The Science of Sport

Olympic buzz: Road to London as Merritt speaks on Pistorius

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Thu, 17 May 2012 08:47:00 +0000

Olympic buzz: Merritt speaks on Pistorius

One quick thought today, to keep the Olympic momentum going, as we're now only 71 days away from the Olympic Games. The story is LaShawn Merritt commenting on Oscar Pistorius, which is noteworthy mainly because it's the first time that anyone has voiced a concern over Pistorius' participation and potential advantage. And yes, it's "only" Merritt, but it's the first salvo in what is likely to be an ongoing debate on one of the biggest stories of this Olympic Year.

It's also a topic I've covered extensively in the last few years, because it's one of the biggest sports science stories in athletics (with Caster Semenya being the other), and so in need of scientific understanding. Merritt's statements are thus the catalyst to bring up an "old" topic, and if you've read this before, feel free to give it a miss this time!

Before I get into the Merritt comments, might as well post these links for those who might be interested in reading more on the research. These five links explain it in about as much detail (but in a simplified way) as I think is possible for a complex case. I have no doubt that I will be referring to these links over and over in the next 71 days

A statement by Peter Weyand and Matthew Bundle explaining the confusing background to the case, and why they knew immediately that he had an advantage, but it didn't come out until 18 months later
A second statement by Weyand and Bundle, this time expanding on the science of why Pistorius has a large advantage during sprinting - it concerns the mass of the blades and never seen before sprinting mechanics
My first post on the advantage of Pistorius - setting up the theory and providing the evidence from the first round of testing
Part 2 of the series, this time looking at the CAS evidence that had Pistorius cleared, and how it was deplorable science to manipulate the finding
Part 3 of the series - the Weyand/Bundle analysis, which finds that Pistorius has a large advantage because of lighter limbs, faster swing times and less force

By way of background, links 1 and 2 were actually written in response to my 3-part series (links 3 to 5), because Peter Weyand and Matthew Bundle had read the posts, and wanted to put their own case across. It was also symptomatic of the media coverage, because Weyand had been interviewed numerous times about Pistorius, but clearly felt unable to get his viewpoint across to journalists who frankly didn't care for scientific integrity, but rather wanted to tell a heart-warming story.

Weyand and Bundle thus wrote those two statements at the end of 2011, to attempt to get the scientific facts and truth out. Hopefully the lazy media pay attention in 2012.

LaShawn Merritt speaks on Oscar Pistorius

LaShawn Merritt has become a polarizing figure in athletics, because of his ban for doping two years after he tested positive for the steroid hormone dehydroepiandrosterone. His defence? He'd taken a penis enlargement drug, and he served a 21-month ban. He was then involved in a legal case that would eventually see an IOC rule that would have prevented him from competing in the Olympic Games scrapped, and he will defend his Beijing gold in London. That certainly makes Merritt a controversial figure, and his statements this past week on Pistorius will only add to the controversy.

Briefly, in this interview, Merritt raised concerns that Pistorius' carbon fiber blades might one day allow him to outrun able-bodied competitors. Merritt recounts a story of a Paralympic double-amputee who reportedly improved by 2 seconds within a few months as a result of a slight increase in leg length (this is a common story, incidentally, which I have heard from other sources for a number of athletes - small changes in prosthetic limbs produce large improvements in performance). Merritt's concern, then, is that technology is constantly improving, and he has encouraged the authorities to monitor the situation.

Now, the merits of Merrit's (sorry) position can be debated. Many will say that he's a drug cheat and should be dismissed out of hand (as many of you did on Twitter). And while I can certainly see that Merritt's views may not be credible, I think that's a) missing the point, and b) a parallel issue - I'd be hesitant to hear Merritt out if he's talking about doping and the dangers of supplement use, but this is a different issue. It's too easy to shoot the messenger. I think it's more important to ask whether "what" they are saying may be true, rather than attacking "who" is saying it.

Having said this, I'd argue that Merritt's reasons for speaking now are perhaps slightly off - it should not solely be a case of "let him run for now but if he gets too fast then stop him". I've always argued that the principle, not the performance or the person, should be the key factor. It is an interesting question, however, as to how authorities would ensure that advancements in technology don't take the 2009 blades and improve them to the tune of 2 seconds. Again, prototypes are constantly being introduced, and anyone who believes that the "blades are the same as the ones from 1996" (as Pistorius has claimed in interviews) is delusional about technology and the commercial influence driving its progress. Indeed, Prof Hugh Herr, one of the scientists instrumental in getting Pistorius cleared (more on the "science" used for this below) is the beneficiary of an enormous amount of money from Ossur, Pistorius' prosthetic blade sponsor, specifically to help develop better prosthetic limbs that will one day outperform human limbs. So technology does move forward, but this is an interesting side note.

To me, Merritt speaking out is interesting, because it's the first time anyone with profile has spoken up about what is such an emotive topic that many are hiding out of fear of the fall-out, should they dare suggest anything is amiss about Pistorius.

The issue is thus not one of "trusting" Merritt, or believing him, it's really just of interest that the "off-limit" topic has been broached. I just wish that more scientists and experts would comment publicly, because opinion may be far stronger than what has been reported. The media coverage of Pistorius has been overwhelmingly emotive, with the science almost always being downplayed - journalists seem to accept as gospel the simple answer provided to their often very simple questions. Few are asking the difficult questions about the process that cleared Pistorius, and the only "scientists" who are speaking out are Hugh Herr and the rest of the CAS research team that cleared him. The Weyand-Bundle research is never properly examined, and nor do independent scientists comment on that scientific process and debate. The end result is a hall of smokescreens and mirrors, and the Pistorius PR machine rolls on, convincing editors and journalists that there is no advantage.

The science: Head vs Heart

The opposite may in fact be true, if only the media would really interrogate what happened at CAS, what the researchers did and get to the bottom of that "scientific research". It would also help if the scientific community projected its opinions outwards, rather than internally. Recently, we hosted a visiting scientist at our university. Their area of expertise is tendons and movement. They presented video footage of tendons under load, and spoke of how elasticity, fatigue and energy return would impact on performance. It is amazing to see how similar animal limbs are in appearance and function to the carbon fiber blades worn by Pistorius.

So an obvious question after this presentation is what they feels about Pistorius? They refused to answer this, responding more or less as follows "I have strong views on that, but I don't want to state them publicly. My head says one thing, my heart says another". In other words, "I know what I believe, but I'm not prepared to face the potentially hostile reaction, so I choose rather to stay silent". That to me is abdicating a professional responsibility because of a fear of public reaction. It's showing that truth is less important than perception, and that to me is a cowardly response from science, and I would extend this to say that in general, the science has been "cowardly" on this issue - it has, since the beginning, been "someone else's problem", until eventually, that "someone else" was only ever going to speak in favour of Pistorius, regardless of what the evidence showed. I would argue that people in positions of intellectual influence have a responsibility to speak out, regardless of the perception and reaction - if it's true, then say it. That's the driving ethos of this site, but perhaps that is just me.

As Pistorius embarks on his European season, needing to run the A-qualifying standard once to make the SA team, this debate is bound to spark up again. It's a fascinating one, and not least of all because of the science vs ethics debate. I can fully appreciate the conflict, and I even respect the position of those who argue that Pistorius should run despite the advantages because he is an inspiration (he is) who is good for the sport (he may be), and because he's the only one and is not winning. I disagree with the viewpoint, but I can respect why people might say it. But what I can't agree with is one that says "there is no advantage", because in three rounds of scientific testing, not a single thing has been found that disproves the theory that he has an advantage. Whether it is metabolic, energetic, mechanical, or fatigue related, every single piece of evidence confirms the theory and hypotheses, and points to a large advantage. So the "no advantage" argument is wrong.

Then there's also the process by which the testing was conducted, poorly managed at first, then challenged, possibly manipulated and then the legal process that saw only half the data presented to CAS before a decision was made. From A to Z, this was a case in bad science meets PR and law. And that looks set to continue into August.

Ross

The lifetime ban for doping: Debate continued

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:11:00 +0000

Lifetime ban for doping: A debate continued

So as expected, CAS today overturned the BOA policy of issuing a lifetime ban for any athlete who has served a doping ban longer than six months. This is hardly unexpected, and is a decision that probably owes much to the legal backdrop of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA's) policy which issues a two-year ban for a first time offence. That the BOA policy then issues an additional sanction was the root of the case heard at CAS, who ruled against the BOA.

I wrote most of what I feel is relevant to this case in my previous post, where I tried to explain that a life-time ban cannot be supported by the current science of anti-doping, because the science simply cannot guarantee with 100% certainty that an athlete who fails a doping test is actually doping. That is, it's not enough to fall back on the simple position that "a positive test means you cheated, so off with your head" (which is basically what many people seem to believe). The corollary is that a negative doping test also does not mean you're not doping, but this is a mindset that I think many have yet to recognize!

In any event, with the news of the CAS decision emerging, I asked earlier for some thoughts and opinions on our Twitter feed and Facebook pages (follow if you haven't - they are often an outlet for passing thoughts and opinion). The response was interesting. Very emotive, that's for sure, and predominantly, it seems from those within the UK.

Among the common responses is that this decision to overturn a life-time ban policy is a "massive step backwards in the war against drug cheats", that it "has validated the efforts of the cheats" and that it "takes away the deterrent of a drugs ban and opens the doors for drug enhanced training".

I think much of this is emotive, which is fine, and I completely understand the paradigm and the logic that says that to clamp down on doping, you must increase the punishment. This is basic economics - disincentivize doping through increased probability of being caught and harsher punishment when caught.

However, a few thoughts, many of which are repeated or reworded from yesterday's post, because I have a feeling the key messages I tried to put across haven't reached their targets!

1. Lifetime bans could produce fewer convictions, because harsher punishment means greater "burden of proof"

First, the reality is that a life-time ban represents the harshest possible punishment for an athlete, for it takes away their livelihood, often without a fall-back plan (ask a 26-year old cyclist what their second career option is, for example). It is, metaphorically, a case of "off with their heads", because you may as well do this. Now, in order to do this fairly, you have to be absolutely, 100% certain that you are punishing a person who deserves it. And sadly, the science is, as of this moment, not able to provide those guarantees, and there is always some doubt if an athlete wants to contest the origin of a doping positive.

(Just an aside here - the lifetime ban applied by the BOA presently applies to Olympic participation, and so there's a distinction to be made between this and a ban from all sports, which is obviously more severe. I'd argue, however, that the principles and concepts below are valid regardless of where or when the ban applies, and to take the Olympic Games away from an athlete, particularly in some sports like track and field, is unfairly harsh given the uncertainty and legal burden, as I explain below).

So ask the following: "If there is a 2% chance of a false positive test, then how comfortable are we issuing life-time bans?" Then ask "If there is a 10% chance of the positive dope test being the result of contamination of supplements, then are we comfortable with a lifetime ban?"

Now, imagine being the decision maker who has to evaluate a legal case where the athlete says "I do not contest the positive dope test, but my defense is that it came from a supplement (or meat). I was therefore NOT cheating". Can you confidently judge AND condemn this person as a cheat?

Given the science of anti-doping today, and the complexity of these cases, I'd argue that you simply cannot make this decision, and if your punishment option is to hand out a life-time ban, I'd argue that you're far LESS likely to find dopers guilty when presented with this defense!

Therefore, the first prediction is that if life-time bans were given to doping athletes, far few "convictions" would be the result!

2. Positive dope tests are not always the result of cheating, even if they're true

Second, one has to consider these possible defense strategies, and how realistic/valid they are. I'd argue that contamination and inadvertent doping happens a great deal. 10%? 20%? It's happened four times in two years in SA Rugby alone (I'm not sure of how many "genuine" cheating doping cases there've been, however). And there were dozens of cases in 2010 for just one stimulant, methylhexanamine. I don't have this statistic, but just from my reading of the coverage of cycling and athletics, it seems to me that at least half the doping cases that are disputed boil down to the issue of "inadvertent doping", either because of contamination of supplements or some other source of the same doping product. The other half, in cycling anyway, boil down to a dispute over the biological passport, and that would intensify if a life-time ban were on the table.

Now, under the current system, a person who is inadvertently doping is banned, and rightly so, because the athlete is fully responsible for anything in their system (the so-called strict liability rule). But this is a two-year ban, sometimes reduced because of extenuating circumstances. However, if we created a system where the punishment for failing a drugs test was a lifetime ban, you'd be seeing a lot more of these kinds of "inadvertent use" defenses. If you're that athlete, you'll throw everything at sowing doubt, and a drawn out appeals process would result. Also, the concept of strict liability COMBINED with a lifetime ban would be very difficult to justify - as it is, strict liability is an extreme policy that many deem unreasonable on athletes. So how can we make the athlete completely liable AND ban them for life when they make mistakes? It's just too harsh - you would not find this kind of extreme requirement in any other profession.

Remember, I'm not talking here of deliberately cheating. This is not an athlete who takes a syringe, fills it with a drug and then injects it carefully to avoid detection. This is an athlete who takes a supplement that is legal and then gets the dreaded call that they've failed the doping test anyway.

The end result of this risk, however small, is that we'd be seeing a lot more drawn out cases, and ultimately, more reduced sentences. Why? Because if the punishment is changed and made this harsh, then the burden of proof, legally, would be much, much higher. The problem, once again, is that the science cannot, at this moment in time, meet that burden.

In the longer term, drawn out appeals processes and challenges would, I believe, add to the ever-rising costs of prosecuting dopers, and this could ultimately cripple the entire system.

Remember, this is a system already straining under the legal load. The result is that the introduction of compulsory lifetime bans will mean fewer tests, because federations would find themselves spending more and more money on prosecution of dopers. Therefore, the second prediction is that if we introduced lifetime bans, the knock-on effect would be that federations would spend all their money in protracted court cases and legal battles, trying to nail down positive test results that somewhere down the line, the money to actually conduct the testing would dry up. This has already happened in cycling, where the biological passport costs a good deal of money to defend, and it erodes the spending on implementation.

In the short-term, then, lifetime bans may seem a good disincentive, but in the longer term, I'd have grave reservations that the legal process they introduce will force authorities to spend money elsewhere, where it is less effective, and the disincentive to dope would actually increase! That's not a good situation to be in.

3. The risk matrix approach - however small the probability, if the consequence is severe, it's a problem

Now, I believe that the point of anti-doping is two fold. Yes, it's there to catch dope cheats, but it's also there to give those competing cleanly an equal chance of success, and "peace of mind". The problem with life-bans is that it doesn't merely affect the cheats, it puts the innocents on a razor's edge, where they too have the axe hovering over their heads. And yes, they are innocent and therefore have nothing to fear, but even if the chance of contamination and false-positives are 1%, that's a big risk when the punishment is quite that harsh.

Businesses often use a risk-matrix to try to quantify how serious certain identified risks are. That risk matrix takes not only the probability of an event into account, but also the severity of the outcomes should that event occur. For example, the risk of sponsors withdrawing their support for your sports team may be low to moderate, but if it were to happen, it could be disastrous, and so you invest a lot of time and energy in keeping them happy. To give a more personal example, if you're choosing a babysitter for your only child, the probability of choosing someone psychotic, reckless and irresponsible may be incredibly low, but the impact of that event would be catastrophic if it did happen, and so you make really sure that you're getting a good reference and someone you trust!

Now, for anti-doping, the probability of falsely condemning someone to a doping ban may be low. As I mentioned, I don't have a figure, but it may be 1%, 5% or 10%. But the problem is that if we raise the ban from a 2-year punishment to a life-time, then that risk takes on an entirely different meaning, because the severity is so much higher - for a young athlete, it is a catastrophe. The risk of a life-time ban is thus just too high. One athlete whose career is ended wrongly can't be weighed against those who are justly banned - it's not a balance I'd like to try to strike!

The moral case - second chances

OK, so this whole picture is somewhat philosophical, and I'm talking in generalities here. For most people reading this, the current case will boil down to two names - David Millar and Dwain Chambers, the two men spoken of in the media as the beneficiaries of this decision by CAS.

I'd warn against allowing individuals to personify the case, however. It's too easy to "like" or "dislike" the specific people involved, and allow that to obscure the big picture and concepts. But nevertheless, this will happen, but I would steer clear of the specific cases and rather establish a framework for how to evaluate cases like theirs.

However, my personal take is that people make mistakes. Young athletes, in a team environment, encounter doping and often find that their future depends on becoming part of the "beast". I'm sympathetic to athletes for this reason - I had neither the talent nor the opportunity to find myself in that situation, but I shudder to think what I would do if my dreams were wrapped up in a web of doping deceit. I guess, in a sense, I'm lucky I never had to make that call, because for a young athlete on the verge of realizing a dream, it must seem an impossible call to make. As a result, it's a brave person who condemns a young athlete for doping when they've never been in a situation similar to that themselves.

So having been the beneficiary of many second chances in life (hands up if you've never had a second chance), I'd say that second chances in sport are right, as they are in life. I appreciate that sometimes, we don't give people second chances, and yes, we exclude people from doing certain jobs based on previous convictions (theft as banktellers, sex offender as teachers for example). Those are compelling arguments, without, perhaps, a right or wrong answer. But my take is that we should give second chances, provided the person involved shows a willingness to work within the system, repent and do things differently the second time around.

Discretion and compromise: Sentences can be independent of verdicts, and move towards a 4-year ban

There is compromise here, of course, and it is two-fold. First of all, use discretion. This already happens, of course - the cases I mentioned previously in SA Rugby were all given reduced bans (or no bans) because it was quite clear that the doping was from contamination and that the athletes involved did all they could to ensure the "safety" of their supplements. So one can argue that life-time bans should be introduced so that in cases that arise where athletes are clearly cheating for an advantage, and show no remorse, they can be banned for life. Neither Millar nor Chambers fit this category, incidentally, and I think both have earned some aspect of second chance through their reaction to doping bans.

I'd have no problem with life-time bans for some people, however, but I hope people realize that it means that doping cases will go the way of criminal cases, where the sentence exists independent of the verdict. That is, you're found "guilty" on the basis of the test results, but sentenced on the basis of a host of other factors, including your attitude and willingness to comply with authorities. I think this is actually a good thing, and it happens to some extent already, with dopers given more lenient sentences for co-operations. This is a good thing, and if we had the option of life-time bans (as opposed to a rule of life-time bans), expect it to happen much more, with a much higher proportion of "reduced sentences" and "failed convictions", as mentioned.

The second thing that must happen, as I mentioned yesterday, is to tighten up the testing process, to ensure that doping is caught more effectively. The contamination issue is so complex I don't see it ever going way, but false-positives and better anti-doping can happen. If it did, then the current 2-year ban might be increased to four years, and that would always cost an athlete at least one Olympic cycle, which is a good thing. So my suggestion is to move towards this goal - rather spend our energy on having the ban increased to 4 years as a result of better doping controls (which involves many things - more testing, a cleaner list of substances and a wider array of 'weapons' to test with).

The bottom line is that there's a lot of emotive accusation and condemnation going on. And far be it for me to be a "doping apologist" - those of you who read this site often will know me as a very harsh anti-doping advocate. But there's a line, I believe, between being unrealistic about doping control and providing the right balance. I believe that line should be drawn at about four years!

But practically, as of May 2012, I don't believe the science of anti-doping is quite up to the legal challenge that a four-year ban would bring to the table (and to the courtroom), let alone a life-time ban. The financial and legal implications of harsher punishment can't simply be ignored, for the federations and the innocent athletes who, as small as the probabilities may be, have to be thought of too. Let's rather work towards better testing, more certainty, and use that as the disincentive, and be slower to shout "off with their heads". For now, anyway!

Ross

Olympic buzz: Around the rings

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:21:00 +0000

Around the rings: Life-time bans for dopers, Kenya's Marathon team and the Olympic mascots under the spotlight

The British Olympic Association vs WADA on its lifetime ban policy: Decision expected Monday

Next week should kick off with a Court of Arbitration verdict that will clear the way for some British athletes to compete in London, despite a British Olympic Association (BOA) policy that hands down lifetime bans for doping offenses. This in turn invites debate (and some heated emotional responses) on what exactly should be done to dopers - lifetime bans, or the current two year sentence, or some alternative?

