Error in FP article

18 messages
Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 1:46
PM
To: ricks@newamerica.org, elias.groll@foreignpolicy.com, isaac.stonefish@foreignpolicy.com
Bcc: Derek Fields <derek@crossfit.com>, Russell Berger <russell@crossfit.com>
Russ Greene <russ.greene@crossfit.com>

Hi,
This is Russ Greene and I work for CrossFit HQ. I'm writing regarding this article.
The article does contain some good research, but these two particular lines are inaccurate:
"The Army has perhaps given high intensity workouts the coolest reception, calling them
extreme conditioning programs (ECPs) in a 2011 paper written in conjunction with the
American College of Sports Medicine ... CrossFits headquarters published its own response
to the Armys claims."
The 2011 paper written with the American College of Sports Medicine that introduced the
"extreme conditioning program" term was not written by the "Army." It was written by
the "The Consortium for Health and Military Performance," which is part of the "Uniformed
Services University of the Health Sciences."
It would be correct instead to state that "The Consortium for Health and Military
Performance" (CHAMP) or the "Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences" have
given high intensity workouts the coolest reception. Similarly, it would be correct to state that
"CrossFit's headquarters published its own response to the CHAMP article's claims."
While the Uniform Services University is certainly part of the federal government and
affiliated with the military, it doesn't represent the Army at large, nor claim to.
Could you please correct these lines? Thank you.
P.S. If you have any questions about CrossFit and the military, please let me know.
-Russ Greene
CrossFit HQ

Tom Ricks <ricks@newamerica.org>

Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 1:47 PM
To: Russ Greene <russ.greene@crossfit.com>
Cc: elias.groll@foreignpolicy.com, isaac.stonefish@foreignpolicy.com
Hi,
I will forward your note to the author.
Best,
Tom Ricks
[Quoted text hidden]

Russ Greene <russ.greene@crossfit.com>

Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 1:49

PM

To: Tom Ricks <ricks@newamerica.org>

Cc: elias.groll@foreignpolicy.com, isaac.stonefish@foreignpolicy.com
Bcc: Russell Berger <russell@crossfit.com>, Derek Fields <derek@crossfit.com>

Tom,
Thank you. I must admit that I sent the author this correction. He attempted to disagree with
it based on his perception that the Army at large is hesitant to embrace CrossFit. That
subjective perception may be true (though I disagree), but it is objectively false that the
Army produce the 2011 paper that coined the "extreme conditioning programs" phrase.
For that reason I wrote to you and the FP editors. I thought that you would be interested in
correcting this error. Thank you.
[Quoted text hidden]

Tom Ricks <ricks@newamerica.org>

To: Russ Greene <russ.greene@crossfit.com>

Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 1:51 PM

Was the officer at USUHS an Army officer?

Best,
Tom
[Quoted text hidden]

Russ Greene <russ.greene@crossfit.com>

To: Tom Ricks <ricks@newamerica.org>

Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 1:54 PM

One of the nine authors, Francis O'Connor, was an Army officer. He did not represent that
Army as a whole, however.
The other authors were civilians.
I should have mentioned this earlier, but the article itself states that,
"The opinions and assertions contained herein are the private views
of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting
the views of the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, U.S., Marines,
U.S. Coast Guard, or the Department of Defense."

[Quoted text hidden]

Tom Ricks <ricks@newamerica.org>

To: Russ Greene <russ.greene@crossfit.com>

Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 1:55 PM

OK, still trying to understand why this is noteworthy.

[Quoted text hidden]

Russ Greene <russ.greene@crossfit.com>

To: Tom Ricks <ricks@newamerica.org>

Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 1:58 PM

The current FP article states that the Army took an official stance against CrossFit. This
would certainly be noteworthy, if true.
But that's not true, and it actually is contradicted by its own source.
[Quoted text hidden]

Tom Ricks <ricks@newamerica.org>

To: Russ Greene <russ.greene@crossfit.com>

Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 1:58 PM

OK, that helps me understand.

[Quoted text hidden]

Tom Ricks <ricks@newamerica.org>

To: Russ Greene <russ.greene@crossfit.com>

Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 2:01 PM

So you are asking for something like this:

"The position against CrossFit was taken not by the US Army but by the Unformed Services
University of the Health Sciences"?
Best,
Tom
[Quoted text hidden]

Russ Greene <russ.greene@crossfit.com>

Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 2:07 PM
To: Tom Ricks <ricks@newamerica.org>
Bcc: Derek Fields <derek@crossfit.com>, Russell Berger <russell@crossfit.com>
That's close, though I'd say,
"The 2011 paper that called high intensity workouts 'extreme conditioning programs' was
written by the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, not the US Army."
That's in addition, of course, to correcting the two lines I quoted above.
Thank you very much for quickly responding.

[Quoted text hidden]

Russ Greene <russ.greene@crossfit.com>

Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 3:31 PM
To: Tom Ricks <ricks@newamerica.org>
Bcc: Russell Berger <russell@crossfit.com>, Derek Fields <derek@crossfit.com>
Tom,
Do you have any idea when this will be corrected?
[Quoted text hidden]

Tom Ricks <ricks@newamerica.org>

To: Russ Greene <russ.greene@crossfit.com>

Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 4:56 PM

No
[Quoted text hidden]

Russell Greene <russ.greene@crossfit.com>

Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 5:07 PM
To: Tom Ricks <ricks@newamerica.org>
Bcc: Derek Fields <derek@crossfit.com>, Marshall Brenner <marshall@crossfit.com>, Sevan

Matossian <sevan@crossfit.com>, Russell Berger <russell@crossfit.com>

Ok. I will check back in on this tomorrow evening. If it is still incorrect, I will have no choice
but to report it to our legal department and issue a public correction of Foreign Policy's error
on our own outlets.
To review, your article is inaccurate, its own source confirms it is inaccurate, you and the
author are aware it is inaccurate, and yet you have not corrected the article nor do you have
any idea when it will be corrected.