NSCA Justifies Censorship with Inaccurate Information?
Rather than provide individual responses from board members those of you who wrote a letter to the NSCA are getting a letter back purportedly from the Board of Directors but more likely from the NSCA attorney. I will state clearly at great risk that portions of this letter are wildly inaccurate. The NSCA letter states:
“in the specific issue at hand you do not have all of the facts at your disposal.”
This is the first of a series of statements designed to make you think I overreacted to a simple clerical error. Sponsors are in fact allowed to recommend speakers that is accurate. In this case Perform Better was the sponsor. This relieves the NSCA of their pay policy of $150 per presentation and allows them to get the top speakers in the industry. I was the first speaker ever suggested by Perform Better to not be approved by the committee so, we are back to the first issue. Whether they had sent me their standard contract is irrelevant as they had verbally agreed to have me present. Why did they elect to “ban” me when I have been a popular and highly rated speaker. The NSCA is once again hiding from the real issue, which is the NSCA trying to control the information provided to members.
The letter continues to say:
Boyle “proceeded to attack the NSCA and the Board of Directors on his website.”
My blog posts may have been perceived as an attack on the NSCA but clearly I only appealed to the Board of Directors to do their job. I never said a negative word about the Board of Directors. Feel free to review the blog posts.
” he has been speaking quite negatively about the NSCA at many of the public forums that he attends. He in fact has acknowledged these attacks on his website. Considering his actions, we decided that we were not going to provide him a forum to espouse his rhetoric.”
This is also inaccurate. I acknowledged that I had been honest on my website about my feelings about the CSCS exam. I think my comments were not in the “quite negative” category. In fact, if reviewed you can see that I have always recommended the CSCS even though I question the content. As far as public criticism, this simply never occurred. Strengthcoach.com is a private paid website. I have never maligned the NSCA in public and would challenge them to prove these accusations.
“we examined Mr. Boyle a bit further and realized that he is not certified, and he is not a member of the NSCA”
This is more accurate information that is again manipulated by the NSCA. I was a member for nearly twenty five years but recently elected to not renew my membership. In fact my first NSCA National Conference as an attendee was in 1984. In addition I have been informed that only a Masters degree is required and the NSCA has often had speakers who who are not members or certified. I have never taken the certification exam for the same reason I criticized it. As an ATC we had to accumulate 1500 hours of practical experience before we were allowed to sit for the NATA exam. In addition the exam had a practical component that forced you to demonstrate your skills in front of examiners. My objection to the NSCA certification is based on the fact that it has no practical component as part of the certification process.
These are four examples of the NSCA inaccuracies put forth to appease angry members. Well I was not angry before but, I am now. There is an organized effort going on at the NSCA to avoid the truth. Is that censorship?