In case you haven't followed the story, the BOA policy is that it does not select athletes who have served doping bans of six months or more to their Olympic team. This means that athletes such as Dwain Chambers and David Millar, having served their bans as a result of the WADA code, were ineligible for selection to the British Olympic team.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) challenged this policy as "noncompliant" with its doping code, since the WADA code hands out a two-year ban to first-time doping offenders. The BOA appealed this WADA ruling, and the case has now been heard by the CAS in Switzerland. Ever since the case was heard in March, it has been predicted that CAS will reject the BOA appeal, and thus "force" the selection of these athletes should they qualify for the British team.

The "certainty" over the decision is due to a precedent set last year, when CAS ruled against the International Olympic Committee in a similar case. In that case, the IOC had a rule that banned an athlete who served six months or more for doping from competing in the next Olympic Games, but the same panel which heard the BOA case decided that this too amounted to an additional sanction that could not be upheld. The end result was that it cleared the way for former 400m World Champion LaShawn Merritt to run in London, and it should do the same for athletes like Chambers and Millar (depending on selection criteria, of course).

To give my personal opinion, it seems quite clear that if the global body (WADA) that has been tasked with fighting doping has a rule that bans an athlete for two years, then its global collection of member bodies (including the BOA) must comply with that rule. One can't have a handful of countries that comply with parts of the global code, but have their own rules in other areas. Think of the exact opposite scenario to illustrate the concept - an athlete dopes and should receive a two-year ban, but the athlete's national body decides that it's worth only a 1-year ban, or no ban at all. There'd be an outcry. The member parties of WADA are tasked with implementing the global code, not modifications thereof, and so it seems fairly clear then that the CAS decision to prevent further sanction is, by the letter of the law, the right one.

However, there is a much larger question in play here, and this is whether the global standard needs to be shifted. Even the BOA have conceded that while they may not win this particular battle, they may be taking a significant step to advancing the "war" on doping by raising the question of whether dope cheats should be allowed back into the sport so soon? The case then becomes more about the WADA rule than it does about the BOA selection policy, and that's the bigger picture here.

Doping control has, it must be said, become more and more mired in legal challenges and loopholes in recent years. The Contador case was an illustration of this, but it was not unique. The ever rising cost of court cases that challenge doping results threatens to a) financially hamper anti-doping processes, and b) drag doping cases out to the point that athletes can now receive two-year bans that actually last only 6 months (exhibit A: Alberto Contador).

From a scientific point of view, the reality is that the blood and urine tests that we used to think were "foolproof" are now merely the first step towards a sanction, with an often lengthy and expensive court case standing in the way. This means that more money is required to refine the testing processes and for conducting the doping controls at major events. Failure to obtain this funding leads to what was alleged in cycling recently, where the biological passport testing declined to a slow trickle rather than a raging torrent it needs to be. Not only that, but the number of athletes who have admitted to doping without ever being caught highlights the difficult in catching sophisticated dopers, and it also makes a mockery of the "look how many times I have been tested" argument so often put forward to "prove" that an athlete is not doping.

The end result of all this is that doping control is becoming a complex legal battle, and not the clean 'test and ban' strategy that it was perhaps hoped it would be. Therefore, the discussion over whether a doping ban should be two years, or a lifetime ban, invites discussion over what legal implications this will have given the already murky legal lines that have been drawn. The reality is that the harsher the punishment, the more certain the verdict must be. And the problem is that in the current anti-doping climate, the verdict has never been quite as uncertain or shaky.

The reasons for this uncertainty are numerous. First, tests can produce false-positives and are thus challenged on the basis that anti-doping policies do not conform to statistical standards from forensic science. Secondly, there is a risk of contamination of supplements - look at the number of cases for the stimulant methylhexanamine in 2010 and 2011. Third, and similar to contamination of supplements, is the possibility of banned substances through food ingestion, as was raised by Contador, by shown in this study. Fourth, there are allegations of cover-ups, stings, corruption that undermine the credibility of the anti-doping process.

For all the above reasons, it would be difficult to dish out a lifetime ban to a first-time doper. The 'burden of proof' is simply too high, and while many of the above mentioned factors have counter-arguments (the biological passport, for example, while not foolproof is constantly improving and has numerous checks and balances to ensure that it doesn't unfairly ban cyclists), the reality is that all these factors exist as loopholes.

And any athlete, driven to win (and therefore to dope), is going to be driven to find these loopholes when their career is under threat. So when Athlete X tests positive they will, inevitably, turn all their attention and often their legal might to have their name cleared. That's for a two-year ban. Now imagine the stakes are higher. Imagine a lifetime ban is on the table. Then the legal pressure on the authorities to prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Athlete X was doping, becomes that much higher, and I'm not sure this is a pressure that should be invited at this stage.

I think that anti-doping has made enormous strides in recent years, and particularly in cycling, the proper implementation of the biological passport has been extremely positive. But, the flip side of the coin is the recent discussion that highlights a growing concern that the passport is no longer being used as effectively as it might have been, partly because of escalating legal costs and the time involved fighting back against the attacks on credibility.

So the better solution, for now, is to tighten up testing processes, and improve the science. Make sure that the process by which dopers are caught is rock-solid, and able to stand up to even the tightest forensic and legal scrutiny, and then let's look at four-year bans, perhaps as the next step towards lifetime bans.

There is of course also a moral and ethical position on this. An athlete who dopes has (often) gone out of his/her way to cheat, and this means denying other athletes equal rights on medals, money, prizes, achievements (not necessarily in that order). This doping athlete is effectively fraudulent, and so there's an analogy to business here - if any CEO is exposed as stealing money from his company, or his clients, he is unlikely to be welcomed back into the world of business after serving his punishment.

And the BOA, in their case against WADA, did argue that when athletes themselves are asked, they are in favour of life-time bans, because they are the ones most affected by cheating. Their voice should probably be considered as important in that regard. However, doping in sport has always been a little different. I don't condone doping - I am very much against it (hence the frequency of critical posts on this subject on this site). But I can also summon up some sympathy for those caught up in a corrupt and dishonest system that really facilitates doping. Last year in November, I heard David Millar talk at the UKSEM conference, and he explained how he gradually moved towards accepting doping, because of a culture within the team, by those in charge.

Others have said similar things, and I am somewhat sympathetic to the plight of a young man or woman who knows nothing other than their sport, and finds themselves at a cross-roads very early in their career (or lives), with guidance coming most strongly from those who are advocating doping. These are not therefore the CEO-equivalent of businesses, to return to the previous analogy. They are the junior workers, who are led to doping by CEOs just to keep their jobs, in many cases. And their choice must seem devastatingly simple at the time - give in and dope because it is often the only way to remain competitive or employed. Or, resist the temptation and retire to a life of...? There's often no fallback, other than retirement, or become a painter, as Alex Zulle (I think) once famously said.

It's a very difficult position. My current one is that until the science is even tighter, and able to stand up to the inevitable legal onslaught that lifetime bans would invite, the current two-year policy is correct. The first objective in the "war" should be to extend the ban to four years, thus ensuring that at least an Olympic Games is taken away from a doper. This requires advances in the science and probably the "investigative process" by which doping is uncovered. But a lifetime ban, I think, is far in advance. As for the moral and ethical debate, I'd love to hear your views!

Kenya's marathon team announced: No World # 1 or World Record holder

The other interesting point from last week was the announcement of Kenya's Olympic marathon team. On the women's side, there's perhaps less controversy, with the brilliant Mary Keitany the first name down, followed by Edna Kiplagat and Priscah Jeptoo. They showed form and class in London, and perhaps only Sharon Cherop, who won Boston the week before, can feel a little hard done by.

But on the men's side, it was always going to be a mighty difficult selection. The difficulty is illustrated by this fact: The current world record holder (Patrick Makau) and 2011's top marathon man (Geoffrey Mutai) are both OUT of the Kenyan squad, and will not run in the Olympic Games.

The three eventually named are: Wilson Kipsang, who, by virtue of his London win was probably the "easiest" choice to make. He's joined by Abel Kirui, twice world champion, but only sixth in London, despite running a brave race to follow and attack with Kipsang at halfway, and finally Moses Mosop, who won Chicago last year, but who was pretty handily beaten by two Ethiopians in Rotterdam recently, despite talking up a world record before the race.

Dealing with Kipsang first, he must be the favourite for Olympic gold now. He won London by over two minutes, with a ferocious mid-race burst, and has won marathons in fast times in the last 11 months, including that 2:03:42 second fastest of all time performance. So no controversy with his selection.

The debate is around Mosop and Kirui. And let's be clear - if they go on to win the Olympic Gold, it would not surprise me in the least. Kirui in particular has shown his ability to race in championships with two commanding World Champs gold medals. In London, Kirui looked magnificent up to about 30km, but paid for the 14:09 surge between 20 and 25km, and ended up going backwards and 'crawling' home with a 8:33 final 2.2km! Had he steered clear of the mid-race surge, it's not difficult to imagine that he'd probably have run a 2:05, maybe low 2:06, and that would have made his selection seem a lot more reasonable. His aggression off a fast pace cost him, and he ended up running outside 2:07, very slow by today's extra-ordinary standards. Still, I'd have Kirui in my team, because off a slow pace to halfway (think 65 minutes), he's shown tactical experience and quality.

Mosop is the third name. Despite the talk of a world record in Rotterdam, he not only missed that time, but was beaten into third by two Ethiopians. Mosop clearly has tremendous speed and pedigree, having won Chicago in a course record, and chasing Mutai home in Boston with his 2:03:06 (which has really been put into perspective by what has happened since). Before Rotterdam, his coach Renato Canova talked up how nothing but a world record would get Mosop onto the team, and that seemed accurate.

But then Boston dished up a super hot day, with temperatures on the tarmac rising to almost 100F (38 C), and Geoffrey Mutai was the victim - stomach cramps forced him to abandon the race after halfway, and so he failed to stake his claim in the minds of the Kenyan selectors. His case, then, was his 2011 form, and also his pedigree at the shorter distances - he was the Kenyan Cross-country champion in 2011. Those credentials would have seen me pick Mutai, I have to say, mostly because of his ability to win non-paced marathons (Mosop has not won a marathon without pacemakers, and has only one win in three starts). Both Boston and New York in 2011 saw Mutai dominate strong fields without pace-setters. His New York win, for me, was particularly impressive, and I'd have put Boston down as a bad day, an anomaly perhaps caused by the heat, and gone with Mutai instead.

Makau too failed to finish his "audition", and he dropped out after only 16km in London. The reason, apparently, is an injury, and I guess that may have played into his omission from the team.

The other factor to consider, for both Mutai and Makau, is that they don't have a marathon in their legs as we move into the final three months of preparation before London. That's the other reason I would have picked Mutai - the time frame is a little tight, and the likes of Kipsang, Kirui and Mosop will have to produce another world class marathon on 14 weeks after their last. This is possible, and we may see athletes perform with even tighter calendar constraints later this year when a lot of Olympic runners also race New York or Chicago, but it's another factor in an intriguing mix. It may well be that success in the Spring counts against runners come Summer.

At least the question is out the way for Kenya, and the three men who will try to defend Wanjiru's Olympic crown in London. And as I said, it is quite conceivable that any one of the three can win gold, and that they can sweep the podium. I doubt it, because the Ethiopian challenge this year is very strong, and even the gold medal will be strongly contested, but it's a super strong team. I would have chosen Mutai, myself. Your thoughts welcome, as usual.

On the women's side, in terms of the Olympic race, the fascinating question is to see how Liliya Shobukhova deals with the Kenyans, particularly Keitany. Shobukhova is actually faster than the Keitany, by virtue of her 2:18:20 in Chicago in 2011. So her recent form is good, the manner of her Chicago wins is impressive - front-running and very strong second half, like Keitany. But Keitany must be the favourite, simply because her final 10km in London, in about 31:35, were extra-ordinary. But that will be a tremendous battle.

Meet the Olympic mascots

We're now into the final 100 days before the Games, so we may as well get to know the Olympic Mascots - Wenlock (pictured right, courtesy Bonnie Ford who conquered her phobia to get this shot!) and Mandeville. Not everybody's favourite, and there've been some humorous criticism of them, including this photoshop competition to put the two in amusing poses against different backdrops. But remember, they are for children, so if we don't particularly enjoy them, well, we aren't exactly their main purpose (despite the overplayed "meaning" behind the mascots, which really are only relevant for adults)

Speaking of their meaning, here's a short explanation of the names, the designs and the significance.

The video below is the gold standard for mascots - Berlino of the IAAF World Champs in 2009 (apart from the annoying music - best watched on mute!)

Wenlock and Mandeville have a lot to live up to!

Ross

London 2012: Kipsang & Keitany conquer London

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 19:45:00 +0000

Wilson Kipsang and Mary Keitany conquer the world's most competitive marathon

The London Marathon today wrapped up a spring marathon season that leaves the world's elite nicely poised for the next big Marathon, the London Olympic Games. If I had to throw out one word that sums the last eight days of city marathons have shown, it's "patience".

2011 was the year that the Kenyans changed the marathon. They made it look like a track race, destroying fields and racing their way to an astonishing collection of victories and records in every Major city marathon. Rotterdam and Boston a week ago didn't follow the trend, and neither did London, at least in terms of course records, but it was still super fast - Mary Keitany produced the fastest marathon in the world this year, a Kenyan record, and the fifth fastest of all-time (mixed and women only races) with her exceptional 2:18:36. Wilson Kipsang almost broke the course record, missing it by (for him) the now familiar time of four seconds in 2:04:44 (you'll recall that Kipsang last year missed the world record by the same margin).

However, their performances are noteworthy for the entirely different manner with which they were achieved. And it is Kipsang's, or rather the men's race, in particular, that is particularly noteworthy for how it has reminded us of the theme of 2012 - the marathon has struck back. If 2011 was the year when the Kenyans turned marathon running into something of a prolonged track race, then 2012 is the year when the marathon has reminded us all that it's still a race that requires control, patience and a good deal of respect for how effort is 'spent' over its distance. An analysis of the men's race illustrates this nicely, and comparison with Keitany's victory further emphasizes this point.

Let's look at both races, starting, for a change, with the women's race.

Keitany - patience and building to an extra-ordinary final 15km

Keitany's record breaking day was built off an extra-ordinary second half after a patient first half. The last time we saw Keitany in a marathon, she was going backwards in New York after starting at World Record pace. She would later describe how she felt better than she really was, and followed that feeling to what was really a suicidal pace, for which she paid but still clung on to third place.

There was no early suicidal pace in London today, but she was responsible for a murderous pace at the end, as Keitany ran a perfect marathon against arguably the strongest field of women ever assembled. Halfway was reached in 70:53, projecting a 2:21:46, which was, at the time, fairly slow given the quality of the field.

It wouldn't remain slow for long, and the graph below, showing Keitany's 5km splits (blue line), illustrates just how the pace ramped up from halfway onwards. It wasn't the same dramatic surge that we saw from Keitany in 2011 (the red line), where she attacked at halfway and reeled of a 32:10 10-km interval (67:52 half marathon pace), but it would end even more spectacularly, as Keitany ran the second half in 67:43! And that was with a progressive acceleration, as the graph below shows.

Unsurprisingly, the rest of the women's field was being stretched out by Keitany's pace. A lead group that consisted of 8 was cut progressively after halfway, and ended up being four women with 10km left to run, the Ethiopian challenge dealt with by 30km. That's when Keitany's pressure at the front really began to tell, and Florence Kiplagat and Priscah Jeptoo dropped off the back. This left Edna Kiplagat as Keitany's sole challenger, but Keitany never wavered. She didn't appear to do anything spectacular - unlike in the men's race, there was no single kilometer that did damage, but rather a gradual winding up of the pace.

That segment from 35 km to 40 km was covered in 15:45, and is the fastest 5km segment ever recorded by a woman in a major marathon (Paula Radcliffe's fastest was a 15:47 opening 5km back in 2005). By virtue of that interval, Kiplagat's challenge was broken, and the world champion fell back by 40 seconds over this interval alone. She would eventually hang on to finish in second, with a sub-2:20 of her own, but Keitany just got faster and faster.

Some other extra-ordinary stats about Keitany's second half are:

The final 12.2 km were clocked at 38:43, which is 31:44 pace for a 10km
The final 7.2 km were run in 22:35, which is 31:22 pace for 10km
Her final 2.2 km were timed at 6:50, which is 3:06 per kilometer

The circles in the graph above show Keitany's time gap in 2012 compared to last year's 2:19:19 victory. You can see that the pace early was slower - 34 seconds lost in the first 5km, then another 8 to 10km and so on. At the 30km mark, Keitany was 42 seconds slower than in her 2011 victory, but then she started to move. The 15:45 "record" interval took her ahead of last year's time, and then she closed out the final 2.2km in an incredible 6:50, to run 43 seconds faster than in 2011 (not shown on graph).

The 6:50, incidentally, was better by only three other athletes on the day - Wilson Kipsang who won the men's race, and ran 6:45, and then Martin Lel and Tsegay Kebede who sprinted the finish straight on route to a 6:37! Keitany was simply untouchable in this strongest women's race ever. What this does is set up the Olympic Marathon beautifully, with Liliya Shobukhova awaiting Keitany. Shobukhova last year won Chicago in 2:18:20, and is the only athlete faster than Keitany in the last 7 years but has been beaten by Keitany (London 2011).

Radcliffe, of course, has run faster than both, but there are serious doubts over her ability to produce anything like what we saw today, and it seems that that is what it will take to beat Keitany, who has now shown herself to have learned the marathon and has the pedigree to win Olympic Gold for Kenya.

As a final word, it's interesting to note that the spectacular 67:43 second half by Keitany is still slower than Paula Radcliffe's second half during her 2003 run. In that race, after going through halfway in 68:02 (2:51 faster than 2012), Radcliffe ran the second half in 67:23! Testament to the quality of that performance. But, Keitany's final 10km is the fastest ever for a woman marathoner, as our friends at Letsrun.com have written.

Men's race: Wilson Kipsang wins a race of attrition with an incredible mid-race surge

Now let's look at the men's race, and keep that graph of Keitany's in your mind - she started patiently, ran a steady first half and then got faster and faster, culminating in a record 5km interval from 35km to 40km.

Wilson Kipsang did it differently. In the men's race, it was all about aggression early. Not in the first half, because like in the women's race, that was fast but evenly paced. They hit halfway in 62:12, after 5km segments of 14:36, 15:00, 14:54 and 14:43. You can contrast this with Emmanuel Mutai's 2011 course record, where halfway was reached in 62:44. So it was fast.

And then it got faster. Wilson Kipsang, at least from TV pictures, seemed to be the main aggressor, and as the race reached the halfway mark, he blew it wide open. The splits would later reveal why - the 5km segment from 20 to 25km was run in a spectacular 14:09. That's one of the fastest 5km segments ever measured in a world class marathon (Wanjiru in London 2009, Mosop in Chicago 2011 are faster), and it was responsible for creating massive gaps in an incredible men's field (Geoffrey Mutai ran a 14:12 segment in Boston in 2011). This meant that London 2012 produced the fastest 5km splits for both men and women, though for Keitany, this came at the end, for Kipsang, the middle...

Kipsang was followed, at first, by Worku and Lilesa of Ethiopia. Abel Kirui was a little slower to respond, but he did bridge the gap, and by 25km, he had replaced Worku in the front three. From 25km to 30km, Kipsang, Lilesa and Kirui continued to work hard on the front, growing the lead over the chasers, who included former champions Tsegay Kebede, Emmanuel Mutai and Martin Lel, to just over 1 minute. At this stage, the front three looked assured of podium places at least, and it was Kirui who did most of the front running between 25km and 30km, looking very strong and full of running.

