Sunday, November 30, 2008

Genetic Test to Determine Sports Predisposition?

Saturday, November 29, 2008

BOULDER, Colorado: When Donna Campiglia learned recently that a genetic test might be able to determine which sports suit the talents of her 2 ½-year-old son, Noah, she instantly said, Where can I get it and how much does it cost?

"I could see how some people might think the test would pigeonhole your child into doing fewer sports or being exposed to fewer things, but I still think it's good to match them with the right activity," Campiglia, 36, said as she watched a toddler class at Boulder Indoor Soccer in which Noah struggled to take direction from the coach between juice and potty breaks.

"I think it would prevent a lot of parental frustration," she said.

In health-conscious, sports-oriented Boulder, Atlas Sports Genetics is playing into the obsessions of parents by offering a $149 test that aims to predict a child's natural athletic strengths. The process is simple. Swab inside the child's cheek and along the gums to collect DNA and return it to a lab for analysis of ACTN3, one gene among more than 20,000 in the human genome.

The test's goal is to determine whether a person would be best at speed and power sports like sprinting or football, or endurance sports like distance running, or a combination of the two. A 2003 study discovered the link between ACTN3 and those athletic abilities.

In this era of genetic testing, DNA is being analyzed to determine predispositions to disease, but experts raise serious questions about marketing it as a first step in finding a child's sports niche, which some parents consider the road to a college scholarship or a career as a professional athlete.

Atlas executives acknowledge that their test has limitations but say that it could provide guidelines for placing youngsters in sports. The company is focused on testing children from infancy to about 8 years old because physical tests to gauge future sports performance at that age are, at best, unreliable.

Some experts say ACTN3 testing in its infancy and virtually useless. Dr. Theodore Friedmann, the director of the University of California-San Diego Medical Center's interdepartmental gene therapy program, called it "an opportunity to sell new versions of snake oil."

"This may or may not be quite that venal, but I would like to see a lot more research done before it is offered to the general public," he said. "I don't deny that these genes have a role in athletic success, but it's not that black and white."

Dr. Stephen Roth, director of the functional genomics laboratory at the University of Maryland's School of Public Health who has studied ACTN3, said he thought the test would become popular. But he had reservations.

"The idea that it will be one or two genes that are contributing to the Michael Phelpses or the Usain Bolts of the world I think is shortsighted because it's much more complex than that," he said, adding that athletic performance has been found to be affected by at least 200 genes.

Roth called ACTN3 "one of the most exciting and eyebrow-raising genes out there in the sports-performance arena," but he said that any test for the gene would be best used only on top athletes looking to tailor workouts to their body types.

"It seems to be important at very elite levels of competition," Roth said. "But is it going to affect little Johnny when he participates in soccer, or Suzy's ability to perform sixth grade track and field? There's very little evidence to suggest that."

The study that identified the connection between ACTN3 and elite athletic performance was published in 2003 by researchers primarily based in Australia.

Those scientists looked at the gene's combinations, one copy provided by each parent. The R variant of ACTN3 instructs the body to produce a protein, alpha-actinin-3, found specifically in fast-twitch muscles. Those muscles are capable of the forceful, quick contractions necessary in speed and power sports. The X variant prevents production of the protein.

The ACTN3 study looked at 429 elite white athletes, including 50 Olympians, and found that 50 percent of the 107 sprint athletes had two copies of the R variant. Even more telling, no female elite sprinter had two copies of the X variant. All male Olympians in power sports had at least one copy of the R variant.

Conversely, nearly 25 percent of the elite endurance athletes had two copies of the X variant — only slightly higher than the control group at 18 percent. That means people with two X copies are more likely to be suited for endurance sports.

Still, some athletes prove science, and seemingly their genetics, wrong. Research on an Olympic long jumper from Spain showed that he had no copies of the R variant, indicating that athletic success is probably affected by a combination of genes as well as factors like environment, training, nutrition and luck.

"Just think if that Spanish kid's parents had done the test and said, 'No, your genes show that you are going to be a bad long jumper, so we are going to make you a golfer,' " said Carl Foster, a co-author of the study, who is the director of the human performance laboratory at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. "Now look at him. He's the springiest guy in Spain. He's Tigger. We don't yet understand what combination of genes creates that kind of explosiveness."

Foster suggested another way to determine if a child will be good at sprint and power sports. "Just line them up with their classmates for a race and see which ones are the fastest," he said.

Kevin Reilly, the president of Atlas Sports Genetics and a former weight-lifting coach, expected the test to be controversial. He said some people were concerned that it would cause "a rebirth of eugenics, similar to what Hitler did in trying to create this race of perfect athletes."

Reilly said he feared what he called misuse by parents who go overboard with the results and specialize their children too quickly and fervently.

"I'm nervous about people who get back results that don't match their expectations," he said. "What will they do if their son would not be good at football? How will they mentally and emotionally deal with that?"

