The Case Of The Purloined Exercise

THE REVERSE HYPEREXTENSIONS CONTROVERSY RESOLVED.
THE CASE OF PURLOINED EXERCISE

The purpose of this paper is to bring a truth to light, and to do so definitely. Mr. Tony Dolezel claims that after passing information about his exercise, the reverse hyperextension, to Mr. Louie Simmons in 1982, Mr. Simmons ran away with it, proclaiming himself to be its inventor. We provide very strong evidence and argumentation that we believe proves, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr. Dolezel's claim is true. What we promise is that this read is an honest telling of a very interesting story in the format described below. In the telling of it, we would like to assume the most charitable interpretations of Mr. Simmons' claims so that we can dispatch the strongest argument that he can muster. However, as will be made clear in the telling of the bizarre tale that follows, we refuse to take leave of our senses to do so. And lest anyone suspect mischief, be assured, our case is not spurious. If the reader is looking for the truth, there is more than enough evidence and argumentation to allow the truth to be found. We would also like to point out that it is not our intention to challenge any of Mr. Simmons' patents. We care not for that. All our evidence and argumentation is concerned solely with the exercise referred to as the "Reverse Hyperextension" (RH). We intend to show that there are no reasons to believe Mr. Simmons' claims and many very good reasons to believe those of Mr. Dolezel. Should the reader agree, there is no choice but to reject the claims of Mr. Simmons and accept those of Mr. Dolezel. We proceed sequentially as follows:

• A bizarre tale is told
• Mr. Dolezel's claims are stated
• Mr. Simmons' counter claims are stated
• We rebut Mr. Simmons' claims
• We make the case for Mr. Dolezel's claims
• We summarize our findings, draw a conclusion and ask the reader to decide

Bizarre Tale

Imagine being driven to the brink of despair by a health problem. Then you discover something – something so simple and effective your health is completely restored by it and then some. What an amazing discovery you marvel, and so simple, yet no one knows about it. My god you think, how the world could benefit from this; as a remedy for a universal health problem the possibilities are quite staggering. But let’s imagine, for the sake of our story, that instead of you, a certain successful businessman discovers this amazing remedy. This businessman, as luck would have it, well, at least luck for him, is particularly astute at recognizing the financial implications of a good idea. His name is Mr. Louie Simmons. His talent is not innovation; it is capitalizing on the brilliance of others. As he has stated, “All of my methodologies come from the former Soviet Union system and their highly respected sports scientists and coaches.” However, I don’t think many people are aware of this. Perhaps that is why Mr. Dave Tate, a long-time member of Mr. Simmons’ “very private gym”, felt it necessary to come-clean about the origin of these methods before speaking about them, saying, “Before I begin I want to make it known that Louie Simmons or Westside Barbell created none of these principles. They all come from Russian books and manuals on Olympic lifting.” 

The point to underline is that Louie Simmons has a track record of taking other peoples’ good ideas and profiting from them. So armed with not just a good idea but a great idea, how do you think Mr. Simmons would proceed? Would he defer fame and fortune and shelve the idea for 21 or more years? Would he do nothing in all that time with an idea that was better than any he had every taken from the Russians? Well, suppose that is exactly what he did. Suppose that even though he was absolutely sold on this idea, he decided for some obscure reason, to keep it a secret for more than two decades. This decision, as unfathomable as it is, becomes even more so when you consider that it supposedly forced him to train in secrecy in his “very private gym” for 21 or 21+ years. Can you picture this? Mr. Simmons, this extraverted, outspoken fellow, sneaking in and out of his “very private gym” for more than two decades. The members of his “very private gym” all sworn to secrecy and remarkably, no one lets out a peep in all that time. What accounts for such actions? To pay such a huge price, there must be the anticipation of a huge reward. Clearly, if Louie paid this price he expected to cash-in big time. The question is why did he wait more than two decades to do so? What was he waiting for? Are these the actions of a shrewd businessman? I think not! And why would any gym member comply with such craziness? Would you sign on for a life sentence of secret training sessions? How about swearing to keep your mouth shut for 21 years? If you would, what’s the enticement? Obviously there is something terribly wrong here; rational people do not behave this way. What then accounts for this apparent farce? The answer to this is the subject matter of this paper. And the farce, lest there be any confusion as to its nature, is that Mr. Louie Simmons made this amazing discovery, the discovery of the Reverse Hyperextension. We maintain he did not and it is the purpose of this essay to prove this and much more. So hold fast. I promise you, the stalwart individuals who see this narrative through to its end, you will be better off for the reading of it. As the evidence mounts you will come to understand why someone, without any desire or hope of monetary reward, would protest an injustice for so long. The motivation for this resilience is eloquently captured in the words of Mr. Wendell Berry, “Protest that endures… is moved by a hope far more modest than that of public success: namely, the hope of preserving qualities in one’s own heart and spirit that would be destroyed by acquiescence.” So please, read on and see why Mr. Dolezel will win the justice he deserves – if only one reader at a time.

Mr. Dolezel’s Main Claims:

1982. A. Mr. Dolezel asserts that Mr. Louie Simmons knew nothing of the reverse hyperextension exercise prior to a meeting Mr. Dolezel had with Mr. Fred Hatfield in Honolulu in 1982.

1. B. Mr. Dolezel asserts that subsequent to the meeting referenced in claim A, Mr. Hatfield passed information given to him during the meeting by Mr. Dolezel’s to Mr. Simmons. This included information about his Reverse Hyperextension exercise along with his unlisted telephone number and rehabilitation instructions for Mr. Simmons.\

Mr. Louie Simmons’ Counterclaims:

1974. C. Mr. Louie Simmons asserts that he invented the Reverse Hyperextension exercise in either 1973 or 1974.

1. D. Mr. Louie Simmons denies Mr. Dolezel’s claim B; he denies that Mr. Hatfield passed him any information of this nature?

