Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Ohio State exercise researcher resigns after retraction of CrossFit study

with 5 comments

The senior author of a lawsuit-spawning study of the CrossFit exercise program has resigned from his post at The Ohio State University.

On June 2, we reported that the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research retracted the problematic study because it lacked approval from the institutional review board. The journal had previously corrected the study, acknowledging it contained false injury statistics.

Now, an OSU spokesperson has confirmed that — as first reported by the Columbus Dispatch — former assistant associate professor Steven Devor resigned May 31, the day after the retraction.

The spokesperson also confirmed that OSU made several demands following an investigation into the CrossFit study: That Devor either correct or retract the study, that he take a 33 percent pay cut for the rest of the year, and that he refrain from both serving as a principal investigator and  contacting graduate students as long as he remained there.

He was found to not have an approved human subjects protocol. His pay cut and the other sanctions were levied because of his failure [to have an approved protocol].

The journal cited the unapproved protocol as the basis for retracting “CrossFit-based High Intensity Power Training Improves Maximal Aerobic Fitness and Body Composition,” originally published in November 2013. In 2015, the journal corrected injury-related data presented in the study, noting that only two participants dropped out of the study due to “overuse or injury” — not nine, as the study originally reported.

Numerous lawsuits have been filed over the study. Last year, OSU reached a six-figure settlement with the owner of the gym where Devor conducted the study.

The National Strength and Conditioning Association, which publishes the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, is also facing ongoing litigation with CrossFit brand headquarters over the paper. Last month, a Federal judge in California presiding over CrossFit’s lawsuit against the NSCA came down hard on the NSCA, noting:

There is plainly sufficient evidence to find willfulness, bad faith, or fault on the part of the NSCA in withholding the recently discovered documents and in lying under oath in the federal proceedings.

The judge also told the organization to pay CrossFit $73,551 to cover lawyers’ fees.

Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here.

 

Written by Andrew P. Han

June 12th, 2017 at 1:45 pm

Posted in united states

Comments
  • Russell Greene June 12, 2017 at 1:55 pm

    “In 2015, the journal corrected injury-related data presented in the study, noting that only two participants dropped out of the study due to ‘overuse or injury’ — not nine, as the study originally reported.”

    And the NSCA’s correction/erratum itself was misleading. Those two cases of “overuse or injury” were not related to the CrossFit training described in the study.

    As the Court ruled in CrossFit Inc.’s lawsuit against NSCA on 5/31:

    “It is taken as established that the Erratum’s statement, that two participants
    were injured during the course of the Study, misled the public and harmed
    CrossFit.”

    Source: https://s3.amazonaws.com/crossfitpubliccontent/NSCA_Fake_Science_And_Perjury.pdf

  • Bort June 12, 2017 at 3:18 pm

    “The spokesperson also confirmed that OSU made several demands following an investigation into the CrossFit study: That Devor either correct or retract the study, that he take a 33 percent pay cut for the rest of the year, and that he refrain from both serving as a principal investigator and contacting graduate students as long as he remained there.”

    That’s an incredibly severe sanction. Not being able to be PI or to contact graduate students is essentially career death for a pre-tenure faculty member. I guess this is how you fire someone without firing them?

  • Mason June 12, 2017 at 11:06 pm
  • Yuri Feito June 14, 2017 at 10:38 am

    If the study was conducted under an “unapproved protocol” all other manuscripts related to the study should also be retracted. For example, the Int. J Exercise Science (http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijes/) published a study by the same authors, which seem to come from the same study (http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijes/vol7/iss2/4/).

  • PPY July 7, 2017 at 4:51 pm

    Mason
    Looks like Prof Steven Devor was an associate prof, not assistant prof
    https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NPmeptp_bPUJ:https://fsfp.ehe.osu.edu/meet-our-team/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    Falsification of data is grounds for rescinding tenures because it was granted in part of the research accomplishments. If that were to happen, he would be demoted and possibly face other sanctions. There’s a reason he resigned and didn’t just ride it out.

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.