Then, the next time we saw the race at around 33km, Kipsang was clear, so a split happened somewhere at about 32km. The gap at 35km would grow to 15 seconds, and it was created entirely because Kirui and Lilesa's pace dropped, and not by a surge by Kipsang. In hindsight, this small gap of 15 seconds at 35 km was the first symptom of an impending implosion for both Kirui and Lilesa.

The graph below shows the 5km splits for Kipsang and Kirui (red and green, respectively) as well as Mutai in 2011. You can see that having been locked together up to 30km, Kipsang held the pace at 14:42 and then 14:43 per 5km, whereas Kirui and Lilesa, still together at this stage, slowed down to 15:00/5km pace. That was enough to put Kipsang clear, and even though he would also slow down, running a 15:11 from 35km to 40km, his lead grew, because Kirui and Lilesa were going backwards by this stage.

The best illustration of Kirui and Lilesa's difficulties comes from a comparison with Lel and Kebede in the chase. At 30km, the gap was 1:02, and Kirui and Lilesa were locked in battle with Kipsang.

By 35km, Kirui and Lilesa had lost 15 seconds to Kipsang out in front, but their lead over the chasers had grown to 1:42. Then it started to come down, steadily at first, then precipitously.

By 40km, Lilesa was only 18 seconds ahead of Lel and Kebede. He therefore lost 1:24 of his lead within 5km. Kirui was still hanging on, 51 seconds ahead, so he had lost 51 seconds over the same period.

Then over the final 2.2km, things went particularly badly. Lilesa took 8:24 for the final 2.2km and went from third to tenth, whereas Kirui ran the final 2.2km in 8:33 and dropped from 2^nd to 6^th. After losing 51 seconds over the 5km from 35 to 40km, Kirui then lost an additional 1:56 over the final 2.2km. Partly, this is because he shut it down after being caught, but with prize money at stake, his and Lilesa’s final 7km illustrate how costly the mid-race aggression was.

Kipsang meanwhile was holding the speed a lot better – having run 14:42 and 14:43 between 25 and 35km, he dropped to a 15:11 from 35km to 40km, and then ran just outside 3 min/km to the finish. Having been ahead of Mutai's record pace from about 16km (see circles in the graph above), Kipsang then drifted outside and just missed the course record, which, it must be said, he probably deserved for the manner with which he beat such a strong field by such a large margin.

In some respects, this London race was similar to what we saw in Boston last week, with those involved in big mid-race surges paying dearly for it at the end. It's a lesson in "cost-benefit" analysis of marathon running and pacing! The difference between London and Boston, of course, is that in Boston, the eventual winner Wesley Korir was very conservative and did not get involved in surges, whereas London was ultimately won by its main aggressor in Kipsang. However, for Kirui and Lilesa, London 2012 was the same as Boston was for the likes of Levy Matebo and Matthew Kisorio - mid-race aggression has a cost, and the marathon makes sure that cost is paid!

The margins between great and imploding - a fine line

The lesson then, is that the East African strategy of racing the marathon aggressively soon after halfway may exert a heavy price, one that has always existed but that we didn't notice too much when records were falling left, right and centre in 2011. Today, it was a 14:09 split for 5km that blew the race open, gave Kipsang the victory, but also saw world class runners reduced to speeds of just faster than 4 min/km for the final 5km! In Boston, the heat made this effect even more pronounced, but it's a lesson in how fine the margins are between extra-ordinary and "mortality".

Today, in London, Wilson Kipsang lived on that line, and managed to produce 'extra-ordinary', winning by 2:07. Mary Keitany ran under that line until the time was right, and then she produced something truly extra-ordinary. But for others, like Kirui and Lilesa, the line was too fine and they crossed it and paid. Having been blown away by the "ease" of the Kenyan dominance of 42.195km in 2011, we are reminded how easily things can go wrong.

For Kirui, then, London was not a good day out. Had he been more cautious, perhaps not followed the 14:09 surge, he might have come through strongly and finished second, far closer to Kipsang. These men are racers, however, and are not interested in steady and conservative efforts to finish second when winning is an option, and this makes marathon running so enthralling. However, Kirui paid for this today.

And the result, his sixth place, means the Kenyan selectors now have to take a "risk" picking him. The same is true for Lilesa. Instead, Wilson Kipsang looks to have secured his spot, and now it's a judgment call for the other two places. Do the Kenyan selectors go with the beaten Mosop and Kirui? Or do they pick the non-finishing champions of 2011 in Geoffrey Mutai and Patrick Makau? (who bailed at 16km, reportedly with a leg injury). That's the next big marathon story, and then come the Games, and the clash between Kenya's best three and Ethiopia's best three.

2012 - deep high quality year, despite the lack of records and attritional nature

A final word - despite the 'slow' Boston performances, and despite everyone but Kipsang being made to look a little more mortal today and over the last few weeks, 2012 is still on course to be the strongest year ever for marathon running in terms of depth of performance. Kipsang's 2:04:44 today was the seventh sub-2:05 time this year, which equals the 2011 record for most sub-2:05s.

It was also the 14th time under 2:06 in 2012, and that is the highest in history. So while we haven't seen the course records and clusters of men racing to these times in the Major Marathons, we're still seeing the continuation of a revolution in the marathon. It's just not quite as spectacular as it was in 2011.

Among the women, incidentally, the same is true. Keitany and Kiplagat went under 2:20 today, making them numbers 5 and 6 this year, the most ever. Twelve women have broken 2:22 this year, and that's also a record.

Of course, both the men's and women's stats have been helped by that Dubai race in January, where basically half these times were recorded. So the stats are a little skewed, because outside of Dubai, the Major City Marathons haven't been as spectacular, but history will go on to record 2012 as the deepest year in marathon running, and we're only in April!

That's it for the Spring Marathons. Busy time, as always, but hopefully you enjoyed the coverage, both here after the race, and also over on Facebook and Twitter. I don't usually ask, but since it's the end of the season, if you'd like to make a donation to support The Science of Sport and our efforts at sports analysis, please do so at the button on the top right of the page (click here if reading this as an email to be taken to the site)

Until the next big event, which I'm sure is not far away!

Ross

Oh, and one final thing - it was great to see Martin Lel sprinting to the finish to claim second place today. Lel, a past champion in London and New York, was the great marathon runner a few years ago, but injury, and perhaps age, have caught up with him, and this was something of a surprise return. He was my favourite marathon runner in around 2007, 2008 and his sprint finish at the end of marathons one of the great sights in running - remember his kick off the final bend to win London in 2008? Today was a moment of nostalgia. Lel isn't in the Kenyan squad, he wasn't named to the six man shortlist, but my impartial opinion is that if it was a slow race, I'd have him in it, fitness allowing!

Olympic Games: 100 days to go

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 07:49:00 +0000

The Olympic Games: 100 days to go

One of the best things about the rapidly approaching Olympic Games is the discussion it provokes about the giants of their sports, who have often been quiet for a long time, but emerge for the Games. Bekele seems back, and how does that affect Mo Farah and Galen Rupp's chances? The suspense builds. Usain Bolt blitzed an anchor leg in a 4 x 100m relay last weekend, and then watched Yohan Blake run an impressive 9.90s season opener - the suspense builds. Paula Radcliffe wasn't as impressive, running 72:03 in a Vienna Half Marathon, the slowest time of her professional career, though it did come off a bout of bronchitis. And then there's Semenya, Pistorius (for us in SA, anyway), Wariner, and pretty soon, once the Diamond League kicks off in Doha on May 11, a host of other matchups to speculate about and analyse.

Then there's swimming, with Phelps vs Lochte top of mind for now. There's tennis and the prospect of a grass court Olympic gold, triathlon and a Brownlee vs the rest battle, and many other stories waiting to be written. And with 100 days to go, all that discussion will accelerate.

So here, to commerate the 100 day countdown, is a video dating back to before Bejing 2008, featuring some of the legends of the Olympic Games. Beijing gave us a few athletes who belong in this clip, but then there are 100 days to update it!

Ross

Boston strikes back: The Boston 2012 meltdown

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 19:35:00 +0000

Boston strikes back, as Kenya claim a double on a brutal day

Wesley Korir and Sharon Cherop have won the 2012 Boston Marathon for Kenya. Surprise names, perhaps (particularly Korir), but you might, at first glance, call it "just another Kenyan victory". It was anything but. Today was a reminder of the difficulty of the marathon, because Mother Nature, so kind to Boston one year ago, decided to strike back and show the other extreme of marathon running. The winning times - 2:12:40 for Korir and 2:31:50 for Cherop, are a staggering 9:38 and 9:14 slower than last year's winning times respectively. That's almost 19 minutes, collectively, and we were today reminded that even the great runners are "mortals" in the face of tough conditions.

The timing from Boston tells of three races, and it's too tempting not to compare. There was Geoffrey Mutai of 2011 - the astonishing 2:03:02 performanced, aided by a strong following wind and ideal temperatures of around 50F. Then in 2012, there were Wesley Korir and Levy Matebo, who finished first and second, but ran two quite different races, and their paces tell the story of the day.

So here are three thoughts about Boston 2012, including some insight on the physiology of the various "meltdowns" we saw today, and how Wesley Korir and Jason Hartmann got it just right:

1. Caution counts when conditions make the margin for error smaller

We are so used to seeing aggressive racing by the Kenyans. Surges and brutal accelerations have given them countless titles, in addition to super fast times. Today in Boston, with the mercury rising above 80F and in bright sunshine, fast times were never going to happen, but the racing surges in the second half were going to decide the title.

And sure enough, in both races, the early pace was super slow. The women went through 15km in 55:15 - that's a full 5:06 slower than the 2011 equivalent. The men hit 15km in 46:48, which was 3:03 slower than in 2011. So the first half was conservative, as one might have predicted (though even I was surprised at how conservative it was). The women's projected time was 2:35 until late racing brought it down, whereas the men didn't dip below 2:11 from the 10km mark onwards.

Shortly after halfway, the attacks began, particularly on the men's side. Matthew Kisorio went off the front just after 25km, and Matebo and Geoffrey Mutai followed. A few small attacks followed, the field regrouped and then split again, and it was Matebo, Kisorio and Mutai once again at the front. Then Mutai dropped back, and fell precipitously off the pace - having been in the lead pack at 27km, he was 1:22 down at 30km and it was clear that his race was run. He dropped out shortly afterwards, and the talk is that he was suffering from cramps.

Then it was Kisorio's turn to crack. He led at 30km, was the aggressor responsible for the early attacks, but shortly before 35km, he began to drop off the pace (10 seconds down). From 35km to 40km, he absolutely blew, running that 5km stretch in 19:06, before eventually finishing in 10th with a final 2.2km of 10:13 (4:39/km pace)!

So that left Matebo, who had also mixed it among those surging at 25km. He held out longer, but his time was also coming. Having built a handy lead at 35 km (10 sec to Kisorio who was going backwards, and 57 seconds to third place, he 'melted' between 35km and 40km, covering this stretch in 16:40! The result was that he was reeled in by Korir, who would eventually pass him for the win. To his credit, Matebo hung on, even counter-surging at 40km when caught, but it was to no avail for the win, but he did hold onto second place.

And then there was Wesley Korir. He did not get involved in the surges, but ran a very solid and constant pace. He was the benefactor of his patience, because when the three ahead of him were blowing and bailing and slowing dramatically, he was able to pick them off by running pretty much the same pace the whole way. It was a lesson in even pace, and it highlights the risk of the aggressive surging strategy that the Kenyans adopt.

The problem, physiologically, is that these surges are metabolically costly. And therefore, they are also very challenging from a thermoregulation point of view. Repeated sprints, for example, are one of the best ways to drive your body temperature higher, and while these men were not exactly sprinting over and over in the marathon, the mid-race surges do more or less produce this result - body temperature climbs and perhaps more importantly, thermal comfort and perception are hugely affected.

Now, on a "normal" day, this is not a huge problem - body temperature and thermoregulation are not crucial factors, and the world's best are able to recover quickly from the metabolical cost of the surge. The physiology of thermoregulation is different - you can't just suddenly lose heat, and so the cost of the higher intensity is paid out over longer periods, taking much longer to recover from. As a result, the line between "just right" and too fast is extremely narrow, and a typical attack is now the one that breaks the aggressor and not just the rest of the field. Therefore, success comes to those who avoid the variations in pace and the harder efforts, and that's what Boston showed today.

Take a look at the graph below - I spoke earlier of three races. We compare the 2011 Mutai performance (blue line), the race run by Levy Matebo (red line) and the winning performance from today of Wesley Korir (green line).

The circles at the bottom show just how far off last year's pace the race was at each 5km interval - 54s down at 5km, another minute lost to 10km, and so forth. By 25km, for example, this year's race was almost 5 minutes slower than Mutai's last year. Then came the "surge" from Kisorio and Matebo, between 25km and 30km. That surge led to the only 5km split of the 2012 race that was faster than 2011 - 14:59 for Matebo vs 15:07 for Mutai last year (the green circle, - 8 seconds).

But notice Korir's pace line in green - he didn't respond to that increase in pace. He held his pace at between 3:05 and 3:10/km, much as it had been for the entire race, and lost contact, falling to sixth overall. That continued to 35km, where he conceded another 18 seconds, but was now up to third as those who had been sucked into the attacks paid for it. Then, from 35km, he started to reel them back. His split from 35km to 40km was 15:44, and while that's not fast in absolute terms, it was the fastest of the race for that segment. Meanwhile, Matebo was exploding up ahead, running the same stretch in 16:40, and the two were together at 40km.

Not surprisingly, Korir had more in reserve, and closed the final 2.2km in 7:13. That too was the fastest of the race, whereas Matebo finished with a 7:39.

On the women's side, the pace barely deviated. It began slowly at 3:46/km, and while it got faster, it was a race mostly lacking in real attack. Sharon Cherop was aggressive at the front, but it was a grinding win, and she just ran everyone off systematically, until she made one final, decisive move with 800m to go. It would be terrific to see 1 km splits (normalised for the hilly profile), to see whether the men's race was more variable (I suspect it was considerably so).

The moral of the story is that on a hot day, the even paced approach works and is vital, and today, the Kenyan strategy of attacking and surging was very costly indeed. One final illustration - Jason Hartmann of the USA, who had a great race to finish fourth. He took the "Korir approach" of not responding to the attacks at 25km. The result was that he actually dropped out of the top 10 at 25km, but then began to claw his way back up, by virtue of some really even pacing. His 5km splits from 25 km to the finish were: 16:03 - 16:13 - 16:22, with a final stretch of 7:30 (second fastest in the race). Remember, this came at a time when those early leaders were running 16:40 (Matebo), 18:01 (David Barmasai), and even 19:06 (Kisorio)!

The heat makes it good to be something or a tortoise! Or at the very least, an even paced hare!

2. Conditions really matter. And Boston today was brutally, $%&#ing hard

There was a lot of talk about the temperature before the race, many people panicking about the imminent death and danger the runners would face. I think it's largely overhyped in terms of safety, but today did illustrate just how important conditions are for fast racing and performance. Today's races were 7.8% (men) and 7.0% (women) slower than last year, and that's partly the heat, partly the lack of wind, but it goes to show how "fragile" performance is when you're trying to race for 2:05 or faster.

That's why talk of a sub-2 is so premature. Even if the athletes are in ideal physical condition, it needs environmental factors to be absolutely perfect to allow it. And this idea that these African athletes are so special that they can just break down the physiological barriers is a fairytale. They're exceptional, make no mistake, but barriers are real and if conditions are not perfect, no "belief" or lack of limitation overcome sub-optimal conditions.

Back to Boston - today we saw a day when a mid-race attack at 3:00/km was enough to create gaps of over a minute within 5km! It was a day where running at 15:30 per 5km pace was splitting a world class field full of 2:06 men. That's a brutal day. And while it wasn't that hot, I think one can't overstate the impact that direct sunlight has on thermal load and challenge.

Recently, when I was putting myself through my little barefoot Kilimanjaro experiment, it became clear that direct sunlight exerts an effect on temperature and thermal comfort that is far greater than we acknowledge. The only reason I was able to summit Kilimanjaro barefoot in air temperatures below freezing point was because the African sun did a magic job heating the ground up. At one point, at 4,700m altitude, the air temperature was -3 degrees celsius, and the ground was 20 degrees celsius!

Now the opposite implication was true for Boston today. Temperatures in the shade were reported at around 82F, but in the sunlight, which is most of the race, they would have been 10 to 15 degrees higher. The result is an effective temperature closer to 95F, and that's the difference between today in Boston and Beijing 2008. There, Sammy Wanjiru apparently defied physiology and physics to run 2:06:32 in the heat and humidity (I say 'apparently' because that kind of performance does not defy anything - you can model it as entirely possible given his mass and the pace). But it was, I believe, cloudy, and I think that's a crucial difference, especially in a city surrounded by buildings.

So Boston 2012 provided all the elements of a war of attrition, and 2:12 and 2:31 winning times for men who run under 2:06 and women who run 2:22 is evidence of it. It doesn't make for the same kind of awe as we had one year ago, but perhaps it's a much needed reminder of just how remarkable a 2:05 marathon is, now that it seems so "common-place"!

3. Kenya have bigger selection problems after this weekend

Final point, a short one. What would you do as a Kenyan selector after this weekend? You've seen the Ethiopians respond to your amazing 2011 by producing five sub-2:05 performances in 2012 so far. They occupy five of the top six spots in the world rankings, and have beaten one of your stars in Rotterdam.

Another one of your champions, perhaps the best of them, has failed to finish a race in Boston, and while it's a freakish race because of the heat and you can take some consolation that at least other Kenyans dominated, you now have a major dilemma on your hands! Do you pick Mutai, 2011's best racing marathon runner by virtue of wins in unpaced Boston and New York? Do you write Boston off as a "bad day", an anomaly? Because if you do that, then Mosop's 2:05:02 in Rotterdam may also be a "bad day"...

And what happens in London may complicate life further. If that's an ideal day, and four or five Kenyans break 2:05, then a difficult decision becomes almost insoluble! Time to draw straws!

Personally, I'd pick Mutai, because 2 out of 3 race wins, and the manner of those wins in 2011 mean that his pedigree is unquestioned. Plus there is his cross-country pedigree, and Boston 2012, much like Boston 2011, may be races to write off as once-in-a-lifetimes...

Oh, and finally, spare a thought for Michel Butter of The Netherlands. He was using Boston to try to qualify for the Dutch Olympic team. His requirement was either to run 2:10, or finish in the top 8 with a 2:12 or faster. He ran 2:16:38 for 7th. So he got the place, but missed the time, and hence the Olympic spot. That's a bitter pill to swallow, because as I mentioned earlier, the elite men were 7.8% slower than last year's times, and about 5% slower than their typical race times. Butter missed the target time by 5.1% (the 2:12 standard). Bearing this mind, and that Boston is typically a slower course than the flat races of Rotterdam, London, Berlin etc, I would use discretion and pick him anyway...

And then to anyone else hoping that Boston would help them to a PB or selection, 2013 is another year. Perhaps Nature will be kinder again! I'd say that she owes Boston a good day, but then again, this may have been payback for 2011!

Finally, if you missed it, and want to follow my "blow by blow", "meltdown by meltdown" coverage of the race on Twitter, check it out here.

I'll do the same thing for London on Sunday - live updates and splits throughout the race, so join us on Twitter if you haven't already done so!

Ross

Boston Marathon: if you can't stand the heat...

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 07:43:00 +0000

The heat and fear doctrine of the Boston Marathon

Later today, Geoffrey Mutai will attempt to address the Ethiopian dominance of marathons so far in 2012 when he defends his title in Boston. Last year, aided by a following wind for most of the race, Mutai and Moses Mosop stunned the world when they scared the 2:03-barrier in Boston, Mutai eventually winning in the astonishing time of 2:03:02.

The other factor that enabled Mutai's incredible time last year was the ideal temperature for the race - 50F. This year, it will be a little different. The forecast for Boston is temperatures in the 80s (that's 25 to 28 celsius), and it's caused a real panic among organizers, media and runners.