Rebuttal of Mr. Simmons’ Counterclaims:

Nota bene: The only piece of evidence Mr. Simmons has offered forth to prove claim C is that his lawyer, Mr. Paulucci, can corroborate it. Without the testimony of Mr. Paulucci, support for claim C falls solely upon the word of Mr. Simmons. For claim D, Mr. Simmons offers no proof or argumentation; he simply denies Mr. Dolezel’s claim B. Therefore, there is nothing to rebut and support for claim D falls solely upon his word.

Rebuttal of Counterclaim C:

Mr. Simmons states in a letter he sent to Mr. Dolezel that one of his attorneys, a Mr. Tom Paulucci, was present in either 1973 or 1974 when he discovered this exercise and that Mr. Paulucci can verify this. I intend to show evidence that strongly suggests that not only did Mr. Paulucci not witness what Mr. Simmons claims he witnessed, but that it is also questionable whether Mr. Paulucci can even be considered a witness for Mr. Simmons. I shall also question what date Mr. Simmons claims his lawyer is willing to verify as I think there needs to be some clarification by Mr. Simmons on this issue. Lastly, I address some questions that revolve around the statement made by Mr. Simmons that he has other witnesses that were training with him in his “very private gym”.

For the following reasons, I maintain that the behaviour of Mr. Paulucci strongly suggests that he did not witness what Mr. Simons claims he did:

1. In February of 2009, Mr. Paulucci, acting for his client Mr Louie Simmons, sent Mr. Dolezel’s lawyer a letter in an attempt to end the dispute between Mr. Simmons and Mr. Dolezel. In the letter Mr. Paulucci discusses information that Mr. Simmons had told him, information which he necessarily would have had to accept on faith from his client. Glaringly absent from this letter is corroboration of the statement by Mr. Simmons that he, Mr. Paulucci, can verify Mr. Simmons’ claim C. This is surprising for two reasons. First, if he did witness what Mr. Simmons claims, then he should have been offended by Mr. Dolezel’s assertion which in essence denies this. Where then is his sense of outrage? Secondly, why would Mr. Paulucci address matters of dubious certainty accepted on faith from his client, yet shy away from corroborating something he presumably knew with certainty? Since such corroboration constitutes Mr. Simmons’ only piece of evidence, its omission is unintelligible.

2. Since Mr. Dolezel and his lawyer were absolutely baffled by Mr. Paulucci’s glaring omission described above, Mr. Dolezel’s lawyer sent a letter to Mr. Paulucci pointing out this omission and giving him another opportunity to confirm whether or not he can verify claim C. Mr. Paulucci again remained silent. Mr. Paulucci’s words and actions are inconsistent. Far from making a genuine effort to end this dispute, Mr. Paulucci’s evasiveness exacerbated the dispute greatly. More suspicion was created, more questions were raised and all this after Mr. Paulucci had expressed his client’s desires to end this dispute. For the lack of a simple yes or no answer, Mr. Paulucci appears to frustrate his client’s wishes. Again, this behaviour is unintelligible.

I shall now address the question of whether Mr. Paulucci can be considered a witness for Mr. Simmons.

As Mr. Simmons’ attorney, Mr Paulucci enjoys client-attorney privilege. This privilege brings into question whether Mr. Paulucci could ever be legally compelled to corroborate Mr. Simmons’ claim. If Mr. Paulucci cannot be so compelled how then could he be considered a witness? If such be the case, then Mr. Simmons has offered forth a spurious witness, which, if by design, is an attempt to deceive.

What date is Mr. Paulucci willing to verify, if any?

Now, before moving on to the question of other witnesses, I would like to address the question of what date it is that Mr. Paulucci is willing to corroborate. As Mr. Simmons cannot decide whether it was 1973 or 1974 when he discovered the Reverse Hyperextension, what date is Mr. Paulucci willing to verify? Is he also unsure whether it was 1973 or 1974? Or is he willing to state emphatically that it was 1973 or emphatically that it was 1974? I find it strange that both men would share the exact degree of confusion. Consider that Mr. Dolezel has no confusion as to when he invented the RH; it was 1976. However, I also find the other alternative strange. In the face of Mr. Paulucci’s certainty, why would Mr. Simmons cling to his confusion? What does seem likely is that Mr. Simmons cited his lawyer to a witness to enhance the credibility of his statement without thinking it through and without consulting with Mr. Paulucci. But what makes it even stranger is when you consider that Mr. Simmons has stated elsewhere that he invented it in 1975 and Mr. Dave Tate, a member of Louie’s “very private gym” has stated that the idea for the RH came to Mr. Simmons in 1983. I’d be very interested to know what Mr. Paulucci would respond to these statements since it would put him in the position of having to defend a statement previously denied by both Mr. Simmons and Mr. Dave Tate. From the prospective of this analysis, it seems pretty clear why Mr. Paulucci has no appetite for verifying his client’s claim.

Conclusion: Not only has Mr. Paulucci demonstrated an unwillingness to verify Mr. Simmons’ claim C, there is strong evidence to suggest that he cannot verify it. There is also some serious confusion about the dates Mr. Paulucci supposedly is willing to confirm. On top of this, is the question of whether Mr. Paulucci can even be considered a witness for his client Mr. Simmons? For all these reasons, I submit that Mr. Paulucci should not be considered a valid witness.

