When is It a Conflict of Interest and When is It Hypocrisy?

Everyone knows what the term "conflict of interest" means as well as the definition of "hypocrisy".  Keeping these definitions in mind, much of the following description is presented somewhat tongue-in-cheek.  For many years, I was accused by people at Penn State, Oregon, Iowa, any other locations as having a "conflicts of interest".  I was associated with the University of Massachusetts and also worked with private industry to develop exercise equipment, shoes, and sporting goods.  I was attacked as having a "conflict of interest" doing commercial research instead of "pure" research.  Those   critics do the same thing.  So are we all guilty of conflict of interest or are they just hypocrites?  I started my own private research laboratory.  These people noted above accused me of having a "conflict of interest" since they claimed that you cannot work independently in private business and produce honest, unbiased research results.  Most of those critics have their own private business and/or consulting firms which provide research findings to companies for a fee.  Are we all guilty of "conflicts of interest" or are they just hypocrites?  For many years, I performed research studies for Olympic athletes before, during, and after my tenure as the first Chairman of the Biomechanics Committee for the US Olympic Committee. I started the United States Olympic Center in Colorado Spring!  I even arranged for the royalty payments from one of my own shoe contracts to be paid directly to the USOC to fund the Biomechanics laboratory in Colorado Springs. (This was over $13,000,000 In 1977 and over $11,000,000 in 1978. Do you remember the Olympic Rings over the J.C. Penny Shoes? This was my contract for the U.S Olympic Committee).  Yet I never used my USOC connection to advertise a product whose sale would benefit me personally.   Would that be a "conflict of interest" with the Olympic Committee?   If the Olympic Committee endorses a particular product and receive payments for the use of the Olympic rings and the endorsement, perhaps that case would not be a conflict of interest.  What if the use of the Olympic name and/or symbols are unauthorized?  Check with the Olympic Committee if you wish to know the status.

The pot cannot call the kettle black and remain white while burning over the same fire.The main concept to keep in mind as you read the text is whether the described situations are, in fact,  "conflicts of interest" or are they not.  If they are, then all should be held to the same standard of guilt.  If they are not, then those people who have attacked me for years and are doing exactly the same thing must be hypocrites or worse. 

I will try to outline the situations with some background material as well.   Should there be anyone who may not know the personalities involved, check around and all will become clear.

Imagine a coach and an athlete using every available, legitimate tool to enhance the performance skills of the sport without drugs, financial support, or a national system of regulated, supervised programs like those of the former Eastern block countries.  What tools are available to these sports participants?  Years ago, the choices were somewhat more limited than those available today, but, at that time, there were observation, opinion, and "history" --  if it worked before, it must be right.  Eventually, coaches and athletes began to film performances and watch these spins, turns, or jumps repetitively in an effort to "see" what occurred.  Finally, a technique to quantify these movements was introduced which was called "Biomechanics".  In its early days, Biomechanics was laboriously slow since it took days to develop film, identify joint centers, and process the data.  In addition, the results were available only in two dimensions.  In other words, Biomechanics was an inaccurate, slow to process, two dimensional analysis of a rapid, three dimensional activity. In the 1968 Mexico City Olympic I used one camera to analyze Bob Beamon World Record. This study was published and was criticized by a famous so called "biomechanist" which was not there and did not analyze any of the Olympic athletes until very recently. Some of the "famous" biomechanists from Penn States claims that the first Olympic Analysis was performed by then in the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles. It is a joke. I published many papers starting in 1969 related to Biomechanical analysis of athletic performance. In 1972 in Munich Germany I was the only one and the official person to collect data on the field.

The wonderful news was that, at last, coaches and athletes could measure movement parameters such as the speed of the arms, the path of the center of gravity, or the acceleration/deceleration pattern of the legs.  With the increasing attention to this form of Biomechanical analysis, the development of more sophisticated mathematical equations contributed to improved quantification procedures including three dimensional movement analysis, better smoothing algorithms, and more rapid processing techniques.