The Boston Marathon organization have recently issued a statement which has advised runners to consider their decision to participate. That is, they are so worried about the heat (all 27 degrees of it) that they are telling people rather to stay away, especially if they are not heat adapted or accustomed to running in the heat (which is physiologically valid advice).

Now, I can partly appreciate this - as we've seen many times with things like footwear and hydration, common sense is sadly uncommon, and the race organizers would usually bear the brunt of any mishaps that occur as a result of the heat.

And if you read the statement issued by the medical directors of the Boston Marathon, it is well balanced and addresses the key issues. It emphasizes the most important point, which is that this will not be a day for record times or personal bests, whether you are Geoffrey Mutai or a runner trying to break 3 hours, or even 3:30. In fact, these slower runners will probably be more affected than the elites, as the statement acknowledges. Therefore, common sense dictates that anyone running in Boston accept the heat as a factor they can't control, adjusts their pace and still finishes safely.

Easy solution. No need to panic.

The day after tomorrow

However, the reaction from elsewhere is a little less sensible. It reminds me of a Hollywood blockbuster like "The day after tomorrow" where the high temperatures are closing in and the citizens are running for the hills because of the "death sentence" that the heat must be.

Some of the advice being given to runners is unnecessary and will only over-emphasize the risk of the conditions, when there is a really simple set of guidelines that runners should heed. The biggest concern will be around dehydration and its supposed link to heatstroke. People are freaking out that they'll lose so much water that their bodies will incinerate them from within, as is the general perception, I have to say, within the USA.

The advice that will have been thrown around at the Boston Expo, in the local papers, and among runners and their coaches is that it's essential to "drink as much as you can", and to "drink early, drink often, and drink plenty". This is the most dangerous advice that can be given.

Replacing one problem with a more serious one

The problem with this fear of dehydration is that all it has done is to create a new problem, far more dangerous and lethal for runners. This problem is called hyponatremia, and it happens because people overdrink during exercise. They replace more than they sweat, and the result is that they dilute their body's sodium level (hypo = low, natremia = sodium). This condition, if severe enough, leads to coma and death, and has claimed far more lives than any dehydration-related condition ever will.

Most of these deaths, incidentally, are in US marathons because that's where the pre-occupation with dehydration exists. About a decade ago, an Ironman race in New Zealand suffered from an incredibly high number of hyponatremia cases. In response, organizers did a little research, discovered that the cause was overdrinking, and the next year, they cut back on the number of water tables available, advised runners NOT to drink unless they were thirsty, and the result was no hyponatremias and no hospitalizations.

Boston has produced perhaps the most famous case of hyponatremia in Cynthia Lucero, who died in 2002 as a result of overdrinking, after she followed the advice given to her through all manner of sources, including the race, the magazines, the experts.

Sadly, it's such an avoidable condition, because all it takes to avoid the risk is drinking to thirst. If you drink to thirst, you cannot possibly develop hyponatremia during exercise, whereas if you attempt to force hydration, or to follow a schedule, then you put yourself at risk. And the problem for Boston 2012, is that all the advice being given to runners is to drink, drink, drink, and it will create a problem for their medical team that is far greater than any risk of dehydration was going to be.

Dehydration and heatstroke - no evidence, and dehydration is normal

A note on dehydration - there's no evidence at all that links dehydration to heatstroke. In fact, there is very little evidence on heatstroke either. There are some documented cases of heatstroke, but they point towards unnaturally high rates of heat production, and not dehydration, as the cause. Other cases of heatstroke have been found to occur in cool conditions, very early on during races, and therefore not linked to the environment or dehydration in any way.

The reality is that it is absolutely safe for humans to lose fluid during exercise. We have an adaptation that allows this, because when our survival depended on our ability to hunt, we did not have the option of stopping every 10 minutes to drink a Gatorade, and so we are delayed drinkers. We tolerate losing fluid very safely, and then we replace it later on. Our research from Ironmans, Comrades and Two Oceans Ultra Marathons (90km and 56km, respectively - long enough to see problems if there were any), has shown that the vast majority, and we're talking 90% here, of finishers will lose between 0% and 3% of their body mass during a race.

And these people, I must emphasize, are absolutely fine. They've started a race weighing 180 lbs and ended it at 176 lbs, for example. By the evening, they've replaced that fluid and are safe. The ones we worried about were those who had not lost weight, or even gained. These were the people who had taken on too much fluid, and needed to be hospitalized because they were seriously ill.

But again, to stress - dehydration is normal, it is safe to lose 2% of your body weight, or even 4%, 6%. In fact, the race winners will have lost the most weight. There are cases of race winners losing between 6% and 8% of their body mass, and they are absolutely fine, no complications other than being tired from the exertion.

The ultimate message here is that if we drink to thirst, we may lose fluid over the course of the race, but this is normal, and it is safe. What is unsafe is forcing fluid intake, developing a schedule that doesn't allow for the impact of intensity and environmental conditions on our sweat rate. Or taking generic advice that says, for example "Your body needs at least 1,200 ml of fluid per hour". That kind of advice, however well-intentioned, could be a recipe for disaster, and the concern for Boston 2012 is that this is the message that people are now hearing.

The pace - expect a slower race, whoever you are

Then the other key thing for Boston is the pace, and the impact that higher temperatures will have on it. It's really simple - when it is hot, you will run slower. The elite athletes will get this right - they will start the race at a slower pace, and you won't see a halfway split of 61:30.

We know that this happens because our body is smart enough to anticipate the future physiological consequences of our "actions", and so when it is 27 degrees and we run at 2:58/km, we generate heat but fail to lose it, and the body is able to work out that this is not going to produce an optimal result. Why not? Because once our body temperature hits about 40 degrees celsius, we stop. Our brain, once that hot, doesn't recruit as much muscle, and the pace would be significantly reduced as a result.

Over-riding regulation and running to the clock - it's all about perception

The problems happen when this regulation is over-ridden. And this is why the Boston Marathon Association are warning people, because a lot of people will run "to their watch". They'll have worked out that they can run 3:20 if they hit certain targets along the way, and they'll try to do this, regardless of conditions.

It is these people, the ones who are inflexible and who race to a schedule, who run into trouble. They don't get heatstroke is 99.9% of the cases, but they feel terrible. They feel incredibly hot, because their body temperature has probably been driven up towards 39 or 40 degrees celsius by the 25km mark of the race, and their perception of effort is so high by that stage that they think they're close to death! (read this review for full discussion of why the perception of fatigue is so crucial)

It's this perception that knocks them out, and may put them into the medical tent. For all but a very tiny minority, that's the end of it, and all they need is rest and some cooling and they're fine, because there's actually nothing wrong with them apart from prematurely having a body temperature of 39 degrees Celsius (which is safe, by the way). This is often over-interpreted and called heatstroke, when all they are is hot and tired too early in the race (race winners will be close to 40 degrees, by the finish line, and therefore "acceptably" hot and tired!)

But the point is, the pace must drop on a hot day. These two articles explain the physics of heat loss and how pace has to be adjusted on a hot day:

That second example also shows how being smaller is an advantage during exercise in the heat, and this is one of the reasons that the elite runners are less affected by the hot conditions than those running 3h30. They tend to be 60kg, tiny runners, whereas those at the back are often 50% heavier. That, plus the adaptation to the heat as a result of where they train, means that the elite will problem be slowed by 2 to 3 minutes, whereas those at the back could lose 10 to 20 minutes on a hot day.

Bottom line - the body knows. So listen!

The bottom line, however, is not to panic about the heat. Yes, it makes things more challenging, and yes, the risk goes up. But only if the runner ignores the obvious, disobeys common sense, and disobeys their own body, in two important aspects - hydration and pace.

So the only guidelines you need listen to are the following:

Run within yourself, not to the clock; and
Drink to thirst

Simple as that. So by all means, if you're not able or willing to adjust the goal from a 2:59 to a 3:10, and if you've been training early in the morning in temperatures of 4 or 5 degrees, rather than 27 degrees, then this is a Boston race to miss.

What it is not, however, is a race that "could kill you", and the heat is not a death sentence that should be avoided at all costs. And whatever you do, don't drink everything in sight!

Ross

Marathon season: Ethiopia surge back with Men's & Women's wins

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 16:38:00 +0000

Ethiopia's day as course records fall, but not to Kenyans

If 2011 was the year of the Kenyans, then 2012 is shaping up as the year of the rivalry. Last year, Kenya exerted a total domination over the marathon scene, winning every Major city marathon, breaking every course record, claiming World Championship gold, the top 20 places on the world ranking lists, and the world record.

So far, 2012 has belonged to Ethiopia, and April 15th was without doubt their day. Of the four individual titles on offer on the streets of Paris and Rotterdam, Ethiopia claimed three, along with two course records. The lone exception was Kenya's Stanley Biwott who won the Men's Paris Marathon in 2:05:11, breaking the course record by 36 seconds.

But for the rest, it was all about the Ethiopians. Biwott's achievement in Paris was matched on the women's side by Tirfi Beyene of Ethiopia, in a course record 2:21:39.

Then, in the much anticipated Rotterdam race, where Moses Mosop was talked up as being in with a good chance of breaking the World Record, he ended up third, beaten by Yemane Adhane and Getu Feleke in 2:04:47 and 2:04:49 respectively. Another pre-race favourite, Peter Kirui, who showed his form by winning the New York Half Marathon recently, was never in the race, running with the second group of men almost from the start before dropping out at just before 35km.

So that's a really disappointing day for the big-name Kenyans, and Adhane's win snapped their 13-year win streak in Rotterdam. It also somewhat burst the bubble of invincibility that had sprung up around Kenyan marathoners in the last 12 months.

Women's race - fourth fastest performer ever for Ethiopia

And perhaps even more significantly, Ethiopia's women raised the stakes even higher with the performance of Tiki Gelana. She raced her way to becoming the fourth fastest woman in history and running the seventh fastest time with her 2:18:57.

It's amazing to think that in women's marathon running, we now have Shobhukova, Keitany, Kiplagat, Gelana, Mergia, Kabuu and Dibaba all with sub-2:20 performances since London last year. And that list doesn't even include and Firehiwot Dado or Bezunesh Deba, who raced New York, not renowned for super fast times, or Bezunesh Bekele, who ran 2:20:30 in Dubai earlier this year.

But take a look at those names - Shobhukova stands out as the lone non-African, but of the other nine, six are Ethiopian and three are Kenyan (Keitany, Kiplagat & Kabuu), and so the pattern on the men's side is repeated for the women, and it should make for an incredible season in 2012, particularly in London in August, when these nations will go head to head.

Ethiopia's dominance reflected in the world lists...so far

The amazing statistic that emerges after the dust has settled on this, the first day of the 2012 Spring Marathon season, is that in 2011, seven men broke 2:05 (if we include that freakish day in Boston where 4 men did it. Take it out, and there were only three men under 2:05). So far in 2012, SIX men have done it, and we're only in mid-April and yet to see a Major Marathon. And more remarkably, aided by Dubai and now Rotterdam, FIVE out of the six are Ethiopian!

On the women's side, Ethiopia occupy five out of the top six places as well, led by Gelana's Rotterdam win. Of course, the real big guns from Kenya are yet to race, both on the men's and women's side, and we should see those rankings change a little next week after London, which is an incredibly strong and deep race on both the men's and women's sides. Boston is unlikely to challenge the lists because of predicted high temperatures, but London should, so the picture will be clearer then.

What is clear, after today, is that Ethiopia, and not just Kenya, have some selection problems prior to the Games, but more on this later...

The Rotterdam race: Splits and insight

In Rotterdam, windy conditions blew away the chances of a record, but it was the race that begs for more insight. Moses Mosop was heavily touted before the race - our friends at Letsrun.com profiled Mosop as a marathoner who had "never seen before speed". Mosop of course had run 2:03:06 on that windy Boston day, and followed this up with a world record over 30km and a record time in Chicago, so he's clearly one of the current best.

In the end, it was not his day. He was gapped shortly after halfway, and while he fought hard and managed to reel the Ethiopians back, he could 'only' run 2:05:01. The split table below, taken from our friend Andrew's split table, shows how they were under world record pace for a long time, but a very slow 10km section from 30km to 40km (30:14 for 10km) saw the record possibility disappear. If anything, the early pace was just too fast - 10km in 29:05 projected a 2:02:43, and even at 20km, the projected time was 2:03:00.

To bite off 38 seconds from a strong record is a tough ask, and I'm sure that the wind will get most of the blame for the ultimate failure to break the record, but that early pace is too quick and would have cost at least some of the overall time lost.

It seems bizarre to say that a 2:05:01 is disappointing, but most people debating the London Olympics would have mentioned Mosop as a "must-run" name. That now seems far less certain. And if London next week produces fast times and Kenyan victories, then Mosop doesn't go to London, such is the level of competition for Kenyan places.

I would argue that Geoffrey Mutai, based on his Boston and New York wins, must be selected almost regardless of what happens in Boston tomorrow - to win two unpaced marathons the way he did suggests racing quality that can't be overlooked because of a potential bad day. The remaining places are there to be contested between Emmanuel Mutai (if he defends his London title, he goes), Abel Kirui (a strong favourite because of his World Championship performances for Kenya), Patrick Makau (world record, enough said), Wilson Kipsang (probably needs a fast win in London) and perhaps Mosop. Or any other exceptional Kenyan who emerges either in Boston or London next week! But when framed this way, Mosop's 2:05:01 may have closed the door on his chances.

Ethiopian athletes, on the other hand, have blown the door wide open, and their team selection will be equally interesting. When you have five of the top six to choose from, plus a handful of more experienced 'veterans' yet to race, you're in a difficult luxury position.

Bekele is also back - Dublin 10km win

And finally, other good news for Ethiopia is a return to racing for their great track athlete, Kenenisa Bekele, who won the Dublin Great Run over a hilly course in 27:49 (race report here). That's a big bounce back from his very disappointing run in Edinburgh a few months back, and the manner of the victory suggests that he will arrive in London in good shape, assuming the upward trend continues and he avoids injury. That's bad news for Mo Farah and all others in the 10,000m (and possibly the 5,000m, time will tell), but great news for Ethiopian athletics.

All in all, a great day for Ethiopia. Boston is next, and the real big guns from Kenya, first with Geoffrey Mutai, who will attempt to address the balance! Join us tomorrow!

Ross

Paris Marathon: Splits and Commentary

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 07:55:00 +0000

Paris Marathon 2012: Live coverage, splits and comment

Stanley Biwott has won the 2012 Paris Marathon to kick off the spring marathon season, and it has started the same way that 2011 left off - with a course record 2:05:11 (unofficial, from TV times). Biwott, who came into the race with a 2:07:03 PB, broke clear as early as 29km, when the group thinned dramatically and he was left with a solo pursuit for the finish line.

At that stage, he was on course for a sub-2:04 finish, courtesy a super fast first half (1:01:51), and an even quicker section from 25km to 30km (14:24 for the interval). That surge, off that pace, saw a group of about ten become three within minutes, and soon after, Biwott went clear of his Ethiopian rivals Assefa and Jisa.

From that moment, it was Biwott against the clock, and though he slowed (15:30 from 30 to 35km, though I must confess I'm not confident in the splits I was getting on TV), the damage had been done and Biwott hung on to break the course record of 2:05:47 by 36 seconds, and smash his own PB by just under 2 minutes.

Behind, there were big gaps. Having been bunched at 25km, the time gaps illustrate how attritional the early pace was. First to second was 1:12, a gap created entirely in the final 12km. Tenth place was over 2:09, so that's almost 5 minutes over the final 15km. The closest athlete to an even split was Biwott, who went through halfway in 1:01:51, and closed in 1:03:20: For everyone else in the top 10, the second half was over 3 minutes slower than the first.

Just as testament to the emergence of talent in these big city marathons, the man who finished third, Jisa, came into the race with a reported half-marathon PB of 64:33. He ran 2:06:26 today, which means a 61:51 first half, followed by a 64:35 second half. In other words, he basically equalled his previous half-marathon PB during the second half of a marathon, in which he broke it by almost three minutes in the first half. Talk about a breakthrough day!

So a course record in Paris to go with course records galore in 2011, and now it's Rotterdam, and Mosop's (and other Kenyan's) assault on the world record!)

Comments and splits at 5km intervals are below...

Live splits as the race unfolded

The Paris Marathon kicks off what was recently called "8 days for Glory" by our Letsrun.com colleagues! That's a reference to what could be one of the greatest weeks in the history of the marathon, driven by the intense competition between the Kenyans to nail down one of three spots on the Olympic team for London. Either side of the Atlantic, the greatest marathon runners in history will be tackling, in order, Paris, Rotterdam, Boston and London.

Paris is first, and below are the splits and comments from the men's race. Rotterdam comes later, and it has the better field with Moses Mosop touted to challenge the world record. That race is not televised in SA, but I'm looking into live streams (which usually don't work in South Africa either!), but no matter what, I'll post those splits later today!

Paris splits

5km - 14:56

Conservative start by today's marathon standards, but that's probably par for the course in Paris - the field has some good names, but not the spectacular sub-60 min half marathoners or the 2:04-marathon men of the other races. Paris has often been a springboard for first time big city marathon winners, and it's not a major, so perhaps the course record of 2:05:47 is a good target for today. Although, there is a 2:05:25 man in Albert Matebor, but it's a sign of the times that we view him as "only" a 2:05 man in this era of marathon running!

10km - 29:21 (14:25 for the last 5km)

Super fast five kilometer split, which puts the projected pace below 2:04, so that is interesting. Certainly we're seeing aggressive marathon running more and more. Whether this is sustainable, we shall see!

15km - 43:58 (last 5km in 14:37)

Still very aggressive, a group of about 12 or 13, which doesn't include defending champion Benjamin Kiptoo, who dropped off at about 11km.

Half-Marathon - 1:01:51

The halfway split projects a 2:03:42, so it's not slowing down. Yet. The group is thinning out, down to about 10 men now, including three pace-makers still. Some of the men have just run half-marathon PBs by more than 2 minutes, on route to running a marathon! If wheels are going to come off, they'll start slowing now...

25km - 1:13:40 (29:42 last 10km)

The pace has slowed somewhat and it's now on course for a 2:04:20. Two of the pacemakers are also gone, and the pace is at something of a dangerous crossroads, and may continue to slide to below 2:05 pace.

30km - 1:28:04 (14:24 for the last 5km)

The pace has increased again, and it's caused big splits in the lead pack. In fact, it's now down to only one - Stanley Biwott, who is running towards a sub-2:04 again. His projected time at 30km is 2:03:52, but he's now all alone with 12km to go.

Eric Ndiema has gone off the back. He ran 2:06:07 in Amsterdam last year. Tariku Jefar, winner in Houston this year (2:06:51) is also losing contact with the lead group. The final pacemaker dropped out at about 28km, and it became a race between three men over 12km. Those mean were Biwott of Kenya, against Jisa and Assefa of Ethiopia. Jisa is the man who came into the race with a reported half-marathon PB of 64:33, and he has improved that by almost 3 minutes, and is still running at 30km!

Just short of 30km, Stanley Biwott, who won the Paris Half Marathon, has moved clear and split the three. Jisa is in second, about 20m back at the 30km, with another 30m to Assefa in third.

35km - 1:43:34 (last 5km in 15:30)

The pace has now slowed considerably - the last 5km in 15:30 is easily the slowest of the race. So perhaps not surprisingly, the solo effort off the very fast pace is taking its toll. Biwott still leads, the gap to Jisa in second is now around 30 seconds (a guess), so the race really has exploded since 25km. That when the pace was ramped by to 14:24 for the 5km interval, off a pace much, much faster than all the men had ever run, so it is no surprise that having been bunched at 25km, there are now 2 minute gaps there!