Possibility of Other Witnesses

With no names, no dates, and the same complications resulting from contrary statements discussed above, there is no evidence to consider here. Therefore, I submit that there are no other witnesses. The only point I would make is that from the context of Mr. Simmons’ letter, it appears that the date these supposed other witnesses are willing to verify is the same as Mr. Simmons and his lawyer. They are all willing to assert that they witnessed Mr. Simmons perform the RH in either 1973 or 1974. This I find very troubling, because now you have the same degree of confusion but only on a much larger scale. How could it be that every one of these supposed witnesses shares the same degree of confusion as Mr. Simmons and his lawyer? Again, this makes no sense and indicates that Mr. Simmons, out of his desperate desire to find something to defend himself with, latched onto the idea of other witnesses without really thinking it through.

Conclusion:

No other witnesses exist that can verify Mr. Simmons claim C

Conclusion of the Rebuttal of Claim C and why Claim D requires no Rebuttal:

After careful examination of the available evidence and argumentation, I think it fair to assume that no witnesses exist that can corroborate claim C. The veracity of claim C now falls solely upon the word of Mr. Simmons.

Since Mr. Simmons offers no evidence or argumentation for claim D, there is nothing to rebut.

Since we have shown that there is no evidence to support either claim C or claim D, the only support these claims now have is the word of Mr. Simmons which we shall now show is completely unreliable.

Proof that the Word of Mr. Louie Simmons Is Completely Unreliable:

Nota Bene: Two statements are contrary when they cannot both be truth, but both could be false.

We shall show that for the following reasons, the word of Mr. Louie Simmons is completely unreliable:

• Mr. Simmons has made many contrary statements regarding the date he supposedly invented the RH and when he hurt his back.
• Mr. Simmons has made many statements that are contrary to statements made by friends and/or gym members.
• There is strong evidence to suggest that Mr. Simmons has used deceptive argumentation and evasiveness in response to Mr. Dolezel’s claims.
• Mr. Simmons’ statements and at least one statement from Mr. Dave Tate imply a set of circumstances that are completely unbelievable and which are described in the bizarre tale.

Contrary Statements Made by Mr. Simmons: (the exercise referenced is the RH)

• In March 2009 Mr. Dolezel received a letter from Mr. Simmons in which he states, “I came up with the exercise in the mid to late 1973’s or early 1974.”
• In the 1997 October issue of Ironman, Mr. Simmons states the following, “It was 1975, and I’d finally found an exercise that would not only fix my back but also bring me back to performing a world-class deadlift.”
• In an article for Physical Therapy Practitioners Mr. Simmons is quoted as saying, “I came up with this exercise in early 1974 after breaking my fifth lumbar.”
• In an article in the July 1997 issue of Powerlifting USA, Mr. Simmons states, “In 1975, my back was still fragile. That’s when I started doing reverse hyper-extensions.”
• In the Ironman issue mentioned above Mr. Simmons states, “In 1982, I fell off an icy porch and fractured my fifth lumbar vertebra again.”
• In the Powerlifting USA issue mentioned above, Mr. Simmons states, “In 1983, I broke it again falling off my ice-covered porch.”

Statements Made by Mr. Simmons are contrary to Statements Made by Friends and /or Gym Members:

• In the November 2009 article authored by Mr. Dave Tate, Mr. Tate stated, “Louie told me how he had injured his back in 1975 ….In 1983 he was told…. He opted not to do this and was determined to find another way… This is when (1983) the reverse hyper came to him.”
• In a conversation with Mr. Fred Hatfield in Honolulu in 1982, Mr. Hatfield told Mr. Dolezel that Louie’s back was not broken. Mr. Simmons had told him that he had a badly herniated disk. This, however, is not what Mr. Simmons claims. He asserts that his back was broken.
• In the same 1982 conversation between Mr. Hatfield and Mr. Dolezel in Honolulu, Mr. Hatfield told Mr. Dolezel that, Louie had hurt his back doing the exercise called “good mornings”. Mr. Simmons however maintains that he hurt his back falling off a porch.
• Mr. Hatfield also states in the same conversation as mentioned just above, that he felt Mr. Simmons lifting career was over because he had tried everything and nothing had worked. This would mean, if Mr. Simmons’ claims were true, that he had tried the RH and it didn’t help him. This is inconsistent with Louie’s claim that the RH was responsible for rehabilitating his back.

Strong Evidence of Mr. Simmons Using Deceptive Argumentation and Evasive Tactics

Nota bene: The Straw Man Argument is a fallacy that is basically a form of diversion. It 

occurs when someone distorts an opponent’s position and then refutes the distorted 

position, not the real one. The idea is to construct a line of reasoning that can then be easily knocked down (as easy as knocking down a man made of straw) creating the illusion that some part of other person’s argument has been refuted.