So why this history of the growth of Biomechanics?  Because I was an athlete, competing in two Olympic Games, who then became a coach.  During this career, I constantly searched for ways to objectively measure my sports, discus and shot put, so that math and science could assist in performance improvements rather than relying on the subjective opinion or visual guesswork of the coach.  I was introduced to Biomechanics at the University of Massachusetts under the guidance of a great professor, Dr. Stanley Plagenhoeff.  His pioneering work was not inventing Biomechanics, but in working with a computerized program to process the data.  This may seem foolish to those who have literally grown up with computers, but in the late 1960s and early 1970s, computers were large, mysterious monsters to most people including those on university campuses.   Dr. Plagenhoeff was ridiculed by many in the academic community who considered his work unworthy of consideration because he was examining athletic performances.  His greatest critics were in the field of Physical Education, since anyone who deviated from the old fashioned patterns was usually branded as a lunatic, a fool, or both.

When I was introduced to Biomechanics by Dr. Plagenhoeff,  the procedures were agonizingly slow and laborious.  Because I was both excited by the potential of this technique and impatient for the results, I searched for ways to improve the quantification technique.   At my own expense and effort, I found an electronic tool for digitizing the body's joint centers which accelerated one of the slowest stages of the process.  With a touch of the pen, the x and y coordinates of each point could be calculated, recorded, and saved into a computer file.  This may seem a trivial point to the young people reading this document, but for those of us to had to suffer through these older, tedious, and laborious methods, it was nearly miraculous!  The point is, that with my own  interest, initiative, and financial support, I developed hardware tools, software control algorithms, as well as incorporating the continuing mathematical improvements as they were introduced in the Biomechanics literature.

[Go to the Top of Document]

So what did I do with this Biomechanical analysis technique?  I analyzed athletes, of course!  I was invited to the Olympic Throwing Camp at Dartmouth College in 1971 to work with the elite shot putters, discus, hammer, and javelin throwers, and the high jumpers who attended the same training camp.  Following this camp, I published several articles describing the Biomechanical procedures and the results.  Mr. George Dales, head of the International Track and Field Coaches Association, asked me to work with his organization before and during the 1972 Olympics using Biomechanics to measure athletic performances and to publish the results.

This was an exciting opportunity for me, but I  was not independently wealthy and unable to support these athletic studies without financial assistance.  However, I was surprised to learn that these Biomechanical articles were read by people in totally unrelated fields who contacted me for consultation.  Suddenly, I was measuring the flight paths of basketballs to determine whether they followed parabolas or wobbled in the air, designed shoes to enhance running performance, and even examined the bowing style of a concert violinist!   Each of these studies was performed in my own private laboratory, outside and unrelated to the University, so that the consulting monies generated could fund the continuous hardware and software developments.

In addition, I actively solicited many organizations to fund and furnish the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs.  Through mine and Dr. Irving Dardik's efforts, a scientific training center for America's elite athletes became a reality.  I establish the Biomechanics site there and had the honor to be the first Chairman of the Biomechanics Committee of the US Olympic Committee from 1976 to 1984 !  The computers, force plates, furniture, cameras, and other equipment were donated because of our relentless efforts on behalf of the athletes.

The question I ask you, the Reader, is what's wrong with this?  Are these activities wrong?  Was anyone hurt by these actions?  Was there a conflict of interest in these activities?  Athletes were provided free information to help their performance, articles were published so that everyone could benefit from the findings, and through legitimate business procedures the system was self supporting and continually improving.

Unfortunately for me, the guys in the "Ivory Towers" of academia were unhappy.   Perhaps I should clarify "academia"; it was only in the field of Physical Education that the Old Guard were disgruntled.  In other fields of study, such as physics, chemistry, and medicine, the same type of "funding" had been not only an accepted but an expected form of support for years.  For example, a professor in chemistry at the same university where I was, obtained his position and kept his job only if he were able to secure outside funding.  Most departments in the "hard sciences" attracted and retained world renown scientists because there were able to secure external sources of revenue, regardless of whether it came from government or private business grants.  When I tried to do the same thing, there was such a hue and cry in the department, that I was forced to set up my own private enterprise.  It was an amazingly shocking difference in attitudes between Physical Educators and professors of science. And don't fool yourself. Many of  these called themselves "biomechanists" , "Kinesiologists" and "Physiologists" are all frustrated simple physical educators. This is a big secret in the field... Do you ever hear anymore a person called himself physical educator? At worst they call themselves "Exercise Scientists". What a joke !

