present researchers suggest to coaches and sport administrators that, in order to benefit the players, they

1. work to educate Taiwanese coaches about the uses of strength training, putting to rest any misconceptions
2. promote proper strength-training methods, for example introducing them in secondary schools and the high school basketball league
3. support additional research examining physiological and psychological effects of strength training on elite Taiwanese players

References

Davies. (1993). Strength training for basketball at Maclay High School. Journal of Strength and Conditioning. 15(2), 37.

Earles, J. (1989). Implementing an in-season JV strength program for female athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning. 11(3), 32–34.

Fulton, K. T. (1992). Off-season strength training for basketball. Journal of Strength and Conditioning. 14(1), 31–44.

Groves, B. R., & Gayle, R. C. (1993). Physiological changes in male basketball players in year-round strength training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 7(1), 30–33.

Groves, B. R., & Gayle, R. C. (1989). Strength training and team success in NCAA men’s Division-I basketball. Journal of Strength and Conditioning. 11(6), 26–28.

Hitchcock, W. (1988). Individualized strength and conditioning program for women’s basketball. Journal of Strength and Conditioning. 10(5), 28–30.

Johnson, A. (1989). West Virginia University preseason basketball conditioning program. Journal of Strength and Conditioning. 11(1), 43–46.

Kerbs, B. (2000). Effects of same-day strength training on shooting skills of female collegiate basketball players. Microfilm Publication. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.

Mannie, K., & Vorkapich, M. (2000). Off-season and preseason strength conditioning for basketball. Scholastic Coach and Athletic Director. 70(3), 6–11.

Owen, J. (1998). Strength training for basketball: Building post players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning. lang=FR>20 lang=FR>(1), 16–21.

Renfro, J. G. (1996). Basketball specific squats. Journal of Strength and Conditioning.18(6), 29–30.

Shoenfelt, E. L. (1991). Immediate effect of weight training as compared to aerobic exercise on free throw shooting in collegiate basketball players. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 73(2), 367–370.

Stilger, V., & Meador, R. (1999). Strength exercises: An upper body proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation rebounding exercise. Journal of Strength and Conditioning. 21(6), 29–31.

Zucker, A. (1989). Men’s basketball off-season Phase I strength program. Journal of Strength and Conditioning. 10(6), 39–40.

Author Note

Dr. Richard C. Bell is the chair of sport management at the United States Sports Academy. Steven Chen is a doctoral candidate at the United States Sports Academy.