• Mr. Simmons chose not to respond to queries raised by Mr. Dolezel as to why he had given so many different dates for when he supposedly invented the RH.
• Central to this dispute is whether or not Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hatfield were friends in 1982 when Mr. Dolezel met Mr. Hatfield. This issue is extremely important because it establishes a motive without which there would be no dispute. If Mr. Hatfield had not been Mr. Simmons’ friend there would have been no reason for him to ask Mr. Dolezel for information to pass on to Mr. Simmons. Mr. Paulicci, in his letter to Mr. Dolezel’s lawyer, recognizes the importance of this motive and states that Louie and Fred were not close personal friends. If this statement is meant to imply that Mr. Hatfield had no knowledge of Mr. Simmons’ back problem prior to his discussion with Mr. Dolezel in 1982 and that Mr. Hatfield was not asking for information to help his friend Mr. Simmons, then I seriously disagree. Witnesses will attest that such implications are false. Moreover, if these implications were true, then why didn’t Mr. Simmons state this in his letter to Mr. Dolezel? Why didn’t he point out that he had never discussed his back problems with Mr. Hatfield and that he couldn’t imagine why Mr. Hatfield would be asking questions on his behalf and posing as his friend? The fact that Mr. Simmons did not point this out is a blatant omission of a key component of this dispute; an omission exacerbated by the informal references Mr. Simmons makes in the letter in regard to Mr. Hatfield. In reading the letter, I definitely got the feeling that he was friends with Mr. Hatfield and it was equally apparent why he avoided acknowledging it.
• Reflecting on the last point, I’m struck by a strange symmetry in two critical responses, one made by Mr. Simmons and the other by Mr. Paulucci. On the question of whether Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hatfield were friends, the onus falls squarely upon Mr. Simmons to explain the status of their relationship or the lack thereof especially as he took the trouble to write Mr. Dolezel a letter supposedly explaining the situation. Yet, Mr. Simmons side-steps the question, leaving it to Mr. Paulucci to answer for him. Similarly, on the question of whether Mr. Paulucci witnessed Mr. Simmons performing the RH in 1973 or 1974, Mr. Paulucci, who should answer this question, side-steps it in his letter to Mr. Dolezel’s lawyer, leaving Mr. Simmons to speak for him. How nice, should supporting either statement become untenable, escape is a simple matter of blaming the other guy for getting it wrong. If this isn’t hiding in the bushes and throwing rocks, I don’t know what is.
• In his letter to Mr. Dolezel, Mr. Simmons states, “Don’t you find it strange Fred called it a Reverse Hyperextension? A United States trademark.” This quotation is so misleading it’s almost comical. First, the name “Reverse Hyperextension” is not a United States trademark. Mr. Simmons knows this. Nor is the name “Reverse Hypers®” which Mr. Simmons also refers to in the letter. In using the trademark symbol “®” in this instance, Mr. Simmons is actually creating a trademark that doesn’t exist. The trademark that does exist is “Reverse Hyper®”. This is a trademark for an apparatus not an exercise so Mr. Simmons’ saying later in the same letter that “…because I was doing Reverse Hypers® for at least eight years at this point.” is wrong on two counts. It is not a registered trademark and it is not an exercise but an apparatus, so Mr. Simmons could not possibly having been doing it for eight years; a person can do an exercise on an apparatus but he just cannot do an “apparatus”. Secondly, it appears that Mr. Simmons is employing another argument fallacy known as “False Cause”. This fallacy is committed when an argument mistakenly attempts to establish a causal connection. Mr. Simmons appears to be offering an event that occured in 1994 (his patent) as a cause for another event that occurred in 1982 (Hatfield naming Dolezel’s exercise the RH). It is not possible for a future event to affect another event preceding it in time. Come on Mr. Simmons, you can’t be serious!
• In the same letter to Mr. Dolezel, Mr. Simmons states, “Fred was wrong by saying in 1982 was the first time; it was the second time that I broke my back.” Here Mr. Simmons is putting words in Mr. Hatfield’s mouth. In the meeting between Mr. Dolezel and Mr. Hatfield there was no talk of first time or second time when discussing Louie’s back problem. All Mr. Dolezel knew was that Mr. Simmons had hurt his back in 1982. Whatever happened before this date was never talked about and therefore, necessarily, was not mentioned in Mr. Dolezel’s letter to Mr. Simmons. There is no possible reference that Mr. Simmons could be responding to. Therefore, this is a clear example of Mr. Simmons setting up a straw man argument so that he can knock it down and score more cheap points.
• Again, in the same letter, Simmons states, “Your assumption in paragraph three, page one is correct. Fred Hatfield never passed along any information about this matter.” Here is what Mr. Dolezel really said, “It is possible that Mr. Hatfield never passed my information onto Louie. It is also possible…” By rephrasing Mr. Dolezel’s statement and taking it out of context, Mr. Simmons is trying to give an assumption, temporarily assumed by Mr. Dolezel for the purpose of refuting it, the false impression of permanence. This is clearly disingenuous argumentation on the part of Mr. Simmons.
• In the same letter to Mr. Dolezel, Mr. Simmons states, “Dave Tate was just a child in 1973 and of course the exercise came first.” Here we have yet another straw man. Mr. Simmons is trying to confuse the fact that Mr. Tate was a child in 1973 when he supposedly invented the RH and therefore could not have witnessed it, with statements Mr. Tate made as an adult in November of 2009. Mr. Tate revealed in an article on his website that in 1991 Mr. Simmons told him he had hurt his back in 1975 and that the idea for the RH came to him in 1983.
• In the same letter, Mr. Simmons states, “In 1997 I saw no need to answer your challenge considering my first patent was granted in 1993.” I hate to keep repeating this, but here we have another straw man. Mr. Simmons is suggesting here that Mr. Dolezel was challenging his patent. He was not. Mr. Dolezel was challenging his claim to having invented the RH. By confusing these two issues Mr. Simmons is able to give a reason for not accepting Mr. Dolezel’s challenge which was for them to get together and debate the merits of their opposing claims on national television. If this interpretation is incorrect, then why did he respond to Mr. Dolezel’s second letter? What had changed?
• Also in the same letter, Mr. Simmons states, “I am sure some Soviet Union sports probably were doing such an exercise in the 1950s.” This was disingenuous because Mr. Simmons had studied Soviet Russian books and manuals on Olympic lifting and there was nothing in what he read to suggest that the Soviets knew about this exercise. It was just a ploy to mollify Mr. Dolezel and get him to back off.
• Mr. Simmons states in the same letter that, “As far as I know neither of us came up with this exercise first.” The fact is Mr. Simmons doesn’t know this. He doesn’t know of anyone else claiming to have invented this exercise. If he did, the expression “as far as I know” is inappropriate. Also, Mr. Simmons misses no opportunity to proclaim with certainty that he is the inventor of the RH. But his statement also hides another error. The dispute is not who invented it first. Mr. Dolezel is not just claiming to have invented the reverse hyperextension. He is claiming to have invented it along with the further claim that Mr. Simmons knew nothing of this exercise until Mr. Dolezel passed information about it to him. Again, this is just another lame ploy to mollify Mr. Dolezel and get him to back off.
• Lastly, Mr. Simmons states in the same letter, that “You are living in your fantasy world.” Here Mr. Simmons is obviously angry and frustrated at the lack of push-back he has against Mr. Dolezel’s claims, so he decides to attack Mr. Dolezel personally. This is another well documented argument fallacy called “Ad hominem” where a person’s statement is dismissed by attacking the person rather than the statement itself. The implication is that you can’t take seriously the argument made by a person living in a fantasy world, no matter how good that argument is. This is reinforced again by Mr. Simmons when he says in the last sentence of the first page of his letter to Mr. Dolezel, “…you can’t be serious.”