The criticism spread to other "Ivory Towers" of Physical Education.  Most of the critics employed dirty smear campaigns with innuendoes and indirect accusations.  Needless to say, there was an atmosphere of "holier that Thou" which spread amount my enemies, most of whom I don't know and have never met.  In spite of the veiled complaints, criticism, and hostility among these Old Guard and "establishment" type "academians" I continued to work and publish.  Fortunately, there were some teachers, coaches, scientists, and researchers who applauded and embraced these new Biomechanical techniques

Now, leap into the future which is Now.  Times are different from the university's point of view.  In the past, it was cheaper for business and government to give money to universities to perform the necessary research.  As university overheads increased, as well as other changes not germane to the issue here, grant money became increasingly scarce.  Every department was being pinched for funds including Physical Education.  Suddenly, all those people who criticized me for securing money from outside the university were hawking their wares in the same marketplace.  There were shoe contracts at Oregon, prosthetic studies at UCLA, shoe evaluations at Penn State, running track developments at Harvard, forensic consultations and court testimonies from numerous university professors, and the list goes on.  What had been so wrong for me to do was now perfectly acceptable for them!

I was criticized for my efforts in developing a system of Biomechanics and accused of a conflict of interest, yet no one makes the same complaint against those who do the same thing now.  Whether I secured grant money from private business to fund research at the university or created a separate company to conduct research outside the university walls, I was accused of having conflicts of interest.  Shoe contracts abound at Oregon and Penn State, professors testify for companies as trial experts, professors endorse products of private, non-university companies.....where are the mudslingers with their "conflict of interest" charges?   

[Go to the Top of Document]

My efforts with the Olympic athletes and for the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs were constantly under attack.  I established the laboratory and arranged for companies to donate equipment, assisted in quantifications, and helped secure donated funding.  Why was this considered a conflict of interest?

What about the people who currently "work" with the Olympic Committee?  Are they generating external monies to support research for the athletes or are they using money from the USOC to support their own studies? How do the athletes and/or the International Committee benefit when the Olympic rings and an affiliation with the organization are used in conjunction with endorsements of a product?   Most companies, such as Coke, Mars Candy bars, etc. have to pay huge fees for the use of the rings.  In this case, despite the complaints about "selling" the Olympics, the athletes and the Games were able to function with the generated funds paid by these large corporations. What about individuals who use these same symbols?  Do they pay for the use of the Olympic affiliation, are the proceeds shared, or is it acceptable to just borrow such things?

Another question is where are the results of the Biomechanical film efforts conducted at the Atlanta Olympic Games?  Have they been published?  Who profited from this research effort?  The athletes and coaches who have confided in me say they are still waiting for some results, any results. 

which resulted from that effort.  This effort was undertaken to assist the athletes and coaches of the future as well as for the people of the world to share in the Olympic experience with actual performances available via the Internet.published articlesubstance costs for feeding and housing was supplied by the International Track and Field Coaches Association who also published the resultant Biomechanical analyses for all of their members to share and learn.  Our on-site research efforts met tremendous resistance  conducted by those "officially"  sanctioned people  but we persevered.  An example of our findings can be found in one of the e   At the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, I and a group of scientists under the auspices of the International Track and Field Coaches taped, edited, and upload the results of the Games on to the Internet in nearly real time.  We expended enormous effort to provide this data to people throughout the world to use and enjoy in any way they wished.  There was no profit for any of us except the challenge of being the first people to accomplish the task of performance to Internet in record time.  Th

It came as no surprise that the reactions of some individuals was negative and hostile!  However, I ask again, is this a conflict of interest? 

What exactly is a conflict of interest?  Imagine you are a professor at a university and on their time and salary, you write and publish a book.   Depending on your contract with the university, the royalties would presumably belong to both you and the school.  If you violate this fiscal relationship, this would surely constitute a conflict of interest.  Whether it is a book contract, grant money for research, consulting contracts, or patentable inventions, most universities have systems designed to share time, support, and rewards with the professors.  Following the procedures correctly should not be seen as a conflict of interest; violating these arrangements should be perceived as conflicts.

Private industry conducts in-house research as well as funding outside ventures.  A prominent example of this type of work would be the use of medical schools and universities to test products from pharmaceutical companies.  When the research is conducted free of intervention by the manufacturer, there are no hints of conflict of interest.  Where there are instances of bias in the conduct or findings of the research, obviously there are legitimate complaints that the research   findings are tainted.  However, in most cases, the research is honestly conducted following all the appropriate scientific guidelines with no accusations of conflict of interest or bias.