The bigger challenge may come from those in third and fourth, Assefa and Cesar, who are together and chasing Jisa. Stanley Biwott, incidentally, has a PB of 2:07:03, so he's looking at 2 to 3 minutes' improvement today. If he can hang on for 7km. At the current pace of 3:06/km, he'll come home in a 2:05:30

40km - 1:58:10 (last 5km in 14:36)

Biwott has now sped up, but I must confess I'm skeptical about the accuracy of these splits. Nevertheless, the time at 40km is 1:58:10, and it means that Biwott can close in 6:30 and he'll run a mid-2:04, and so the course record in Paris is definitely going to fall, and now it is a race for Biwott to see if he can claim the world-leading time for 2012. That's currently 2:04:23 from Dubai...

Behind him, Jisa is continuing to run an incredible race, and he's locked in a battle with Assefa for second. Eric Ndiema has done a yo-yo, first catching and passing those two, and then being caught and passed with 3km to go. He then fought back and reclaimed second at about 41km.

Finish line - 2:05:11

Biwott gets the course record, but not the sub-2:05 that seemed on at 40km. He definitely slowed considerably, it was visible even on the coverage that he was grinding out the final kilometers, and he closed in 7 minutes. Nevertheless, it's a course record by 36 seconds, a PB by almost 2 minutes, and a good start to the spring season.

Rotterdam later, join me after that one! Not sure I'll be able to do live splits, but I'll certainly get something up later today

Ross

Around the rings: Weekly buzz

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:10:00 +0000

Ashenden, anti-doping and the impending marathon season and Olympic team selection

Ashenden steps down - "managing the message"

Michael Ashenden is one of the leading anti-doping advocates in the world as a result of a) his contribution to the development of the biological passport system and the detection of blood doping and EPO use, and b) his outspokenness about the process, including two interviews that will (and should) become part of the anti-doping folklore, but more on these shortly.

Ashenden last week stood down from the AMPU, a body that was recently created to manage the biological passport process, because he felt that the contract that its members were asked to sign was too restrictive, and would help foster a culture of "omerta", the pact of silence that characterizes the professional cycling peloton (originally a mafia term).

You can read a news piece on his resignation here for the details, but what was most interesting is Ashenden's description that the Athlete Passport Management Unit, formed recently to manage the biological passport system for cycling and athletics, is trying "manage the message".

I can see both sides of the story here - you can't have a person involved in the system, with intimate knowledge of the cases and processes, speaking out too much about ongoing cases, because it's potentially harmful (that is, slanderous and libelous) to the athlete involved. So some form of "management" is non-negotiable to those bodies, it has to be in order to protect their credibility.

You may recall that the biological passport system was designed as "three strike" system, where a case is only opened against an athlete when they produce several unusual or suspicious results in a short period. This is because for all its progress, the biological passport remains an imperfect method, which can, as shown by research, produce "false positives" (this fact is acknowledged by everyone on it, incidentally, and it will always be the case because physiological systems don't obey our best understanding at this stage).

For this reason, it was designed with multiple stages of evaluation, both legal and scientific, the first of which was the regular measurement of reticulocyte %, hemoglobin concentration and a calculated off-score, and the probability calculation of values occurring in an undoped individual. The second level is evaluation by a panel, who assess the changes and evaluate whether a profile is suggestive of doping, and the third level is the opening of a legal proceeding.

The process is thus length and intensive, and I think it's fair to say that this is out of necessity, because the authorities have to "manage" the process, so that they don't pursue athletes unfairly. Linked to this must be some form of "managing the message", at least while the case is ongoing. But this is so obvious it feels almost foolish to point out, but I think that from some circles, criticism of Ashenden's resignation (and there is some) was based on the perception that Ashenden wanted to discuss individual cases while they were happening. I certainly didn't see it this way.

Rather, my take is that the more transparency there is, the better. The process should be explained so that the fans, the media and the athletes properly understand how the system works (the role of educator) and so that there is no chance whatsoever of anything being covered up (the whistleblower from inside). The latter is so vital because in the last two years, so many allegations have emerged of preferential treatment for certain cyclists that the credibility and trust in the entire anti-doping system has been undermined. There is a growing perception that some are untouchable, whereas others will be made examples of, because it's convenient to do so. Exposing the champions is not as good for media coverage and sponsor perceptions (for example, remember that it's been media pressure that has exposed certain recent high profile cases).

The only solution for this is transparency. As Ashenden states, "there should be nothing to hide, so why stop experts from talking?" There are of course some reasons to stop experts from talking in certain situations - there may, at times, be "something to hide". For example, when authorities were working with the pharmaceutical companies to develop the test for CERA, it was beneficial to be silent. Again, this is obvious. In most other situations, I agree with Ashenden - talk and educate and inform so that you build credibility through transparency. The reverse is also true - if a system is broken and flawed, then preventing people from saying so, and refusing to accept criticism, halts that progress and fosters an environment where further cheating can prosper.

Ashenden interview: Contador's CAS case and doping explained

Speaking of transparency, Ashenden had barely left the APMU and an interview appeared on nyvelocity.com, in which he described the scientific issues of the Contador CAS case. This is the second interview Ashenden has done with Andy Shen of nyvelocity.com. The first was a huge interview he gave in 1999, where he covered EPO testing and Lance Armstrong's failed EPO tests, and laid out why he believed Armstrong had doped.

Both interviews should be required reading, I think, because Ashenden explains the process from inside. One can still disagree with Ashenden's final opinion, but it's the process by which he arrives at it, and the explanations of the anti-doping process that I found so interesting and valuable. As mentioned, the first interview, and now this one, shed more light on the testing and anti-doping processes than the entire collection of news stories in the last decade, and this is the value of experts being accessible.

You can read the interview here - Ashenden typically pulls no punches, explains blood doping and EPO microdoping, plasticizers, and then his role in the CAS hearing. As I say, it's well worth a read.

My thoughts, apart from interest at the anti-doping content, are that Ashenden was clearly frustrated at the narrow terms of the CAS hearing. That seems typical of CAS hearings, incidentally (and perhaps law, for that matter), but what emerges from Ashenden is that there was a good deal of evidence against Contador but that the very narrow question being asked meant that it could not be covered and presented as evidence. He was ordered not to answer certain questions and describes his frustration that some relatively simple matters which could have been resolved in 30 seconds took many hours to thrash out.

This frustration seems typical for a scientist in a legal setting - reading the decision from the Pistorius case, for example, it was equally clear that CAS don't hear all the evidence, they rule only on a previously defined question and decision (the nature of arbitration, of course). The result is that a decision gets made in arbitration that does not truly reflect the evidence - in the Contador case, the plasticizer and transfusion theory could never be fully advanced, whereas in the Pistorius case, the Weyand/Bundle theory of swing times was never even presented to the panel. It seems a flawed system to me. I'd have thought that the goal of the CAS as the final decision-maker should be to evaluate ALL the evidence, rather than to be bound up in dozens of boxes of legal arguments, but I guess such is life and legality.

Marathon season is here

Moving away from cycling to running, next week sees the start of the Spring Marathon season, and it's a loaded season, for many reasons. Recall that 2011 was the most sensational year of marathon running ever seen, largely because of Kenyan runners - they occupied the Top 20 places in the world rankings, won every major marathon, broke every Major Marathon course record, and the world record.

It's almost inconceivable that the same could happen this year, but it's a loaded season because everything now points towards London in August. The next three weeks will determine who even gets to start the Olympic Marathon, because Kenya and Ethiopia will pick their teams based on London, Rotterdam and Boston performances, and I can't think of a time when competition was so deep, at such a high quality, just to earn the right to represent a country in the Olympic Games.

First up are Paris and Rotterdam, followed on Monday by Boston. Neither of the weekend's races is a Major, and Paris is unlikely to produce a scintillating time, though it has served as a springboard for future champions. For now, however, it's Rotterdam on Sunday that should attract most attention, because Moses Mosop of Kenya will be aiming for a world record on Rotterdam's super fast course. He's joined there by Peter Kirui, who is Kenya's 10,000m champion, and a man who recently won the New York Half Marathon looking extremely comfortable. If Rotterdam's weather plays along (and here, the wind has been the main culprit in recent years) then the world record is under threat, and Kenya's selection problems may multiply ahead of Boston (where Geoffrey Mutai races) and London (where just about all the others - Emmanuel Mutai, Patrick Makau, Wilson Kipsang, Abel Kirui and Martin Lel - are running).

It means that of all the Marathons, London has the most spectacular field, but may only provide one place for Kenyan runners, given that Geoffrey Mutai must surely be the first choice based on his Boston and New York wins last year. Quite how Kenyan officials will select when athletes are running on different courses under different circumstances is anyone's guess, but it should make for good discussion. Incidentally, on this note, the weather forecast for Boston is not favorable. Last year, the weather helped make Boston the fastest marathon ever run - 2:03:02 beat 2:03:06. This year, even with a strong tailwind, the forecast is for warm temperatures, and that means a repeat is unlikely.

Make the Olympic Marathon open to everyone?

Ethiopia, meanwhile, have similar selection problems, in that a host of young Ethiopians dominated the Dubai Marathon earlier this year, and seem to be front-runners for their three spots. Whether it's wise to choose youth in a fast race (and a first-time performance) over the experience and proven pedigree of athletes like Tsegaye Kebede or Gebremariam, who may be a little slower, is a debatable point.

What I would say, however, is that I agree with Amby Burfoot who recently wrote that the Olympic Marathon should not restrict each country to selecting only three athletes. His reasoning is that the Olympic Marathon should be the premier marathon in the world, and I agree with him. As it stands, the London Marathon is clearly the deepest, highest quality race, but it is missing at least three of the best in the world, in Mosop, Mutai and Kirui. The Olympic Marathon in August will be short of at least 10 Kenyans, and probably five Ethiopians, and that somewhat "dilutes" its value.

The downside is that opening the race up to every Kenyan with a 2:06 or faster means that the Olympic Marathon would start to resemble the World Cross Country Championships, which are really a Kenyan and Ethiopian procession, and which kind of turns many "less than passionate fans" away from the sport. The reality is that for global reach and appeal, the chance that an Italian or American athlete, for example, can medal in the Olympic Marathon, is necessary.

So it's a difficult one - there is almost zero chance that the London Marathon on the 22nd will be won by anyone NOT from Kenya or Ethiopia, and if the top 10 from each of these countries raced in the Olympics, the same would be true. As it is, the top 3 from Kenya and Ethiopia look close to untouchable, but at least there's some hope! Would love to hear your thoughts on this one!

The spillover from the marathon and Kenya's bizarre selection processes

And finally, related to this incredible depth and quality in the marathon, we're starting to see a potential "spill down" back to the half-marathon and possibly 10,000m event. The last few years have seen the marathon explosion, and that has been to the detriment of the longest track event. Not many high quality 10,000m races happen each year, and the result is that Kenenisa Bekele's world records have been untroubled for a long time.

That's unlikely to change, but what does seem to be happening, again driven by the Olympic Games, is that a lot of runners who would be heading towards the Marathon are now coming back down to the 10,000m distance. Last week, a previously unknown Ethiopian, aged only 20, won the Prague half marathon in 58:47. Atsedu Tsegay became the fifth fastest man in history, and declared afterwards that he'll now focus on making the Ethiopian team in the 10,000m for the Olympics.

Similarly, Dennis Koech won the Berlin half marathon in 59:14 and also stated his intent to qualify for the 10,000m event (he was not however named in a 30-man squad of athletes for the Kenyan pre-trial trial, as discussed below). These are athletes who almost certainly will be running marathons by 2013, and they're on the way to that distance, because that's clearly where the prestige and hence biggest payday lies.

But, the depth of talent available to those countries, and the relatively late stage in the year means that for these men, the sensible approach is to look down, at the shorter 10,000m distance, for now. As Letsrun.com pointed out, what this means is that the medal chances of their USA-based athletes take a hit as this talent comes back to the track, albeit for a few months only.

The good news, however, is that just today, Kenyan athletics announced a ridiculous ultimatum that will exclude many of their potential 10,000m medalists from even making their team. They have arranged a 10,000m event in Nairobi on Saturday, and announced that anyone NOT participating in these trials will be ineligible for selection to the Olympic Team.

The result is that Geoffrey Mutai, who races in Boston on Sunday, as well as Mosop and Kirui who race Rotterdam on Sunday, are automatically excluded from the Kenyan 10,000m team. Not that any of these three wanted to be in the 10,000m team, but all could be potential medalists in the event that they fail to make the Kenyan Marathon team.

The reality is that there is enough time post-Rotterdam/Boston/London for a talented and fast marathon runner to reassess their season's focus and come down to the 10,000m event. This is particularly the case for Mutai and Kirui - Mutai was Kenya's Cross Country champion last year and Kirui, as mentioned, their 10,000m champion. So both were options over 10,000m, in the event that they didn't make the Marathon team.

Now, that option has also been taken away, and it's a foolish thing to do. Why have two separate trial races? As you may already know, the final Kenyan 10,000m trials have been "outsourced" to the USA in June, and will take place in Oregon on June 2nd. This 'mini-trial' will feature 30 athletes, and the top 15 will qualify for the Oregon race.

It's an unnecessary thing to do in the first place, but when it excludes some of your top runners, who happen to be focusing on the marathon at the time, it seems doubly foolish. Kenya has not won a gold over 10000m in the Olympic Games since 1968, and with Mo Farah and a host of Ethiopians standing in their way, it may be ambitious to think that one of their top marathon runners could come down in distance and win that gold in London this year, but this kind of decision makes it even more unlikely, and that seems like a bad decision in sports management.

Again, your thoughts welcome!

Ross

The weekly Olympic Buzz: Around the rings

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 08:31:00 +0000

Weekly Olympic Buzz: Around the rings - sports news of interest

With only four months to go before the Olympic Games of 2012, there's so much going on in the world of sport that builds towards those amazing 2 weeks in London. Sadly, much of this has flown by us at The Science of Sport, and we've been posting at insufficient frequency of two articles a month this year!

So to "force" myself to keep the momentum going a little more, I'm today starting a new weekly feature, which I'll call The Olympic Buzz: Around the rings. Five rings, five news stories per week that grab my attention for their sports science, sports performance and sports management content! Not a full analysis, but some quick thoughts and links to try to at least peel away some of the interesting stories as we build to the Games.

These are stories that will also come up on our Facebook page and our Twitter feed, where I have tried to keep the 'discussion' going when 'normal' work suffocates the longer posts, so if you haven't joined the social network for The Science of Sport yet, and want regular "thought droplets" in those barren patches, please do so now - Facebook and Twitter! For now, let's kick of the Buzz...

This week, I'm looking at the recent World Indoor championships, Fabrice Muamba's cardiac arrest, Kenyan women's emergence, the women's 800m with Semenya and Jelimo, and the Olympic fashion 'controversy.

1. World indoor champs - new names to watch for

The World Indoor championships results are often quite difficult to interpret, particularly in an Olympic year, because so many big names are absent, there are differences in racing strategy as a result of the track length, and the focus, even of those who are there, is often five months in the future.

But the recent World Indoor Championships in Istanbul did ask a few interesting questions for the rest of the year. A few potential stars emerged - Helen Obiri outkicked Meseret Defar in one of her first ever races over 3,000m (she's a 1500m specialist), running the final 1500m in a shade outside 4:05.

Genzebe Dibaba served notice that she may be ready to emerge from her sister Tirunesh's lengthy shadow by dominating the 1500m event all season, being particularly spectacular in the World Championships, where she front-ran and got faster and faster on route to gold. Front running is certainly made easier indoors because of the tighter bends and short straights which make overtaking a little more difficult. But she is a name to look for.

Among the more established names, Kirani James had a poor semi-final and ended up in Lane 1 for the 400m final, and was never in the race on the tight inside lane, which adds a layer to the men's 400m, which seems incredibly open ahead of the outdoor season.

Mo Farah raced in the men's 3000m, and was outkicked in the final by Bernard Lagat, eventually finishing a shade outside the medals. You could have thrown a blanket over silver, bronze and Farah, and so he was only just outside silver. The British media have since dissected and analyzed this is a sign of the impending apocalypse, but the reality is that 3,000m is just a touch short in distance for Farah, and to be that within hundredths of a second of silver is hardly a disaster. At worst, it's neutral, at best, encouraging.

This assumes, of course, that the media scrutiny as a result doesn't undermine Farah's preparation moving forward - as much of an honour as it is for an athlete to race in the Olympics for their home fans, the microscope on GB's athletes is intense!

One other interesting point re Farah - last year, Farah was preparing for his ultimate gold-silver combo by racing and winning the New York Half Marathon. This year, a 3,000m season indoors. That's a huge departure from a successful formula, which is not necessarily bad, but must carry some small risk. The training may not be as radically different as one would think, but certainly one would not be racing 3,000m indoors and a half marathon on identical training in March.

With that change in training, however subtle, the dynamic of maintaining speed, doing the necessary endurance base, all change, and that's an interesting deviation from approach by Farah with his coach. One would forgive an athlete coming off a really strong season for repeating exactly the same template. Perhaps this is the small difference that turns a gold-silver to a gold-gold combo... only time will tell!

2. Fabrice Muamba and cardiac arrest

Another dramatic story in the last few weeks was the collapse of Bolton footballer Fabrice Muamba. Thankfully, he received excellent care almost immediately, and is now seemingly on the way to recovery. The media coverage after the event focused, as is typical after these incidents, on the fact that all sports people should be screened for these conditions before playing.

And while in theory this is attractive, there are some real challenges to overcome. One is cost, and this sounds somewhat callous (because any life saved should be worth any expense), but it's fairly complicated.

One of the problems, for example, if that the heart muscle of an elite athlete is thickened as a result of the training they perform. This is a favourable adaptation, but it can easily be confused with conditions including Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, where the heart muscle thickens enough to compromise its blood flow. The result is that normal screening processes can produce false positives between 2% and 5% of the time (it used to be 15%).

I hope it's not necessary to point out that if you falsely diagnose an elite athlete as being a "ticking time bomb", you are making an incorrect life changing diagnosis. You have to be really sure that you can distinguish pathology from the normal changes and remodeling of the heart associated with training, otherwise you destroy players livelihoods, and lives, unnecessarily. At that rate (2% to 5%), if you test a Super Rugby or professional football squad of 40 players, you could well identify two false positives, players who you'd tell they have a risk when there is none.

So the point is that physicians have to be very well qualified to read the signs, to make the correct interpretation because these are not normal screenings. And I don't know if we have that level of expertise, certainly not here in South Africa.

On this note, if a problem is identified, it has to be managed - is the automatic response to force the player to retire? This would depend on the case, of course, but it's an interesting ethical one. Consider for example that some conditions, even when present, have a risk of death of only 1 in 10,000. If I'm making $200,000 per week playing football (or any money, for that matter), I might well say that I'll take my chances when they're 1 in 10,000.

But screening, if compulsory, may mean that disclosure and confidentiality issues arise - if you're the owner of a team, paying that salary, do you want the risk, however small, that your player collapses and dies while playing? This is an interesting ethical debate also worth considering. Of course, screening can provide management to reduce risk, which is only a good thing, but there's always a question of how medical information is handled, particularly if the testing goes the genetic route, because here, having a gene is often even less likely to produce a clinical outcome.

Another problem is the sensitivity of the tests - a physical examination (a basic screen) is really not sensitive enough to identify the common conditions, let alone the rare ones. So physical exams are not particularly reliable, and it would need more comprehensive tests (ECG, both resting and stress), and this is where a cost-benefit question becomes relevant. The cost, not only of doing the testing, but of providing the required follow up support and service would cripple many sports bodies.

And this is important because there's a question of who is responsible for the athlete? It's easier for Spurs or Bolton, or any professional team, to know that they are responsible for their contracted players. It's less clear whether this drive to test also requires the Football Association (FA) or say the SA Rugby Union to take on the responsibility for all its players. That would include club players, school players in sanctioned competition, and in the end, it spirals dramatically out of control and would destroy the sports organizations.

So I think that testing would help, undeniably, but it has to be implemented very sensibly, because blanket screening for everyone must mean everyone. I think professional sports teams can offer comprehensive screening - the risk far outweighs the cost, however small that risk may be. But the questions are who gets screened, and how often, and then who pays? Because there has to be line somewhere, unfortunately.