Statements made by Mr. Simmons in conjunction with a statement made by Mr. Dave Tate imply a set of circumstances that are completely unbelievable. Since I have described this story in some detail in the “Bizarre Tale” there is no need to repeat it here.

Conclusion:

For the above reasons, Mr. Simmons’ word is completely unreliable. And since Mr. Simmons has no evidence to support his claims, it follows that his claims are without support of any kind.

The Case for Mr. Dolezel’s Claims:

Although we have shown that Mr. Simmons’ claims to be without support, we cannot simply accept Mr. Dolezel’s claims by default. Acceptance must be won with evidence and argumentation that demonstrates the clear superiority of Mr. Dolezel’s explanation of events versus the explanation put forth by Mr. Simmons. To do this, we employ four key principles commonly used to select the best explanation when there are two or more alternative explanations to choose from. These key principles are as follows: Simplicity, Coherence, Testability, and Comprehensiveness in Scope.

The Argument for Mr. Dolezel’s Claim A:

Simplicity:

Mr. Dolezel’s evidence for his claim A is the least complicated in the sense that you will always find rational cause-and-effect relationships that explain all the events relevant to it. In stark contrast, to believe Mr. Simmons’ claim C, you must accept several events that have no apparent causes. You must accept, despite any explanation or apparent cause, that Mr. Simmons’ had a reason to postpone developing the RH for more than two decades. You must accept without any explanation or apparent cause, that someone would be willing to train in secrecy for 21 years. And you must also accept, without explanation or apparent cause, that there are compelling reasons why his gym members would also be willing to keep their mouths shut and train in secrecy for up to 21 years.

Mr. Dolezel’s argument for his claim A is the simplest for another reason; it is consistent. On the other hand, Mr. Simmons’ argument for his claim C involves a contradiction. During the meeting Mr. Dolezel had with Mr. Hatfield in 1982, Mr. Hatfield told Mr. Dolezel that Mr. Simmons had told him that he had a badly herniated disk and despite having tried everything, nothing worked. Now, as Mr. Simmons claims to have invented the RH in 1973 or 1974, this would mean that he tried the RH and it didn’t work. What then are to make of Mr. Simmons’ claim that it was the RH that allowed him to rehabilitate his back?

Coherence:

Mr. Dolezel’s behaviour is, and has always been, consistent. He has never trained in secret and has always been generous with his time, expertise and desire to help people. However, Mr. Simmons’ behaviour appears blatantly inconsistent. We’ve already established that he has a track record of taking peoples’ ideas and profiting from them. Why then would he supposedly sit on the best idea he ever had, choosing instead to develop ideas which he had taken from the Russians which were of lesser monetary value? Such behaviour is not only inconsistent with his established behaviour it is also inconsistent with common human behaviour and what you’d expect from a shrewd businessman. Common human behaviour does not involve training in secret or postponing profits for more than two decades especially when there is no apparent reason for doing so.

Predictability:

Mr. Dolezel’s explanation correctly predicts many events that can be confirmed. On the other hand, when you make predictions using Mr. Simmons’ explanation you invariably find that every prediction that you should be able to make from it turns out to be wrong. Consider the following:

1. Mr. Dolezel’s explanation correctly predicts that Mr. Simmons would not accept his challenge to take a lie detector test which would pay him $50,000 for simply telling the truth. What honest person would turn this down? Or, equivalently, what dishonest person would be crazy enough to make such an offer? Mr. Simmons of course did not accept the challenge. Prediction Correct!

2. Mr. Dolezel’s explanation correctly predicts that if Mr. Simmons were to have back problems, when he would have them. Since according to Mr. Dolezel, Mr. Simmons didn’t have knowledge of the RH until sometime subsequent to Mr. Dolezel meeting with Mr. Hatfield in 1982, if Mr. Simmons were to have back problems, he should have them prior to this meeting in 1982 and he should not have them subsequent to this meeting. Mr. Simmons has stated many times that he hurt his back in 1973 and again in 1982 prior to the meeting just mentioned, and that he has had no back problems since then. Prediction Correct!

3. Mr. Dolezel’s explanation also correctly predicts that Mr. Simmons would have no evidence to support his claim to having invented the RH in either 1973 or 1974. As we have shown in the rebuttal to Mr. Simmons’ claims, this is exactly the case; Mr. Simmons has no evidence. Prediction Correct!