My point is that for many years, some people have accused me of having a conflict of interest.  When I secured a grant from a private company to fund a research study at the university, how was that a conflict of interest?  Is that not standard operating procedure?  If not, are all of the people who fund their research in this manner also guilty of conflicts of interest?

When I started a private company which would provide research findings for business, was this a conflict of interest?  Is this not the standard method for consulting firms?  If this is a conflict of interest, are the university professors who have these outside companies also guilty of the same accusation?

When I worked with the US Olympic Committee, was the effort a conflict of interest?  If so, what about the people who are currently involved?   Are they also involved in some conflict of interest?

(To see the full page click here)Recently, I was given the copy of a letter which is shown below in scanned form.   The quality of the copy was poor for scanning purposes, but I have taken the liberty of retyping the entire text for you to read.

 

(To see the full page click here)

, Medical Commission International Olympic committee)Member(
Jun-03-97 07:4op P.02

  

 This is the text of the letter:

To Whom it May Concern

Dear Sir/Madam:

I am writing to support Peak Performance Technologies and their outstanding products which are recognized throughout the world as the industry standard. The Biomechanics Laboratory here at Penn State which is considered one of the premier programs in the world has successfully utilized Peak products since 1987. We have been extremely pleased with the quality and reliability of their products and the excellent service provided. Many of the Ph.D. graduates from the programs have purchased Peak equipment upon assuming positions in industry and academia and have been equally satisfied.

I have had the good fortune of serving on the Medical Sub-Commission for Biomechanics of the International Olympic Committee since 1985 and have participated in Biomechanical studies during the past six Olympic Games. Researchers from around the world have participated in these projects using Peak equipment while the company has been a major provider of products and service to these groups. In addition, Peak engineering personnel have been present during these Games to provide their technical expertise and service in support of the research teams. The Peak Personnel are well aware of the changing and expanding needs of researchers and technicians and have continually updated and improved their products.

I have personally used Peak Equipment in variety of environments ranging from hostile outdoor settings in cross country skiing to more traditional laboratory setting for studying gait, jumping and other basic movements. In all instances the products have performed with precision and reliability while providing the necessary flexibility, ease of use and portability required. The versatility of the Peak system makes it possible to conduct a wide variety of studies in diverse environments. As a result the Peak products provide the maximum measurement capability at the lowest possible cost.

Recent development of the Peak Motus product which utilizes the well established Peak 5 system represents the company's latest technological advance. Peak Motus delivers a faster and easier to use product with its Windows Interface, Pentium platform and straight forward procedures. In fact, the so design and stricture of Peak Motus makes it the most advanced, flexible and user friendly motion measurement system available.

On the basis of these facts I would strongly recommend you purchase your motion measurement system from Peak Performance Technologies. They have the most real world experience, Biomechanics expertise and the most ingenious product on the market. They also provide competent direction and guidance in selecting the most appropriate configuration, deliver a tested and dependable product and are well known and respected for providing their clients technical assistance and service after the sale.

I have no reservations in giving Peak Performance Technologies my highest recommendation and encourage you to seriously consider purchase of their motion measurement system. If you would like to discuss this matter please contact me directly by phone, 814-865-3554 or FAX, 814-865-3554 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

 

Is this a conflict of interest? 

If the Olympic symbols are used, is there a contractual relationship with the Olympic Committee for use and payments?  Is it a "conflict of interest" for their unauthorized use?  What about the university?  Are there contractual arrangements for laboratory, library, computer, or student uses? 

If a person receives financial benefit for urging the purchase of the product, including air fares, hotel accommodations, fees for services, funded research, etc. can they be accused of "conflict of interest"?  Certainly, the serious research people are interested in knowing whether it is or not. 

If it is not a "conflict of interest", then those who have complained about me must be viewed, at least, as hypocrites.As I have mentioned throughout this presentation, if you are at a university and work as a consultant for a company this may be a proper, normal relationship and not a "conflict of interest".  When I worked at the university as well as performed research for companies, I was accused as having a "conflict of interest".  If it is true for me, it must be true for them as well.  It is either a "conflict of interest" for everyone or for no one.  

How about this conflict of interest?

[Go to the Top of Document]

[Back to Index of Articles]

[Back to Home Page]