For more on this, here is an excellent podcast and if you have the time, I'd highly encourage you to listen, because Jon Drezner is one of the world's authorities on cardiac screening, and he spells out some statistics and facts that are worth knowing in the aftermath of Muamba's incident.

Two points he makes that are most important:

First, the prevalence of these conditions is quite a bit higher than had been thought - it's easy to identify cases like Muamba's, less obvious are cases where media and immediate treatment are not documented. So the prevalence, always thought to be 1 in 200,000, now seems to be more like 1 in 40,000 to 50,000. That's definitely worth paying attention to.
The provision of adequate medical care when these events do occur makes an enormous difference to the prognosis and survival rate. The chances of surviving cardiac arrest during sport goes from 5 to 8% when there is no emergency defibrillator within 3 to 5 minutes, to well over 50% (64% in one study) when a defibrillator is present. That's an enormous improvement, and it points to the importance of providing that medical service at events, even if the person using the defibrillator is used by a lay person, and not necessarily a trained medical practitioner.

I think given the complexity of screening, there is a bigger impact to be made by making sure that the treatment quality is improved through the provision of defibrillators - this is the secondary prevention concept. Muamba's case was testament to outstanding medical provision. And so I'd suggest that the money that people are saying should be spent screening, at least once you get down below the professional ranks, might be better spent on training and supporting medical care at events.

3. Kenyan women set to dominate in London

Here's a bit of a quiz (answer below this post): Name the first Kenyan woman to win a medal at the Olympic Games? How about the first gold medal winner at the Olympic Games?

The hint is that you don't have to go too far back - while their men have long been dominant on the track, their women have only recently emerged at the same level. But now, in 2012, they have potential gold medalists in every single track event from 800m to 10,000m, as well as in the marathon, and may even out-medal the men.

In the 800m, the re-emerging Jelimo (more on this later) runs with Jepkosgei, though Jepkosgei may not quite have the capacity to run the 1:57s it might take, so it will probably be up to Jelimo to win gold. Over 1500m, Helen Obiri will race alongside defending champion Nancy Langat (assuming she makes the team after a fairly disappointing period since Beijing). In the 5000m and 10000m, Vivian Cheruiyot is arguably the best distance runner in the world right now, and unless Ethiopia can find a way to get Dibaba or Defar back to their 2005/07 form, Cheruiyot should win double gold in London. Then in the marathon they have an amazing squad, headed by Mary Keitany, and their team strength may be crucial in helping them overcome the challenge from Shobhukova. The 3000m steeplechase sees Milcah Chemos, though she'll have a Russian challenge to overcome for gold. Then of course there is a group who've yet to emerge, but don't be surprised to discover a new name or two by July.

So while nothing is certain, Kenya's women look good for a handful of medals, possibly all gold (though that would be extra-ordinary). Their men are less 'secure' - I can't see them winning 5,000m or 10,000m gold (in fact, I'd be surprised if they pick up more than two minor medals here too, if Bekele is back in good condition). Rudisha, the steeplechase and a marathon look "certain", and the men's 1500m is open, but Kenya have chances there too.

So the Kenyan women look set to contribute at least half Kenya's medals, and that would be a first. There is no doubt a fascinating social, economic and cultural discussion to be held about why it has taken the women 40 years to reach the same level as their men did from 1968 onwards. The floodgates may now have been opened, however, and perhaps the complexity of some of those answers help to further uncover the "secrets" of Kenyan distance running domination, which I believe is the most fascinating question in exercise performance physiology today.

4. Pamela Jelimo re-emerges. And Caster Semenya kicks off 2012

Every event is of course a drama, but there will be few with as much human interest as the women's 800m. In 2008, Pamelo Jelimo emerged from Kenya to dominate women's 800m like we've rarely seen before - her crushing, front-running displays and regular 1:56 or faster performances (I count six sub-1:56 times in 2008, including a best of 1:54.01) to win the Olympic Gold and the Diamond league jackpot that year (the only winner of a $1,000,000 jackpot). All this at the age of 18, it was an unparalleled dominance of the event.

Over the course of the next three years, however, things slid dramatically - first a 1:59.49 failure to make it beyond the semi-finals of the World Championships in Berlin. Then a best of 2:01.52 in 2010, and a failure to qualify for the African Championships. 2011 saw a best of 2:09.12. An astonishing fall from the highest peak, fully 15 seconds off her consistent times from 2008.

And now she may be back - 2012 has seen Jelimo return to sub-2 minute territory for the first time since 2009, and that's been indoors. She won the World Indoor title recently, in 1:58.83, a second sub-2 min clocking on the boards, and won the gold convincingly. And yes, it is difficult to use indoors as a barometer for the Games, but it's nevertheless a good start and the talk from Jelimo has been promising.

She'll hopefully be back and ready for an event that has seen its fair share of drama, even without her. There is no athlete in the world more "mysterious" (which is to say, not understood at all) as Caster Semenya. Jelimo's "disappearance" in 2009 was barely noticed in the storm that gathered around the South African. Also 18, she too exploded onto the scene, winning a few low key races before making her debut for the world in Berlin. There, she won easily, and the heavens opened with accusations that she was male. Controversy, gender verification tests, controversy and a return to the podium for silver in 2011 followed, amidst allegations of deliberately running slowly and losing on purpose to deflect attention, and of still being a man. Semenaya runs under a microscope few others can imagine.

She'll do the same in 2012, until there is more transparency regarding what happened with regards to her treatment during 2009 and 2010 - the athletics fraternity will remain untrusting and the media will continue to cheer her defeats (as allegedly happened in Daegu when Savinova overhauled her). She kicked her 2012 season off with a pretty slow 2:03.60 in a local meet here in SA. That's fully 6.6% off her best, and is the equivalent of David Rudisha kicking off with a 1:51!

It would be "typical" for an elite athlete to start their season and improve by 2 to 3% (2 to 3.5 seconds over 800m), and 6.6% is a big jump to make. But it's difficult to interpret, because an athlete like Semenya doesn't to be fast to win against weak local opposition, and has the 'luxury' of starting gradually.

So it will be interesting to see how she goes in the first few races of the European season. Her large variability in performance (last year she was going from well outside 2 minutes to well inside fairly regularly), her racing strategy and apparent ease of running will attract more speculation.

All in all, there are few events with more intrigue than the women's 800m.

5. The Olympic fashion show begins - why the kit is more important than one might think

If it's an Olympic year, and that means the race to unveil the latest in sports clothing is on. Some nations have gone for designer kit, like Italy with Giorgio Armani, Great Britain with Stella McCartney. The GB reviews were not great - not enough red, they said, even though it seemed to have about as much red as they always have.

I get the feeling you can never win with these high-profile kit launches - recently, in Australia, adidas launched the super lightweight kit and hurdler Sally Pearson commented that it was so light it was like being naked. Of course, that's the quote that was sent around the world, and once taken out of context, "super light" no longer seems super complimentary!

This kit launch topic got a few people talking over on our Facebook and Twitter pages. I can appreciate that people want to watch sport, and don't appreciate when it gets transformed into fashion.

But I think this fashion focus is good for two reasons. One is that if the kit was low-key and understated, the sport would reach far fewer people. The reality is that sport doesn't appeal to everyone, just as fashion doesn't appeal to everyone. But by overlapping them, even if only for a day or two, it raises awareness of the athletes and the events. If there are 100 people who have now seen Jessica Ennis or Phillips Idowu because they were shown on Sky News and in newspaper modeling McCartney's designs, then the sport of athletics is better off for it.

Secondly, I think the importance of good kit is undervalued as a performance enhancer. Not for the obvious reason that it keeps athletes cool or light or any of the other "gimmicks" that are often sold with kit, but because it says to the athlete that "we invest in you". This psychological factor is more obvious in the other direction - if you neglect to look after the athlete's image, then you undermine their professionalism. I'm lucky (or unlucky, actually) to experience this in SA, where our Olympic Committee often bungle the kit - in Beijing, we got what the athletes themselves described as grandma's knitting, and many refused to wear it for training, saying it was just too hot, itchy and uncomfortable. Ahead of London, nobody knows what we're getting, but among the athletes I'm involved with, nobody is exactly holding their breath.

I worked with SA Canoeing, who didn't even provide kit to their aspirant Olympic paddlers, other than a suit to race in. No out of competition kit at all, and that contrast between us and the likes of Germany, GB and France at the World Championships I attended in Poznan in 2010 was stark - clothes don't necessarily make the man, but they help the athlete a heck of a lot, especially when he doesn't have any compared to rivals who have everything! The clothes are a symptom of the system-wide attitude to excellence, and the reality is that if the powers that be shared a mindset of excellence, they'd recognize that kit fits into that ethos. Some nations succeed despite their kit, which again points to a larger problem of professionalism and "elitism" of attitudes towards success and excellence.

And there's a snap reaction to that, where athletes (and me) can be labeled "primadonnas", but that's not fair either (in this case). I have been lucky (and I mean it this time) to have worked with SA Sevens, where we've tried very hard to foster professionalism, and recognize that this kind of thing really matters. So if I'm an Olympic athlete, racing in kit that has been commissioned by my management from Stella McCartney, made by adidas (or Armani, in the case of Italy, or Hilfiger for the USA), then that's worth a tiny bonus. And who knows, perhaps those tiny bonuses add up to difference between reaching a final or not, between winning a medal or being fourth...?

That's a wrap for this week's Olympic Buzz around the Rings. It was a long one - that's only because I had a month's worth of news to sum up! From now on, a weekly Buzz should be shorter!

Bring on the Games!

Ross

Question answers:

The first woman to win an Olympic medal was Pauline Konga, who won silver in the 1996 Atlanta Olympic 5000m race.

The first Kenyan gold was as recently as 2008 - Pamela Jelimo in the 800m. She was followed only days later by Nancy Langat in the 1500m, but Beijing was the first time that a Kenyan gold medalist was female. By the end of London, they may have doubled that number...

Vibram shoes named in lawsuit: The danger of barefoot running

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:36:00 +0000

Vibram Five-finger named in lawsuit - zealousness, unfiltered advice creates more problems than it fixes

I received this link from a reader yesterday, which explains how Vibram USA Inc and Vibram FiveFingers LLC are part of a lawsuit where it is being alleged that they made "deceptive and misleading statements about the benefits of barefoot running".

It is alleged that the company, which makes the now famous Five-Finger shoe (pic on the right) have made deceptive claims about their health benefits, and this is leading to increased injuries among runners who make the switch.

The problem - the "skill" of barefoot running was not recognized

There is even some research as part of the lawsuit - the American Council of Exercise is carrying a report of this study, which finds that many people who make the switch continue to land on their heel.

Why is this potentially bad? Well, the graph below, taken from a study on the ACE website, shows the loading rate in three conditions - barefoot (blue column), in Vibrams (purple) and in normal running shoes (green).

What should be immediately clear is that when you look at runners who land on the forefoot (shown by the cluster on the left) the loading rate is lowest when barefoot and highest when forefoot.

However, when you look at runners who land on the heel (right cluster), their loading rate goes in the other direction - here, the barefoot runners who heel strike have loading rates that are about double those of shod runners who are landing on the heel. This is the effect of the big cushion under the heel of modern running shoes, and it serves to dampen the impact and reduce the loading rate significantly. Vibrams lack this cushioning, on so fare only marginally better than the pure barefoot condition in heel-strikers.

Those of you who have followed this barefoot running debate will immediately recognize that this finding of impact force differences is not new at all. In fact, it was found by Daniel Lieberman in a paper published in Nature about 2 years ago. Lieberman's differences were even more striking - he found that if you run barefoot and land on the heel, then your impact forces are seven times higher than if you land on the heel in shoes.

The graph below is one that I redrew using Lieberman's data and put on this website when I reviewed the barefoot running phenomenon last year.

Now, having said all this, it's important to find the balanced, evidence-based view and be transparent about some "limitations" in these studies. The first is that the link between loading rates and injuries is not as tight as many would think. Certainly, higher loading rates have been associated with certain conditions (bone stress injuries being the main one), but the precise aetiology of how injury develops is far more complex than simply saying "if you reduce loading rate, you won't get injured". Truth is, you might just get a different injury, especially if you start running on the forefoot because you see these graphs!

Then secondly, I'd like to see the study above published in a peer-reviewed journal, only to see the methods in a bit more detail. Lieberman found a pretty large difference (7-fold) whereas the latest study finds a 2-fold difference between shod and barefoot runners when heel-striking. That, plus the exact percentage of runners who continue to heel-strike, as well the 'training' they did for the two-week training period, would be of interest to me in order to understand exactly what is being measured in the laboratory.

On that note, Lieberman found that 83% of habitually shod runners were still heel-striking when barefoot. The ACE study is saying 50% are still heel-striking, even two weeks into running with the minimalist shoes.

Now, that flies in the face of the popular literature, which tells us that when you run barefoot, you switch automatically to an apparently amazing cushioned forefoot running style. That doesn't seem to happen, though, and the vast majority of people seem to take a lot longer to make this transition than the books (Born to Run is the main one) suggest.

The skill component

In fact, I believe this leads to the most intriguing question of all - understanding the skill of barefoot running. The ACE study, mentioned above, had the runners do a 2-week "familiarization" period in the Vibrams, where they were asked to run for 20 minutes a day in an attempt to get them accustomed to it. It's easy to criticize this period as too short and insufficient (all the stuff those who've already made up their mind can say - no study is perfect, remember).

But this two-week adaptation period may partly explain why Lieberman found that 83% of his shod runners were heel-striking when barefoot, whereas the ACE study found that "approximately half" were heel-striking. Perhaps two weeks of familiarization was responsible for the shift of more runners (1 in 2 rather than 1 in 6) to a forefoot strike, as they 'learned' how to run.

The real question, however, is why the other 50% didn't make this adaptation? And whether they would given more time? Are there some runners who would never succeed? Who are they, and what distinguishes them from those who do succeed? I strongly suspect that some people CANNOT adapt to barefoot running, that they don't have the necessary "skill" to improve the way they run barefoot and change what is years of shod-running-induced motor patterns.

Of course, this is an unanswered question, but I think it's the most important one that needs to be answered right now. Just as one would not expect anyone who picks up a tennis racquet or a golf club to even become competent at playing it (especially later in life), I don't think it should be expected that simply making the transition to barefoot running will be sufficient either. Everyone can improve, certainly. But can they good enough to overcome or avoid what are some pretty clear "risks" associated with the transition? Remember, in running, unlike tennis or golf, it's not good enough to simply improve over time, because if you don't improve enough, you get injured, so there is a "minimum required improvement" to make the transition to barefoot or minimalist running viable in the first place.

Coaching - sound in theory, but another risk in practice

Here, one can begin to introduce the concept of coaching, that barefoot running (or any running, for that matter) should be taught as a skill. And certainly, this would help. In the same way that my tennis or golf game will improve faster if I'm guided, running ability will too. However, I don't think this will overcome what, for some people, may be a "skill deficit" that will prevent them from succeeding at barefoot or minimalist running. Again, this is an unanswered question, at least for now.

The other issue, which I raised above, is that there is substantial risk associated with making any change in running technique. This distinguishes running from, say golf, where wrong technique means lots of lost balls and frustration. In running, failure to find that apparently elusive "correct running technique" equals disaster. And what makes it even more tricky is that there's no feedback until the injury - unless you have fancy high speed cameras and force plates to analyse how you run, the first sign of the mistake is often injury.

So if you are going to advocate that people should run barefoot and then coach them so that they learn the right way to do it, then you'd better be certain that you'll make them good enough to avoid the risk - there is a minimum threshold, and if a runner fails to reach it, you've led them to injury, despite good intentions. And it's not fair to runners to say "Run barefoot" and then blame the runner for their failures.

It's not simply about forefoot landing - even more danger lurks there

To illustrate this, the one thing that many will take out of this study is that it's the forefoot landing that will make the difference. That is, if you land on the forefoot, you'll be fine. And in theory, this is borne out by the evidence shown in the two graphs above.

However, in reality, it's a little more complex. One of the authors of this ACE study is quoted as saying "Buying these Vibrams and continuing to land your heels is probably worse than wearing shoes because the Vibrams don’t have any cushioning. … People may need very explicit instruction and time spent practicing how to land on the ball of the foot. Otherwise, they may be doing themselves more harm".

I think this is advice is probably MORE DANGEROUS than not saying anything, because as soon as you give an explicit instruction, you put the runner into the compromised situation where they are now focused on a forefoot landing. How do this achieve this? They planar flex - point the toe away from their body, and drop more than three times their body weight down onto a contracted calf muscle in a compromised shortened position, about 400 times every kilometer. That's a recipe for disaster, and so the most common problem associated with barefoot running is Achilles and calf related injuries.

Therefore, you can't "instruct" a runner to avoid the risk. If anything, you instruct them into risk. Bad idea. The key, I believe, is to let the skill be acquired gradually, using a few drills to guide the athlete without ever changing their technique "manually", so to speak. But here again, nobody really knows what works and what doesn't. We don't even know what constitutes "good technique", and so to simplify it down to which part of the foot hits the ground first is also wrong. And that's why it's reckless to advocate anything. At this stage, everyone is learning, and so advocacy has no place, in my opinion. It's all about education for now.

Extremism: the media are more to blame than Vibram

Final point re "responders" and "non-responders". Because we don't yet know who belongs to each group, I think it's reckless and irresponsible to treat them all as potential responders. The prudent thing to do would be to assume the "worst case scenario", that everyone is a non-responder who needs serious time and intense work and lots of practice. And then start from this point, and if a runner adapts faster, so be it, that's good news. Instead, the media and advocates of barefoot running assume that everyone should make the switch because everyone will benefit. And the bodies left behind will be dealt with later. It's just too aggressive, too extreme.

And on this note, the media have propagated the myth far more even than the shoe companies like Vibram have. Vibram are trying to sell shoes, and so they make claims as part of marketing strategies to differentiate their product from their rivals'. That's normal. And I can't comment on the specifics of the lawsuit - maybe they're guilty.

But I do know that the media have done a poor job of providing education on this topic. With a few notable exceptions, they have allowed themselves to become a platform for the advocates of barefoot running without providing the necessary education. Lieberman's paper illustrates this - he titled that research study "Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners". The word "habitually" was in there for a reason.

But when the media got hold of that study, they reported only that barefoot running was excellent because it reduced loading rates 7-fold. This study "proved" the benefit of barefoot running. Quickly, the "extremists" (my pet hate in all matters of sports science) jumped on this said "It proves our point" and the study's other findings were lost in the aggressive or uninformed interpretation of the data.

This is an eerily similar thing to what happens when it comes to dietary advice. Recently, I've been involved in debate back here in SA about paleo diets, low carb diets, high carb diets and the like. And once again, it's a situation where people seem to become over-zealous, finding a cause for which they appoint themselves the spokesperson. Their success, which is either isolated (1 in 100) or common (1 in 2, perhaps, but never 100%) becomes their proof, and they start telling the world there is only one way to succeed. "Follow me to change your life" is the message, whether it's barefoot running or eating like a caveman supposedly did. They thus make the mistake they accuse others of making, by lumping everyone into the same group.

And here, those who succeed become loud, outspoken (and dare I say, obnoxious), whereas those who fail slink away into the background and remain quiet about their failure. So those who tried barefoot running and got injured disappear, those who succeeded often find a soapbox, write a book, and shout about it. Those who try low carbohydrate diets and fail revert back to routine with minimal fuss, whereas those who succeed feel the need to tell the world. They dismiss any research study finding that challenges their position as "corrupt", "incompetent" and "garbage", and so debate goes nowhere. Once again, this happens because of aggressive advocacy, when it should be about education.

Prescribing a treatment for a condition we don't understand, without knowledge of risk or benefit

Which brings me to the final point. The big issue, I believe, is that people have become carried away with barefoot running as a way to treat injury and potentially improve performance without really appreciating how it might work (or, importantly, that it may not).