4. Mr. Dolezel’s explanation correctly predicts that when confronted with all the contrary statements made by himself and his friends or associates, Mr. Simmons would not be able to explain them and therefore he would avoid trying to do so. Prediction Correct!

Now let’s consider outcomes that Mr. Simmons’ explanation predicts that didn’t occur.

1. Mr. Simmons’ explanation should predict that there would be no one claiming to have passed him information about the Reverse Hyperextension. But there is such a person, Mr. Dolezel. Prediction Incorrect!

2. Mr. Simmons’ explanation should predict evidence to support his claim. But there is no such evidence. Prediction Incorrect!

3. Mr. Simmons’ explanation should predict a patent date much earlier than 1994. It doesn’t. Prediction Incorrect!

4. Mr. Simmons’ explanation should predict a narrative free of contrary statements. The reality is a story rife with contrary statements. Prediction Incorrect!

Comprehensiveness in Scope:

Between the two explanations, Mr. Dolezel’s argument is the most comprehensive in scope. His argument explains the following:

• Why Mr. Simmons has no evidence
• Why Mr. Simmons’ lawyer, Mr. Paulucci, did not verify Mr. Simmons’ claim C
• Why Mr. Simmons’ did not accept Mr. Dolezel’s challenge and a chance to make an easy $50,000
• Why there are no other witnesses to verify Mr. Simmons’ claim C
• How Mr. Simmons got trapped into having to stand by such a bizarre tale as related above
• Why Mr. Simmons has avoided answering questions about inconsistent statements made by himself and by his friends and/or associates
• Why Mr. Simmons didn’t get a patent until 1994
• Why Mr. Simmons resorted to disingenuous argumentation instead of answering the direct questions that were put to him
• How a non-innovator would come up with such a great idea as the reverse hyperextension
• Why Mr. Simmons acted in a way that is not only inconsistent with his own established behaviour but is also inconsistent with human nature
• Why Mr. Simmons’ lawyer, Mr. Paulucci, made irrelevant statements in response to Mr. Dolezel’s letter. For example he says, “His timeline and assertions about the development of the ‘reverse hyper’ are in error.” Mr. Dolezel is not concerned with the development of Mr. Simmons’ patented apparatus known as the ‘reverse hyper’. Both Mr. Paulucci and Mr. Simmons know this but in their desperation to be seen refuting any of Mr. Dolezel’s claims, they go off on a tangent about patents instead of answering the direct questions that were put to Mr. Simmons.
• Why Mr. Dolezel with no hope or desire for monetary reward would expend the energy and expense necessary to continue fighting for justice for so long.

Now compare Mr. Dolezel’s explanation to that of Mr. Simmons. Not only does Mr. Simmons’ version of events relating to his claim C not explain anything, it actually raises even more questions which I’ve already pointed out in the bizarre tale.

Conclusion: Mr. Dolezel’s explanation regarding his claim A is the best explanation of events surrounding it because it is the simplest, the most coherent, has the greatest predictive power and it is comprehensive in scope. Mr. Simmons’ explanation for his counterclaim C fails on all four principles as it not only doesn’t explain anything, it raises even more questions. For these Mr. Simmons’ claim must be rejected and Mr. Dolezel’s claim must be accepted.

The Argument for Mr. Dolezel’s Claim B:

Now we apply the same four principles to Mr. Dolezel’s claim B and Mr. Simmons’ claim D.

Simplicity:

When we considered Mr. Simmons’ claim C, we learned that believing it required that one accept several events that had no apparent causes and for which Mr. Simmons gave no explanations. In considering Mr. Simmons’ claim D, we find the reverse situation; we must now accept several causes that have no apparent effects. Allow me to explain. When Mr. Dolezel spoke with Mr. Fred Hatfield in Honolulu in 1982, Mr. Hatfield asked Mr. Dolezel about his exercise, the reverse hyperextension, because he was motivated to help his friend, Mr. Simmons, who had a badly herniated disk. Mr. Hatfield also asked for and received Mr. Dolezel’s private contact information. And Mr. Dolezel, true to form, was quick to generously volunteer all that information in an effort to help a fellow lifter. Now, ask yourself, what were the effects of these actions (causes)? Did Mr. Hatfield go to all that trouble to get information that Mr. Dolezel assured him would help his friend only to sit on it. Why would anyone withhold information from a friend, information that would help that friend with a serious medical problem? And would Mr. Dolezel have passed that information to someone who wasn’t really interested and didn’t have a good reason to acquire it? On both counts, I think not. What we have here are actions backed with strong motivation and I do not believe for one instance that Mr. Hatfield did not pass this information on to Mr. Simmons as Mr. Simmons claims. Mr. Dolezel’s argument for his claim B is the simplest explanation of events because it is cut and dried. It is backed by rational cause-and-effect relationships and is free of complications. Mr. Simmons’ counterclaim, on the other hand, has strongly motivated actions (causes) without any apparent effects. This is a major complication, which again, has no apparent rational explanation.

Coherence:

Mr. Dolezel and Mr. Simmons both have track records that can be verified. Mr. Dolezel has a long-established behaviour pattern that continues to this day of helping people with their back problems and with their training free of charge. Mr. Simmons has a long-established behaviour pattern of taking other peoples’ ideas and profiting from them. Against this backdrop, consider the motivations of the three players in this little drama interactively. Mr. Dolezel, true to his nature, was motivated to help a person with a back problem. Mr. Hatfield was motivated to help his friend, Mr. Simmons. And Mr. Simmons, quick to recognize the financial implications of the exercise responsible for his miraculous recovery, the reverse hyperextension, was, true to form, motivated to profit from it. These actions are a model of coherence. Mr. Simmons’ explanation, however, is completely unexpected and incoherent.