Reilly insisted that the test is one tool of many that can help children realize their athletic potential. It may even keep an overzealous father from pushing his son to be a quarterback if his genes indicate otherwise, Reilly said.

If ACTN3 suggests a child may be a great athlete, he said, parents should take a step back and nurture that potential Olympian or NFL star with careful nutrition, coaching and planning. He also said they should hold off on placing a child in a competitive environment until about the age of 8 to avoid burnout.

"Based on the test of a 5-year-old or a newborn, you are not going to see if you have the next Michael Johnson; that's just not going to happen," Reilly said. "But if you wait until high school or college to find out if you have a good athlete on your hands, by then it will be too late. We need to identify these kids from 1 and up, so we can give the parents some guidelines on where to go from there."

Boyd Epley, a former strength and conditioning coach at the University of Nebraska, said the next step would be a physical test he devised. Atlas plans to direct children to Epic Athletic Performance, a talent identification company that uses Epley's index. He founded the company; Reilly is its president.

China and Russia, Epley said, identify talent in the very young and whittle the pool of athletes until only the best remain for the national teams.

"This is how we could stay competitive with the rest of the world," Epley said of genetic and physical testing. "It could, at the very least, provide you with realistic goals for you and your children."

The ACTN3 test has been available through the Australian company Genetic Technologies since 2004. The company has marketed the test in Australia, Europe and Japan, but is now entering the United States through Atlas. The testing kit was scheduled to be available starting Monday through the Web site atlasgene.com.

The analysis takes two to three weeks, and the results arrive in the form of a certificate announcing Your Genetic Advantage, whether it is in sprint, power and strength sports; endurance sports; or activity sports (for those with one copy of each variant, and perhaps a combination of strengths). A packet of educational information suggests sports that are most appropriate and what paths to follow so the child reaches his or her potential.

"I find it worrisome because I don't think parents will be very clear-minded about this," said William Morgan, an expert on the philosophy of ethics and sport and author of "Why Sports Morally Matter." "This just contributes to the madness about sports because there are some parents who will just go nuts over the results.

"The problem here is that the kids are not old enough to make rational autonomous decisions about their own life," he said.

Some parents will steer clear of the test for that reason.

Dr. Ray Howe, a general practitioner in Denver, said he would rather see his 2-year-old, Joseph, find his own way in life and discover what sports he likes the best. Howe, a former professional cyclist, likened ACTN3 testing to gene testing for breast cancer or other diseases.

"You might be able to find those things out, but do you really want to know?" he said.

Others, like Lori Lacy, 36, said genetic testing would be inevitable. Lacy, who lives in Broomfield, Colorado, has three children ranging in age from 2 months to 5 years.

"Parents will start to say, 'I know one mom who's doing the test on her son, so maybe we should do the test too,' " she said.

"Peer pressure and curiosity would send people over the edge. What if my son could be a pro football player and I don't know it?"

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Win Win!

Tonight was a win-win.

If we had won, we would have won and ruined Utah's season. Satisfying.

Since we lost, we still win since we get some conference BCS money--500,000 I think. Hey, I'm not proud, I'll take it.

Good luck Utah in your BCS bowl game. I feel sick. I was going to travel to that BCS bowel game no matter where it was and tell my grandkids about it. That was supposed to be our bowl game. I feel sick.

5 turnovers?!?!

Thursday, November 20, 2008

BYU Basketball Online in High Def (Is there HD for internet streaming? If not BYU TV looks pretty darn close to HD)



For all your cougar fans out there, just wanted to let you know that BYU TV is showing some of the men's basketball games on the channel, and if you don't get the channel then you can watch it online at www.byu.tv or http://www.byutv.org/streaming/ (if you go to the latter link, just click on "BYU TELEVISION Tune In Now" right in the middle of the screen). The online quality is awesome (and no I'm not being sarcastic). I know BYU plays two more basketball games tomorrow (Friday) and Saturday, and both games will be online or on the channel. Enjoy.

Also, here is a link to BYU's schedule: http://www.byucougars.com/Schedule.jsp?SP=111 The schedule shows which games are broadcast on BYU TV.

And one final plug for BYU TV. They also have archives of True Blue (If you've never seen it you should definitely watch an episode) and highlights of recent football and basketball games.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Obamarama

I'll be outright and open on this: I'm not a fan of Obama. But this is the first major policy initiative of his that I can stand behind. What do you guys think? Do you dislike him throwing his influence around to change sports? Quiz Show helped shape some thoughts. But in general, I think the NCAA is a corrupt money-driven organization. You can say the same about our politicians. So do I really mind that the next President wants to improve (IMO) a horribly run NCAA? Not at all. This is the only thing I hope he can pull off in the next four years. My only fear though is if he does, it will significantly boost his possibility of reelection...