The result then is that barefoot running has taken on the characteristics of a medicine or a drug - it is dispensed by "experts" (who often change their names to "Barefoot X") as a "treatment", but unlike drugs, there are a few key things missing:

We don't know which conditions (injuries) the treatment will be effective for. And by definition, this means we can't say when it will be ineffective
We don't know what the correct dosage is
We don't know how to phase the dosage in over time for different people
We don't know whether the "treatment" is effective for everyone, or whether there are responders and non-responders
We don't recognize the possible "contra-indications". When you take a powerful drug prescribed by a doctor, he knows to check for certain conditions - pregnancy, allergies etc. For barefoot running, nobody has thought about this
What is the effect of other factors on the success of the 'treatment'? For example, how does fatigue, terrain, muscle weakness, flexibility, strength etc impact on the success of the outcome?
As a result of all of the above, we are in a very poor position to quantify the risks, and the "cost-benefit" of barefoot running.

The point is, all the answers, which are pretty important, that you can read on the package insert when you get prescription medication, are unknown for barefoot running. Yet it is still prescribed 'recklessly'.

And for this, I completely blame the polarization of the debate that allows extremist views to develop and thrive. It's perfect for the media and the 'zealots' who try to force their success on large groups of people without being open to the other side. And there are some who are more moderate - I apologize for lumping everyone together. But there are many who are not. They base their 'prescription' of barefoot running on their own success story, or at best, a group of runners who they have succeeded with, and suddenly, the entire running community is being told to take this "drug". It works. Maybe. In some people. If they get it right. Possibly. That's not good enough.

And what's worse is that when it doesn't work, when they get injured, then it's their fault. To return to the medication analogy, this is like giving a drug out to a sick patient and then hoping they get the dosage right. And even if they follow the instructions to the letter, they may fail, and then it's their doing. They must have done something wrong. That's not a viable drug. It's not a viable "product", and until that is recognized, I would caution all runners to be a little more prudent about how they advise others, and about following advice they receive.

The golden rule in science should be that polarization should be regarded as highly suspicious. There are very few things that are known with absolute certainty, and when you're dealing with incredibly complex human physiology, the individual differences that make us who we are, what we're good at, how we run and what we eat, for example, are so vast and complex that nothing can be polarized without being wrong! So when someone says "It's all about training, genes don't matter", they're just as wrong as someone who says "It's all about genes, training is irrelevant".

Similarly, barefoot running is not "the answer", but nor is it bad. Carbohydrates are not evil, but nor are they the best option for some people, as evidence is now showing. An individual approach is the only accurate way to go - it's not great for the media who love the sensation, and it's not great news for the gold-diggers who want sensation to sell books, but that's the reality.

Barefoot running - where does it leave us? Opinion and exploration

And so for barefoot running, where does that leave us? Again, this is my opinion, based on the evidence and my own current research (I have two research studies underway, looking at various aspects of what I've discussed in this and other posts - results in a year or so!). However, I'd say the following:

In a group of 100 runners, every single one will benefit from barefoot running as a training method. It changes muscle activation patterns, strengthens muscles and tendons that we don't activate nearly as well in shoes, may be an effective form of rehabilitation, and it's really enjoyable. So I would say that everyone should incorporate some barefoot running into their training programme. Whether it's a 2 minute warm-up, an easy 30 min jog once a week, or some sprints after training, I'd say try it out and feel the difference it makes.

However, it's probably not for everyone. Practically, theoretically, logistically and for many other reasons, some people will not take to barefoot running well enough for them to become 100% barefoot runners. However, for others, it may well work. It may prove to be the answer to your prayers, and the secret to injury-free running for life. That's fantastic, and so you should embrace it and do it with enjoyment. But don't believe that because it helped you, it must be used in the same dosages by everyone else - they may not have the same "condition" as you, they may have an entirely different history and thus set of contra-indications, and your enthusiasm, however well intended, will cause more problems than it solves.

You may sit on one of the poles - either north or south, either a responder and great barefoot runner, or a non-responder, and classic shod runner. Which is perfect for you, but remember, between those poles, there's a world of people who are different, and so your extreme position in the complex spread of physiology shouldn't produce an extreme advocate for anything.

Ross

10,000 hours vs training debate: No scientific limits making it impossible for any individual to become an elite athlete with practice?

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 11:55:00 +0000

Dear Anders Ericsson...a request on behalf of sports science to stop telling people that the world is flat

The 10,000 hours vs genetic debate, and correcting Prof Ericsson's mistruths

So last night, I was (un)fortunate enough to be involved in a radio debate with Prof Anders Ericsson on the concept of talent vs training. For those who don't know, Ericsson is the father of the 10,000 hour concept, where he prescribes that ANY individual can become an elite athlete if they engage in the required hours of deliberate practice. He sets that number at 10,000 hours, which is really more marketing than it is science, and I had the chance to "debate" this on air last night.

Unfortunately, the debate ended before I was able to adequately respond to some of Ericsson's claims, and so this is a post to do just that - respond, put the sports science side of the debate across. I address the article to Ericsson somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and I don't mean to appoint myself on behalf of sports science, but the truth is that someone has to point out that the books, the popular media, and Ericsson are misrepresenting the evidence (either deliberately or ignorantly). And besides, Ericsson did ask in the radio interview (see below).

The debate was a glorious seven minutes long (I was told it would be much longer), and it involved two opportunities for Ericsson to state his case, and two for me to try to explain the physiology of elite athletes. Going in, I was under the impression we would debate the points, but that never really happened, mostly because I didn't think it was going to be cut short at 7 minutes.

You can listen to the podcast here. Just click "Listen Now" The interview portion starts at 9:00, as the section before is an interview with Chrissie Wellington (this provides some context for some of my comments in my first response).

A stunned reaction

I was, throughout the interview, stunned at what I was hearing. And it's not as though I'm new to this particular debate - I've recently written two review articles on this topic with a colleague of mine (a geneticist, because unlike Anders Ericsson, I don't like the idea of commenting about a field that I'm not an expert in - he's a psychologist, but he was throwing physiology around with abandon, as you'll hear and read later). These articles will be published in peer reviewed journals later this year, I'll let you know when. There are also the two articles (PART I and PART II) that I wrote here on The Science of Sport last year, and then I presented on this at the UK Sports and Exercise Medicine conference in London last November.

I have also read the books - Bounce, Outliers, so in theory, I've heard it before. But I was just absolutely stunned that Ericsson was saying some of the things he did - you can hear this in my reaction in the podcast as I start my response to both questions! What he says is just ludicrous, empty and baseless, and I can only think he's misinformed, or has some other agenda to push. Maybe he is writing a book...

Truth is, you don't even need research, you just need common sense and a tiny bit of experience with elite athletes in training groups. For example, if any of you have ever run with a training group, you have seen and felt the reality of "individual responses" to training - you know that 1,000 hours of identical training will not produce an identical result in ten different people. There are examples all over the place that show that practice is not sufficient for elite performance, and there are as many examples of athletes who have succeeded on far, far less than this (there are even cases in chess, where, dare I say it, performance is a little less complex because there's no risk of overtraining, injury, etc)

Also, Ericsson's theory that it is the training done during the adolescent years that matters is not only wrong (look how many talented young athletes fail at senior level despite accumulating far more hours than their peers by the age of 18, and how many endurance athletes only take up the sport in their 20s and become world class in a few years despite zero training when adolescents), it's also very irresponsible, because it compels parents, teachers and coaches to start training young athletes too soon and that's detrimental to the person (see Cote et al for review).

The statements - no scientific evidence showing that genes or physiology limit performance?

In his second response in the podcast, Ericsson makes the following statement in response to my argument that the scientific evidence suggests without doubt that elite athletes and champions are BORN AND MADE:

"I would argue here, and reading all the reviews, and we've had reviews where every scientist from the exercise physiology field and sports psychology. And I find it kind of remarkable that Ross is making these claims because I've never seen them made in print in any peer-reviewed publication" - 13:55 in the podcast

He goes on to say the following:

"I have to say that I'd be very interested to see Ross finding any scientific studies that support the kind of claims that he was making at the beginning of the programme" - 15:01 in the podcast

Outside the scope of knowledge - don't tread where you shouldn't unless you have a guide

Before I continue, just have to mention that I have provided a list of peer reviewed publications as references at the end of this post - they are both review articles (Ericsson made the claim that he's read ALL the reviews - clearly he's missed these ones), and they are original research studies that show the importance of genetic factors and physiological variability to training. Clearly, he's never read these either. I'd excuse this on the basis that Anders Ericsson is a psychologist, so one would not expect him to have a firm grasp of sports science, performance, physiology and the genetic literature, but the fact of the matter is that he's making claims in those fields, so therefore it's fair-game to challenge his knowledge and understanding of the literature and the sports science performance fields.

And I must just make this point - I don't for a second think we should create intellectual "silos" where you can ONLY comment on your field. I think that would be foolish because it's the process of thinking, the scientific approach to a question that matters more than the actual content. And I'd like to think that the biggest advances in our understanding often come from thinking outside the "constraints" of what we know, and by integrating research from different fields by different experts.

In other words, someone may be trained as a physiologist, but it's their application of the scientific approach, allied to some small physiological understanding, that may allow them to contribute to the field of biomechanics of barefoot running, for example. Key to this are two things: a) you must be dilligent about doing your research, and b) find someone who IS an expert to assist. That's why when in writing review articles on talent vs training and elite performance, I partnered with a geneticist (Malcolm Collins) who does understand the field at the depth that is required to put scientific statements out there. Similarly, I'm now doing barefoot running research, where my interest is the physiology, but we have a team that includes an engineer and biomechanist, so that I don't have to tread where I'm not capable.

Responding to Ericsson - one example of "limited" physiological response to training

In any event, during the debate, I tried to respond to Ericsson, and there are four things that I think are essential to understand here:

It is true that genetic "proof" has yet to be provided. But elite sporting performance is too complex, and genetic factors too varied to ever "prove" the link Ericsson seems to require. Consider this: height is a pretty straightforward characteristic, and it's known to be highly heritable (tall parents = tall children). In fact, 80% of the variance in height is known to be genetic. However, studies have found that it takes an astonishing 300,000 genetic variants to account for only 45% of this variance. That's just height - how much more then would it take to explain something as complex as sports performance?

The reality is that the field of genetics is young, and with time, more evidence will emerge. But there's a massive difference between something being "proven" (where I agree with Ericsson) and saying that it is absent (which is what he implies). Genetic evidence is not absent - most physiological factors that are known to limit performance have been associated with genes (including injury risk, aerobic capacity, muscle fiber type), and others can be easily related to heritable factors (think height for basketball, limb proportion, bone mass etc). When Ericsson suggests there is no evidence, it is because he is ignorant of the evidence.
Ericsson's own work disproves his theory - his studies have tried to explain performance level as a function of training, yet research he has been involved in shows that only a very small part of performance can be explained by practice. Only 28% of the variance darts performance is explained by the number of hours practiced! That's astonishingly low, and it means that time spent in practice is a very poor predictor for performance. The question you should be asking is what accounts for the other 72%, and could some of it be innate? It's definitely enough to throw out the deliberate practice, 10,000 hour theory, because Ericsson is clearly predicting that most (or all, in some of his articles) of performance is explained by training.
You cannot prove that practice is necessary AND sufficient to produce champions or elite performers based on retrospective studies. They're weak, because there are so many other ways to explain the findings. For example, Ericsson's famous violin study showed that the expert performers did the most practice, and he concluded that the practice turned them into experts. However, it's equally possible, in this study design anyway, that the children with the innate violin ability were encouraged by others and their own success to practice more. Retrospective studies are poor ways to show that practice makes perfect. You have to do prospective studies.
Prospective studies have been done. Most notably, Bouchard published a study in 2011 (reference below) in which he found that the response in VO2max (a measure of aerobic capacity and adaptation to training, and ultimately performance) of a large cross-section of the population to a standardized training programme was enormously varied. Some individuals improved by less than 5%, others improve by 30%. And here's the key point - it is possible, using genetic techniques, to identify which genetic polymorphisms (think of them as variants of genes) are responsible for this huge difference.

It turns out that Bouchard's work has provided some pretty important findings:

About 50% of an individual's starting VO2max and 50% of the "trainability" in VO2max is heritable
21 Genetic polymorphisms have been associated with 50% of the training response to VO2max
If a person carries NINE OR FEWER of these genetic variants, then they are low responders and improve VO2max by only 200 ml/min.
If a person carries NINETEEN OR MORE of these variants, then they are high responders and improve VO2max by over 600 ml/min

In other words, genetic factors very clearly impact on what we start with, they impact on how we adapt to training, and therefore, by extension, they impact on where we get to. Our physiology has a ceiling, and it is in part, genetically determined. This is clear for VO2max, and it's clear for other factors that are known to affect performance. Skeletal muscle, for example, is known to be BOTH heritable and trainable. Running economy differs enormously between individuals as a function of factors such as height, limb proportions, muscle mass, and other factors that are known to be genetically determined. And so unless you have the right skeletal structure, height, limb proportions, you cannot have the running economy required to run a 2:08 marathon. It's physiology, limiting performance, and related to factors that we are born with. To deny this is to say that the world is flat when you are staring out of a spaceship window at the globe.

Further, as one of you commented on Facebook yesterday, biomechanical factors such as the muscle's moment arm exert huge effects on performance, and so characteristics that we are born with determine the level of performance that we can attain. I would point out the most obvious example of this is basketball, but there are countless others.

A pointless polarization of the debate

Ultimately, however, the idea that elite sporting performance can be explained by one factor is foolish. That's why when Ericsson makes the claims he does, in the field of physiology, it's so absurd, and potentially damaging because people believe it at face value, and they implement sports systems and strategies that buy into this flawed concept. It's quite clear, from what we observe in athletes, what we study in laboratories, what we know from geneticists, that there is a significant contribution of all kinds of factors to performance. Physiology matters, but so does practice. Psychological factors are crucial, but so too are financial and economic considerations.

The dominance of Kenyan runners, for example, will never be found to be due to ONE factor. Those who are looking solely at genes are doomed to failure, but so are those who want to say that it's purely an altitude, diet, socio-economic, lifestyle, or incentive-driven phenomenon. All these factors contribute, and the environment interacts with the genes to produce a champion. I've said this before, but training should be defined as the realization of genetic potential.

Every single person improves as a result of training - some, as Bouchard has shown, improve by very little in a variable like aerobic capacity. Perhaps they are better suited to skill-based sports. Some improve enormously, and those who do are more suited to endurance sport. Then there is injury - this is vital and completely overlooked. We know that certain genes are associated with different performance characteristics, and there are genes that are associated with injury. Some people will never even reach 10,000 hours because they are susceptible to injury at five hours per week of training and cannot do more - they'd need 40 years to get good enough if that's all it took.

So the point I'd like to conclude with, before I list some more points for Anders Ericsson to consider, is that we should not polarize the debate. We should recognize that there are many paths to elite performance, and that a one-size or one-number fits all approach is foolish. We should learn what we can from those who succeed, including that they are dedicated and practice a lot, which is obvious. And we should learn why people fail. And we should avoid generalizations and simplifications that help us sell books to motivate people.

Training is the realization of genetic potential - practically, that means that every single one of you reading this, discussing this, can improve through training. That's the motivation. But will we all become Olympic caliber athletes in any sport we choose? Keep dreaming. The world is not flat, Prof Ericsson. Please stop telling people it is...

Ross

By way of an "Appendix", here is a little more on Ericsson's views, because I don't want to take him out of context in a 7 minute radio interview...

Ericsson's first entry into this field was his work looking at skill acquisition in activities such as music - his seminal study of violinists showed that expert performers engaged in at least 10,000 hours of training whereas those violinists judged merely as "good" or "average" did about 8,000 and 5,000 hours respectively.

But then Ericsson moved beyond education and skill acquisition and began to tackle sport. He wrote a review article in the New York Academy of Sciences Journal in 2009, in which he states the following:

"the distinctive characteristics of exceptional performers are the result of adaptations to extended and intense practice activities that selectively activate dormant genes that are contained within all healthy individuals’ DNA." - Ericsson et al, NYAS, 1172: 199-217, 2009

So in other words, he is now going to tackle genetics. He is saying (and I want to be careful here about taking this out of context), that exceptional performers become exceptional because they practice, and this training activates dormant genes, and these genes are present in ALL healthy individuals' DNA - his word, my emphasis.

Right, so this is fine, if he sticks to "performance" in skill-based activities. I would disagree with him - studies on chess show clearly that some people get good very quickly, others never improve to Master level no matter what they do. The same is true of darts, tennis, golf, any activity. But nevertheless, let's assume that he is referring to his study on musicians and things like mathematical ability.

But he doesn't stop there. He then tackles physiology, and writes the following in the same paper:

"From this evidence it would appear that VO2max/kg (aerobic capacity) would not be a good candidate for a factor that was constrained by heredity"

This comes from a section in the paper where Ericsson, a psychologist, tackles the PHYSIOLOGY of elite performance and comes to this incredible conclusion that there is no evidence that aerobic capacity is constrained by genetic factors. If you read the study, you will discover that Ericsson arrives at this conclusion based on THREE studies - one review, and two other studies, one of which actually finds the opposite to what he concludes.

I have explained above the recent work that shows clearly that genetic factors influence VO2max, and admittedly, this review precedes that series of studies. But there were still others that had found a) huge inter-individual differences between people in response to the same training and b) accounted for large parts of VO2 as being heritable.

Ericsson's approach to the physiology side of this argument is simply not good enough when physiologists can cite dozens of physiological systems or factors that are known to affect performance, and when geneticists can show associations between these systems and our genes.

And yes, I agree that this area is not yet developed - it's so "young" a field that it will take time to understand the genetic complexity. But even here, there's a difference between something being absent and something being proven. Neither side will "prove" their argument, but I think it's pretty clear that evidence shows conclusively that BOTH genes and training make champions.

And finally, here are some references that Ericsson may have missed:

Duffy L, Baluch B. Dart performance as a function of facets of practice amongst professional and amateur men ana women players. Int J Sport Psychol. 2004;35:232-245.

Vaeyens R, Güllich A, Warr CR et al. Talent identification and promotion programmes of Olympic athletes. J Sports Sci. 2009;27:1367-80.

Elferink-Gemser MT, Jordet G, Coelho-E-Silva MJ et al. The marvels of elite sports: how to get there? Br J Sports Med. 2011;45:683-4.

Phillips E, Davids K, Renshaw I et al. Expert performance in sport and the dynamics of talent development. Sports Med. 2010;40:271-83.

Huijgen BC, Elferink-Gemser MT, Post WJ et al. Soccer skill development in professionals. Int J Sports Med. 2009;30:585-91.

Gobet F, Campitelli G. The role of domain-specific practice, handedness, and starting age in chess. Dev Psychol. 2007;43:159-72.

Gibbons T, Hill R, McConnell, A. et al. The path to excellence: A comprehensive view of development of U.S. Olympians who competed from 1984-1998 United States Olympic Committee. 2002.

Baker J, Côté J, Deakin J. Expertise in Ultra-Endurance Triathletes Early Sport Involvement, Training Structure, and the Theory of Deliberate Practice. J Appl Sport Psychol. 2005;17:64-78.

Oldenziel K, Gagne F. Factors affecting the rate of athlete development from novice to senior elite: How applicable is the 10-year rule. Athens 2004: Pre-olympic Congress Sport Science Through the Ages: Challenges in the New Millennium. Athens. 2004.

Hodges NJ, Starkes JL. Wrestling with the nature of expertise: A sport specific test of Ericsson, Krampe and Tesch-Römer’s (1993) theory of “deliberate practice”. Int J Sport Psychol. 1996;27:400-24.

Helsen WF, Starkes JL, Hodges NJ. Team sports and the theory of deliberate practice. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1998;20:12-34.

Bullock N, Gulbin JP, Martin DT et al. Talent identification and deliberate programming in skeleton: ice novice to Winter Olympian in 14 months. J Sports Sci. 2009;27:397-404.