Predictability:

Mr. Dolezel’s explanation for his claim B correctly predicts many events that can be confirmed. Mr. Simmons’ explanation for his counterclaim however, is completely useless for making predictions. Events that it should predict never occurred. Besides all the events predicted by Mr. Dolezel’s explanation for claim A, of which there is some overlap with this claim, consider the following:

1. Mr. Dolezel’s argument for his claim B correctly predicts that Mr. Dolezel had this information to pass on to Mr. Simmons in 1982. Mr. Dolezel invented this exercise in 1976 and has been openly doing it in many different gyms over the years and there are many, many witnesses to verify this. For a partial list, just look at Mr. Dolezel’s website, which even includes a video of a testimonial made by a lawyer in which the lawyer verifies this. Prediction Correct!

2. Mr. Dolezel’s argument also correctly predicts that Mr. Simmons did not have this information before the time of Mr. Dolezel’s meeting with Mr. Hatfield in 1982. Since Mr. Dolezel and Mr. Simmons were complete strangers before this time, there is no reason for, or way that, Mr. Simmons could have had Mr. Dolezel’s unlisted telephone number, which is part of the information Mr. Dolezel claims to have passed on to Mr. Simmons. Since it doesn’t make sense to have the phone number of someone whose existence is unknown to you, this prediction makes perfect sense. Prediction Correct!

3. Now we come to a lengthy but very revealing and hugely supportive part of Mr. Dolezel’s argument for his claim B, and we are extremely grateful to Mr. Simmons for providing us with it. In his letter to Mr. Dolezel, Mr. Simmons stated that, “There was no reason to call you in 1982 because I was doing Reverse Hypers® for at least eight years at this point.” Our analysis of this quotation is exhaustive and includes a modern technique called “Statement Analysis®”. Statement Analysis® is used by police and other investigators to determine the truthfulness of written or spoken words. However, before getting to it, let me explain something that will make our analysis easier to understand. Imagine that a complete stranger phoned you, or wrote to you, and asked you why you did not call him many years ago. How would you respond? Well I think it’s pretty clear, most people would say something like, “do I know you?” or “did we meet somewhere?” or maybe even, “who the heck are you?” The point to be made here is that this is exactly the situation where Mr. Simmons claims to be in when he received Mr. Dolezel’s first letter in 1997. Yet, instead of the normal, expected response to such a query, Mr. Simmons responds in his letter to Mr. Dolezel in a completely nonsensical way. Does it make sense to give a reason for not calling someone whose existence should have been completely unknown to you at the time? Likewise, does it make sense to give a reason for declining information from an unknown entity? And why give a reason for not calling? Why would you have the private telephone number of a person who didn’t exist to you? For these reasons, Mr. Simmons’ quote clearly presupposes three things: knowledge of the existence of Mr. Dolezel, knowledge that Mr. Dolezel had information about the reverse hyperextension, and lastly, knowledge of Mr. Dolezel’s private telephone number. However, to make sure that I am rock solid on this understanding, I put this same quote to many other people to see if there is any other interpretation of it that makes sense. The responses I received, without exception, mirrored my own and therefore I have complete confidence in this interpretation.

But now let’s look at this statement using Statement Analysis®. When a person is telling us what happened, he is required to speak in the past tense. Therefore, when a person starts out using past tense language and then switches to present tense, this is a clear indication that the person is not drawing his story from memory; he is making it up. Now consider that Mr. Simmons switches from past tense to present tense by his use of the word, “this”. Instead of staying with the past tense and saying, “at that point” Mr. Simmons switches to the present tense when he says, “at this point”. According to statement analysis, this is a clear indication that this statement did not come from his memory with the necessary conclusion, that Mr. Simmons made it up.

But why you ask, would Mr. Simmons make such a revealing comment? Well, if you read the whole letter it is obvious that Mr. Simmons was having some kind of melt down and in his desire to strike back, he did so too quickly and without realizing what he was revealing. However, should Mr. Simmons try to ameliorate the rashness of his statement by putting some bizarre spin on it, saying that’s just how he talks, he will just dig his hole deeper. Such a defense is untenable. How are we to interpret all his other statements when he is the only person in the world conversant in his very private language? The clear conclusion of all this analysis is that we can now state that Mr. Dolezel’s argument correctly predicts that subsequent to his meeting with Mr. Hatfield in 1982, Mr. Simmons would have Mr. Dolezel’s information as stated in bold two paragraphs up. Prediction Correct!

4. And lastly, Mr. Dolezel’s argument also correctly predicts that there is no other way that Mr. Simmons could have received this information. Since Mr. Dolezel gave his private telephone number to no one else but Mr. Fred Hatfield, and since there is no other situation that can explain how Mr. Simmons could have acquired this number, we must conclude that Mr. Simmons received the information from Mr. Hatfield and that there is no other way he could have acquired it. Prediction Correct!

