I know for a fact multiple coaches on this site have fallen victim to it, whether they will admit it or not or whether or not they are even aware of it. Not time to call out people, but it is what it is.
I like long term planning, but that is more relevant for age group athletes and people still going through maturity. For example, there was a recent documentary documenting how many Swedes have had terrible injuries and careers cut short. Poor planning long-term? Perhaps, but they got multiple Olympic gold medals in a very limited talent pool, so I would say it is an incredible success, even if it was at the cost of potentially longer careers.
The concepts discussed/debated in the presentation are just silly to even consider IMO without knowing every aspect of the situation and the athletes involved. For example, I think an extremely specific, concurrent, high frequency approach can work fantastically and might lead to ultimate performance in many events. It has worked dramatically well in weightlifting and the Greeks had incredible success with it through Tzekos. With that said, it is incompatible with almost ever situation an average coach or athlete is in since it would require exceptional amounts of soft tissue therapy, full time training (aka LOTS of funding and support), and likely, illegal or grey area recovery means. Likewise, I think a program like Clyde Hart’s is an utter joke for most people trying to hit ultimate performance in any event (yes, even the 400m), but it might make perfect sense if you only care about 4×4 titles, you get dozens of new and extremely talented horses every year in an unlimited supply, and you will guarantee yourself a shot in the final by simply insuring people are healthy and not fat. In that context, it might be a great program.
Without the context, the whole discussion is nothing but a circlejerk that won’t help us get anywhere or change our programs in a positive way.