From an ESPN article:
Obama said he will use his influence to create such a [playoff] system.

"If you've got a bunch of teams who play throughout the season, and many of them have one loss or two losses, there's no clear decisive winner. We should be creating a playoff system," he told reporter Steve Kroft.

According to Obama's proposed system, eight teams would play over three rounds to settle the national champion.

"It would add three extra weeks to the season," he said at the conclusion of a wide-ranging interview. "You could trim back on the regular season. I don't know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this. So, I'm going to throw my weight around a little bit. I think it's the right thing to do."

Saturday, November 15, 2008

How do you get an ACC team to lose?

So Casey can vouch for me, but I called this about three or four weeks ago. So how do you guarantee an ACC team will lose? Rank them in the top 25 (as always this also shows what a farce the ranking system is).

Week 12 (I've placed the rank team to the left not necessarily the home team):
#16 NC vs Maryland 15 - 17 LOSS
#19 Florida State vs BC 17 - 27 LOSS
#24 Wake vs NC State 17 - 21 LOSS

Week 11
*GT and NC were both ranked so don't count
#21 Florida State vs Clemson 41 - 27 WIN
#23 Maryland vs Virginia Tech 13 - 23 LOSS

Week 10
#15 Florida State vs GT 28 - 31 LOSS

Week 9
#18 GT vs Virginia 17 - 24 LOSS
#25 Florida State vs VTech 30 - 20 WIN

Week 8
#17 VTech vs BC 23 - 28 LOSS
#18 NC vs Virginia 13 - 16 LOSS
#21 Wake Forest vs Maryland 0 - 26 LOSS

Week 7
#21 Wake vs Clemson 12 - 7 WIN
#22 NC vs Notre Lame 29 - 24 WIN

Week 6
#20 VTech vs Western Kentucky 27 - 13 WIN
#24 UConn vs NC 12 - 38 LOSS

Week 5
#20 Clemson vs Maryland 17 - 20 LOSS
#16 Wake vs Navy 17 - 24 LOSS

Week 4
#23 Clemson vs South Carolina State 54 - 0 win but we are not counting DII schools
*both Wake and Florida State ranked

Week 3
No ACC Teams ranked with a game (this trend should have continued, but they kept throwing someone back in the rankings)

Week 2
#20 Wake vs Mississippi 30 - 28 WIN

Week 1
#9 Clemson vs #24 Alabama 10 - 24 LOSS
#17 VTech vs E Carolina 22 - 27 LOSS
#23 Wake vs Baylor 41 - 13 WIN

7 WINS and 14 LOSSES OVERALL
3 WINS and 11 LOSSES in ACC play
So the iron is particularly hot when you have a conference game and you are ranked...

And to evaluate those non ACC wins: Baylor (4-7), Mississippi (6-4), Western Kentucky (2-9 I thought they were DII, but they are independent), and Notre Lame (6-4).

But it begs the question (that was for Ben), why do the teams keep getting ranked? Is it because the team that gets ranked is really dominant and deserves to be ranked or because the ACC is a BCS conference and should have a team ranked so they keep throwing votes at the problem?

Monday, November 10, 2008

Invention

This may not revolutionize football, but I'm saying if someone has time, we could make some money. We need to invent a mouthpiece holder on football helmets. Half of football nowadays is seemingly style (see thin arm bands placed above elbows, etc), and the mouthpieces that connect to the facemask seem out of style; the detached ones seem in, and everyone spends half the time cramming there mouthpieces into their facemask.

Saturday, November 8, 2008

MWC dominates the BCS

This has got to be a telling stat. The Mountain West Conference is 9 -4 against BCS conference teams this season.

The wins came against: Washington, Stanford, UCLA, Oregon State, Tennessee, Iowa State, Arizona State, Michigan, Arizona

The losses came from: Cal, Okalahoma, Texas A&M, Colorado

Now I'll admit that none of the wins came against any of the premier BCS teams; however, just to think that UNLV, who is 2-0 versus the BCS and 0-5 versus MWC teams, would have a better season playing in the Big XII or the Pac 10 is interesting. Also note that many of these wins were from the bottom dwellers of the MWC, which tells me that the MWC is definitely more balanced than many of the BCS conferences, and this year is superior to several of the conferences.

Of the Pac 10, ACC, and Big East there is only ONE team, one team from those 3 power conferences that has a team ranked higher than the top THREE MWC teams. Simply put, of the 30 teams that make up the Pac 10, ACC, and Big East; USC is the only team ranked ahead of BYU which is the THIRD highest ranked MWC team.

If the MWC doesn't deserve an automatic bid in the BCS when they have 3 teams ranked in the top 15 of the BCS, while ONLY the Big XII has more teams ranked in the top 15 than the MWC; then the BCS is an absolute joke. Okay, that's a foregone conclusion. But seriously, with statistics like this, how does the media conveniently and constantly forget about this conference?