Comprehensiveness in Scope:

Between Mr. Dolezel’s argument for his claim B and Mr. Simmons’ counterclaim to it, Mr. Dolezel’s argument is more comprehensive in scope. Mr. Dolezel’s argument explains the following:

• Why Mr. Simmons’ explanation of how he supposedly came up with the idea for the reverse hyperextension is almost word-for-word the explanation Mr. Dolezel gave to Mr. Hatfield in 1982
• How the reverse hyperextension really got its name. Mr. Fred Hatfield while observing Mr. Dolezel’s demonstration of his exercise, mused, as if thinking out loud, that it was a… reverse hyperextension
• Why Mr. Dolezel had information about Mr. Simmons’ back problem that was not in the public domain, i.e., that Mr. Simmons had a badly herniated lumbar disk which he injured doing the “good morning” exercise. He acquired this undisclosed information from Mr. Simmons’ friend, Mr. Hatfield.
• Why Mr. Hatfield asked Mr. Dolezel in a telephone conversation in 1997, when exactly Mr. Dolezel invented the reverse hyperextension. Mr. Dolezel told him it was in 1976. A few months later a friend of Mr. Dolezel’s brought him two magazines in which there were articles wherein Mr. Simmons claimed to have invented the reverse hyperextension in 1975. It seems the friendship between Mr. Hatfield and Mr. Simmons was still operational. Such an off-the-wall question by Mr. Hatfield could only have one purpose. Mr. Hatfield wanted to make sure that chronologically, Mr Simmons’ claim preceded Mr. Dolezel’s claim.
• Why in 2008, Mr. Simmons decided that claiming to have invented the reverse hyperextension in 1975 wasn’t early enough. Apparently it was suggested in an article written in a Bigger, Faster, Stronger Magazine, that Mr. Roger Quinn may have invented the RH in 1974. Six months later in the same year, in an article for Physical Therapy Practitioners, Mr. Simmons was quoted as saying, “I came up with this exercise in 1974 after breaking my fifth lumbar.” One can only wonder when Mr. Simmons would have invented the reverse hyperextension if another article had surfaced claiming someone else had done so in 1972, or 1970, or 1968 etc.?
• Why Mr. Simmons’ first patented machine did not reflect 21 years of thinking and why it can only be tactfully described as rudimentary at best.
• Why, in spite of Mr. Simmons’ lawyer, Mr. Paulucci, saying that Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hatfield were not close personal friends, it is clear from the evidence that they were friends to some degree as it is also clear that Mr. Hatfield was helping his friend, Mr. Louie Simmons.

Conclusion:

Mr. Dolezel’s argumentation for his claim B is the best explanation of events surrounding it because it is the simplest, the most coherent, has the greatest predictive power and is comprehensive in scope. On the other hand, Mr. Simmons’ counterclaim fails on all these four principles. For these reasons, Mr. Simmons’ counterclaim must be rejected and Mr. Dolezel’s claim B must be accepted.

Summary:

In the course of this paper, we have demonstrated the following:

• Mr. Simmons’ claims imply a nonsensical narrative that is entirely unbelievable.
• Both of Mr. Simmons’ counterclaims are completely unsupportable; there is no evidence to support them and Mr. Simmons’ word cannot be relied on.
• Both of Mr. Dolezel’s claims are backed by much evidence and argumentation and they provide the best explanations of all relevant events.
• The claims of Mr. Simmons’ not only explain nothing, they actually raise more questions and suspicion.

Final Conclusion:

Based on what we have demonstrated in this paper, we believe there is ample evidence and sound reasoning to enable the reader to decide which argument provides the best explanation of all the events relevant to this dispute. We strongly believe that our painstaking analysis shows, and shows clearly, that Mr. Dolezel’s arguments for his claims to be far superior to Mr. Simmons’ unbelievable counterclaims. But it does more than that. In exposing numerous examples of inconsistent statements, ingenuous argumentation, and a complete disregard for answering direct questions, a clear picture emerges. The picture is that of a tangled web for which there is only one possible explanation. If you see this picture as we most assuredly think you must, then we would ask that you give Mr. Dolezel the justice he deserves and reject Mr. Simmons’ counterclaims and affirm those of Mr. Dolezel. In no uncertain terms this means that Mr. Dolezel invented the reverse hyperextension exercise which Mr. Simmons knew nothing of until he acquired such information from Mr. Dolezel indirectly through Mr. Hatfield in 1982.

1. http://www.westside-barbell.com/articles/a-multiyear-plan (web page no longer exists on the site)

2. Simmons, Louie – Letter to Mr. Dolezel Written 27 Feb 2009.

"I have other witnesses that were training with me at my very private gym." (2nd from last sentence)

"I came up with this exercise in the mid to late 1973's or early 1974" (third sentence of the letter)

“Fred Hatfield never passed along any information about this matter.” (third sentence, of the 5th paragraph)

“One of my attorneys Tom Paulucci was present at the time to verify this.” (6th sentence, 3rd paragraph)

3. "Protest that endures, I think, is moved by a hope far more modest than that of public success: namely, the hope of preserving qualities in one's own heart and spirit that would be destroyed by acquiescence."

― Wendell Berry, What Are People For?

5. Pauiucci, Thomas – Letter to Mr. Vermette (Mr. Dolezel's lawyer) Written 27 Feb. 2009
6. Vermette, Clifford – Letter to Mr. Paulucci (Mr. Simmons' lawyer) 2 April, 2009

7. Simons, Louie – Ironman "Reverse Hypers" October 1997 (2nd paragraph, page 62)

8. http://therapyreversehyper.blogspot.ca/ 29/12/2008

9. Simmons, Louie – POWERLIFTING USA "Training for the Back" July, 1997 (5th paragraph, page 35)

10. http://www.elitefts.com/documents/reversehyper.htm (page no longer exists on site)

11. Dolezel, Tony – Letter to Louie Simmons. 25 August, 1997 (3rd sentence, 3rd page)

12. Dolezel, Tony – "My Challenge to Louie Simmons" 14, March 2009. The Reverse Hyperextension Controversy and Challenge 20 Feb 2009

13. Madison, David – "Louie Simmons' Claim of Having Invented the Reverse Hyperextension (in 1973, 1974, or 1975) in His Own Contradictions