Roescher CR, Elferink-Gemser MT, Huijgen BC et al. Soccer endurance development in professionals. Int J Sports Med. 2010;31:174-9.

Vaeyens R, Lenoir M, Williams AM et al. Talent identification and development programmes in sport : current models and future directions. Sports Med. 2008;38:703-14.

Tucker R, Collins M. Athletic performance and risk of injury - Can genes explain all? Dialog Cardiovasc Med. In Press.

Collins M, Raleigh SM. Genetic risk factors for musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries. Med Sport Sci. 2009;54:136-49.

Doping in cycling: Science, the law, and PR, and insights on Pistorius

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:32:00 +0000

The complexity of science vs law vs PR: Implications for anti-doping and Oscar Pistorius

I've finally emerged from the "bubbles" that were the trip up Kilimanjaro, which was followed almost immediately by a trip to the USA where I spent a week with the SA Sevens team for the IRB Series tournament in Las Vegas. It was another harsh reminder that the best preparation and hardest work can sometimes fail because on the day, things don't work and other teams are better...competitive sports is a ruthless world!

In any event, those tournament weeks are always something of a "bubble", inside which I miss many interesting sports stories. The jet lag and 9 hour time difference don't help, but the bubble has finally burst and I thought I'd share one or two links, and some short insights on stories that have broken since late January.

Cycling and doping: Three big stories

To begin with, three big stories in the world of cycling and doping. In no particular time order, Jan Ullrich, Tour de France champion and many time runner-up was sanctioned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and all his results since 2005 annulled. He of course retired years ago, so the two year ban is more symbolic than practical, but it ends one of cycling's more high-profile chapters. Ullrich, for his part, responded on his website, apologizing for his dealings with Fuentes, but not entirely accepting the court's opinion. You can read his full statement here.

This decision was preceded by perhaps an even more significant one - the US Attorney Andre Birotte Jr announced that the federal investigation into Lance Armstrong would be ending. The announcement was strategically timed to garner as little media coverage (in the USA) as possible, coming the Friday before the Superbowl. There has however been some reaction to it, mostly dealing with the timing of the decision (the investigation had been a 2-year long struggle up to this point), and perhaps more importantly, the legal vs ethical issues surrounding doping.

Those who have kept up with the case will be well aware that doping in sport is not a federal crime. As a result, the investigation was not about whether Armstrong doped or not, it was built predominantly around fraud, conspiracy and other charges related to the violation of Armstrong's team's contract with the U.S. Postal Service. Those who are proclaiming "innocence" are thus choosing to stop short of the point, at least as far as doping goes.

The result of this is that the federal investigation may have been dropped because of a simple balance between "cost" (time and financial) and "reward". There has been no explanation for why the investigation has been dropped, and nor is there likely to be, leaving most to speculate and wonder what the reasons are. One of the outcomes is that the ball is now firmly in the court of the anti-doping authorities, such as USADA, who can continue to pursue the case of doping against Armstrong.

There were reports, since confirmed, that USADA had been in contact with the investigators to gain access to the evidence they had collected as part of the criminal case. Travis Tygart, the CEO of USADA, issued this statement following the US Attorney General's annoucement:

"Unlike the U.S. Attorney, USADA's job is to protect clean sport rather than enforce specific criminal laws. Our investigation into doping in the sport of cycling is continuing and we look forward to obtaining the information developed during the federal investigation."

Time will tell whether that evidence is forthcoming, and how it is acted upon, but certainly, the announcement that the investigation was ending is not the same thing as drawing a line under the issue.

Sports Illustrated yesterday carried this article expanding on the USADA investigation, for those interested in reading more.

The Contador verdict

Then third, and most relevant to cycling today (since he is the only active cyclist of the three), was the decision, finally, of CAS on the Alberto Contador case. The end result of over two years of deliberations and court proceedings, protestations, accusations and cow slandering? Four thousand pages of argument and counter-argument, a 98-page verdict, and a two year ban for Contador, which is really only 6 months, because it has been backdated to when the case began.

There are far better summaries of this case than I can provide in a short time. For perhaps the best, read Matt Rendell's excellent analysis here. He tackles issues of strict liability, the Contador defence (veal solomillo and clenbuterol, at 32 Euros a kilogram, apparently), and the UCI/WADA argument, which was built around the likelihood that the clenbuterol came from the infusion of plasma as part of Contador's alleged blood doping during that Tour de France.

This defence is particularly intriguing to me, because it has evidence supporting it, and therefore can be "proved" (in so far as "proof" seems to exist in these cases). That evidence was described by Prof Michael Ashenden, one of the leading biological passport scientists. He reported to CAS that Contador's reticulocyte percentages during the race were abnormally high, which would be indicative of EPO use, because that switches on red blood cell formation (for more on the biological passport, reticulocytes and how all this works, read this article that I wrote last year). Contador's hemoglobin levels were also abnormal, compared to his biological passport history, leading the UCI, WADA and Ashenden to suggest that they were consistent with blood doping.

Ultimately, the CAS tribunal ruled that a blood transfusion was "very unlikely to have occurred", though I'm not sure why they came to this strong decision. It was perhaps related to the biological passport's own internal requirements for a "strike", which I explained previously. It was Ashenden's testimony, the legal back-and-forth it caused, its ultimate dismissal and then the CAS judges refusal to allow Ashenden to have a final session of questioning that was leaked to the press after the hearing, so unhappy were the WADA/UCI lawyers.

The legal battle - how law undermines the openness of science

All of which brings me to my main opinion/insight on these matters. The fact of the matter is, as anti-doping becomes more sophisticated, it becomes more and fraught with the burden of scientific "proof". The reality is that science is open, it asks questions and only answers some of them! It is rarely black or white, and the problem with this is that legal teams, armed with scientific experts of their own, can always, without fail, cast doubt on scientific findings.

To me, the findings of abnormal reticulocytes and hemoglobin concentration points very strongly to a likelihood of transfusion. It doesn't prove it - the biological passport cannot prove anything in that way, and it has been designed like this to protect cyclists against false positive tests. However, it points there, and so when a tribunal, dealing with the same evidence I'm seeing, concludes that a transfusion is "very unlikely to have occurred", I'm left mystified at their thought-processes. At worst, they can conclude that a "transfusion is possible, but cannot be upheld given the physiological complexity of blood parameters". But to dismiss it as "very unlikely"...?

A declaration like that ("very unlikely to have occurred") is definitive, it is black and white. Science is grey, and so the two, science and law, seem to be very uneasy bedfellows.

Science being picked off, one by one, by the law

I have long held this opinion. It began as a healthy skepticism of lawyers, and it was the Oscar Pistorius-CAS decision that pretty much condemned me to have zero confidence in the manner in which the law evaluates scientific evidence. That decision was, to be blunt, a complete joke, and the CAS was manipulated by Hugh Herr and the rest of the Pistorius team, because they were able to exploit scientific "uncertainty" to win a legal verdict.

Then yesterday I read this absolutely brilliant piece by Lionel Birnie, in which he explains how the law attacks science and undermines it exactly because it is open. As I was reading it, I found myself thinking "This piece could just as well have been written for the Pistorius case". Science's greatest strength is its weakest point in anti-doping cases (and in cases like those of Pistorius). Here is a section of Birnie's piece, which I highly recommend:

It seems that a lot of people love to put their faith in the law and yet are sceptical about science. The law is man-made (and therefore flawless) whereas what we know about science keeps changing (and therefore cannot be trusted). This applies to sport just as it does to many areas of life.

Science is attacked for its greatest strength – the fact that it cannot prove or disprove everything. Science is exploratory. It is open-minded and willing to accept that there may be another possibility, however slim the idea may seem. Science is never so arrogant as to presume it knows everything.

When dealing with anti-doping cases, the law is exploitative in the sense that it seeks out areas where science is on shaky ground. It looks for loopholes and unpicks them ruthlessly. You could argue that science sees the dots and tries to work out how they are connected, while the law picks them off one by one.

We have seen in many anti-doping cases how the defence lawyers work through the argument line by line, clause by clause, trying to prove or disprove. And that is why we end up with such division among sports fans who are struggling to work out who the good guys are and who are the baddies.

So many jewels in that piece alone - "Science is open-minded and willing to accept that there may be another possibility", and "science cannot prove or disprove EVERYTHING". Case in point - dehydration and performance. There are scientists who maintain that any dehydration will compromise your performance. There are others who argue that we can lose 2 to 8% of our fluid with no negative effects, and they cannot reconcile those two opinions, as simple a question as this may appear. Science is full of areas of contention, and doping is perhaps one of the most complex. The case of Pistorius is equally complex - the evidence certainly pointed to an advantage, but clever scientists, backed by even smarter lawyers, are able to "pick them off one by one".

Direction dependent - the verdict depends on who gets the final scientific "disproving" say

Therefore, what we had with Pistorius was a case of science trying to "join the dots" and create a picture that he had an advantage, while others picked off those points to cast doubt on this finding. The key is to realize that this could have happened in either direction. That is, it could have been designed in a way that said that Pistorius was clear to compete unless the IAAF could show that an advantage existed. Then, the IAAF would have had the initiative and would have been able to cast doubt on evidence suggesting there was no advantage. As it was, the question was asked in the other direction - the starting point was that Pistorius had an advantage, and this could be disproved (legally) by picking off the evidence.

Therefore, the decision you arrive at depends entirely on the direction from which you approach it, at least in terms of how the science is evaluated. In anti-doping, this start point is determined by the concept of "strict liability" - the athlete has to show that the positive test was not the result of doping. For Pistorius, the burden was with the IAAF to prove that the advantage existed, and so Pistorius' team were able to deflect every scientific finding with enough doubt to get the verdict, despite the scientific evidence (which didn't meet CAS' legal standard, clearly, though there were other factors in play here too)

Enter public relations

Lionel Birnie's great insight didn't end there, however. He also recognized that it is a third party, Public Relations, that ultimately wields the biggest stick in cases like these. He writes:

The court of public opinion is where the phoney war is fought. Over the past 18 months, while science and the law have been carefully preparing their arguments for serious scrutiny, the public are teased along as if they’re watching a Punch and Judy show.

PR is flashy. It comes up with catchy phrases that capture the public imagination and it wins hearts and closes off minds. It is hardly surprising that most people will be turned off by the idea of wading through pages of legal and scientific argument. It is difficult, it strays well outside our areas of understanding and it makes our brains hurt.

Once again, this is so accurate for the Contador case, it's accurate for Armstrong, it's accurate for Pistorius (thanks Nike and about a dozen other sponsors). Last year, Prof Peter Weyand, one of the researchers who did join the dots to see the advantage Pistorius had, wrote to me after I published his explanation of his research, and expressed frustration at how the general public do not want to wade through the complexities of the scientific argument.

He is 100% correct. I share this frustration, and when I read drivel like the recent Outside magazine or New York Times pieces on Pistorius, it's tremendously frustrating because one half of the scientific team (Herr) are making idiotic claims that have no basis in evidence or reality, while the other half (Weyand) are being circumspect and scientifically cautious. Public relations looks at this with glee, because it's so easy to back the extreme view, however false or inaccurate it may be. That fuels the fire, and the public are watching, to borrow Birnie's phrase, "a Punch and Judy show".

The general public, and therefore the general media who cater to them, do not want to peel back layer after layer of scientific explanation to truly understand a case. They want simple answers, black and white, and science is incapable of providing them. PR, on the other hand, thrives on simple answers. Backed by legal complexities, it's not difficult to see why so many people are confused, and therefore choose to hear one message over another without necessarily understanding it.

The fight against doping - the danger of crippling complexity

So, for doping, there is a real problem. Anti-doping is becoming so complex that it may end up crippling itself in the court of law. The more dots there are to join (the role of science), the more points there are to attack (the role of law). The end result is that the cost of prosecution will sky-rocket, it will become increasingly difficult to enforce test results, and the public, ultimately the "paying" customer, will be turned off by the complexity. Enter the PR firms.

There is an anti-doping future, then, which exists on the internet and is waged by PR firms and athletes, who build mountains for anti-doping authorities to climb. All of this is a call to action, though it beats me what the solution might be.

The end result for Contador is that he'll be able to race in the Vuelta this year. We still don't know if he did anything wrong - having dismissed the Contador argument of contaminated beef, having dismissed the UCI/WADA argument of a blood transfusion, the CAS tribunal ends up concluding that a "contaminated supplement" is more likely the source, and therefore grounds for a ban (read part 2 of Rendell's excellent analysis for more on this).

Contador's results have been annulled, and so Andy Schleck is your Tour de France champion from 2010 (a hollow victory). It could have been worse, of course - I was actually surprised that CAS did reach the decision it did, I fully expected Contador to be cleared, and so perhaps there is some hope left. Whether such a long, and expensive process, changes the anti-doping game in the future remains to be seen. Your thoughts welcome, and I realize that there is so much to the verdict and the argument that I haven't covered, but I highly recommend Rendell's pieces, both Part 1 and Part 2 on the judgment.

The "upside down" VO2max protocol

The other interesting story, one that has garnered some great discussion on our Twitter account, is the recent study that found that VO2max is increased when you do a reverse protocol that starts out at a high power output and decreases (as opposed to the normal progressive increase to fatigue). The implication of this finding is that the VO2 "max" concept is incorrect, which is something many already knew, but it calls into question the idea that oxygen delivery or use is limiting during maximal exercise. After all, if VO2max can be increased and then maintained simply by doing something different, despite maximal effort, then how was it the limitation in the first place? The implication of your answer to this question is rather important!

The study is therefore a hook for the idea that something else regulates performance, though it doesn't establish precisely what that is. There is the suggestion that the brain is in control, and that's so obvious many people will dismiss it as "too easy". But there are many reasons to suggest this, and I'll cover these in a blog post as soon as I can. The bottom line, regarding this study at least, is that it's fairly obvious, and not as outrageous as it may seem. But the reaction of people who see it tells the story of sports science and the VO2max theory, which has long been full of holes, but remains entrenched among many as the explanation for maximal performance. This is akin to proclaiming that the world is flat. Someone has to point out that it is round, and as obvious as this may be (the idea that the brain is command is equally obvious), this study adds to that realization.

Perhaps even more important are the implications of this. People make the incorrect leap that it's about "mind over matter". The idea that the brain controls exercise is not the same as saying that our mental capacities determine performance. This is obvious. It's not "mind" over matter, but "brain" over matter - it's still physiology, so let's not get too carried away with the idea that we can "believe" ourselves into being elite athletes. Certainly, psychology is crucial, and belief is essential, but the physiological limits still exist, and the regulation of performance is still physiological! Can we do more with the right mental approach? Of course, but that's a parallel area of performance management.

More to come...

Ross

Barefoot Kilimanjaro: Mission Accomplished - Video diaries

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:18:00 +0000

Barefoot Kilimanjaro: Mission Accomplished - The Video Diary

On Saturday, 29 January, at 12.45 South Africa time, our entire team of six barefoot climbers (that's me on the right - pics of the whole team coming soon!), and four support crew (in shoes) reached Uhuru Peak, at 5,895m, the summit of Mt Kilimanjaro and the highest point in Africa.

The trip, as I explained recently in my "pre-expedition" post, was both for the challenge and for charity. There will no doubt be much more said in the coming days - I will post a series of pictures and talk you through my own personal experience with my feet as soon as I can - but for now, we are all proud of achieving it and very grateful and thankful for all the great support we have received.

"Crazy with a capital C"

Before leaving, I wrote a post and tweeted to say we were on the way with the goal of reaching the summit entirely barefoot. What was striking to me was the number of disbelieving replies that came in soon after. They ranged from "hahaha - that's ridiculous", to "I hope you're kidding", to "Crazy with a capital C", and perhaps most intriguingly, someone who felt that it was "disrespectful to the mountain" to attempt to walk barefoot.

My take was different - back in November, when I was first asked "Is it possible?", the obvious answer was "yes". I remember saying at the time that it needed a lot of research, and possibly some creative solutions and planning, but of course it was possible.

It would be wrong to say "anything is possible", because that's the stuff of fairytales, but this was so clearly possible IF we played the preparation cards right, that it was a project worth doing only to show that sometimes, when we stop at identifying the problems, we limit ourselves so significantly to "conventional wisdom". I was taken aback by the strength of the sentiment AGAINST our goal. I mean, sure, there would be challenges - the cold, the risk of frost-bite, the altitude, the terrain - but those are challenges that can easily be overcome through good planning, and I couldn't understand that it was dismissed as "impossible" without thinking through those solutions first.

We as a team make no claims about this, physiologically or otherwise. You'll see a lot of hype around people who do "unusual" things. Firstly, I don't believe we did anything "unusual", at least from a physiological point of view - it's perfectly explainable, the difference is that it goes against conventional ideas. But ultimately, we were five very normal guys and one girl who did something that was eminently possible all along. The fact that it was THOUGHT to be crazy, ridiculous (pick your synonym) is merit-worthy, but it's not a physiological feat that demands anything other than acknowledgement of what is possible. No "awe" or "wonder" here, just basic planning and principles. Challenge beliefs - it's amazing what becomes possible!

I realise that walking up a mountain barefoot is "odd". But if I may speak personally, apart from the great charity that it supported, the most appealing thing to me was to show up conventional wisdom by doing with 100% success rate. I was not alone - many of the team were motivated by the 'nay-sayers' and I can honestly say that when all six of us got to the summit, with no drama, there was a feeling of vindication mixed with the happiness. All it took was planning and preparation with intelligence, foresight and discipline.

Clinical and "easy" thanks to the 80% done BEFORE

Ultimately, to be perfectly honest, we were clinical, precise and got to the summit relatively easily. I'd go so far as to say that probably 80% of expeditions to Kilimanjaro have MORE problems and issues than we had, despite being entirely shod. Perhaps being barefoot forced on us a more stringent approach, but it worked, and that should, I would hope, shake a paradigm or two.

It's never "easy" of course, and I don't wish to downplay the whole effort. But the 80-20 principle is in play - I believe that the success of any "performance" is determined 80% BEFORE the performance ever happens. It is the result of the months of preparation and training, and the actual achievement is only 20% of the challenge. The team on this trip was super strong - 5 months of barefoot training, including a month of cold-weather preparation, plus real discipline about the altitude, meant that by the time we took our first steps in the Rongai Rain Forest, we had done pretty much all we could to prepare. The remaining 20% was about adapting, learning on the go, and making sure we stuck to the plan.

We had the best support possible - Sean Disney of Adventure Dynamics International was, in my opinion, THE key player in the team, and he planned the route, controlled our pace, and guided us expertly throughout the five days to summit. If you're interested in this climb (or others around the world), that would be my first port of call, and it obeys the # 1 principle - get the best people on board.

My personal account - bad timing complicated the climb, but still doable

Speaking personally, I made life difficult for myself by getting frostbite on Friday 13 January (I'll always remember the date!). My timing, in hindsight, could not have been worse. The frozen areas of skin formed blisters, and the blisters decided that they would start peeling on January 23rd, which was the very first day of the hike. So as I climbed in altitude, my feet lost more and more skin, and by the end of day 3, in Mawenzi Tarn, I had no skin left underneath (the pic on the right is from the Tarn - the color is because I threw Friar's Balsam at it to try to dry out the soft, raw skin. I don't think it really helped, but just doing something helped me in other ways! I'll show you a pic of what my feet looked like at the summit in tomorrow's post!)

So I lay in my tent that afternoon, January 26th, full of anxiety, not thinking I had it in me to do another two days to reach the summit. But I decided to go hour by hour, for even one more day. Get to Kibo Huts, the final base before the strike for the summit, and see whether that would be the motivation and source of one big, final effort for the summit. That worked, and then it was summit day, and another "hour by hour" exercise, all the way to the top. In the end, it worked, and yes, it was difficult, but the pictures made it look worse than it was, and had it not been for the frost-bite and blisters it caused, I think it would have been a relatively clinical and "easy" week for me too.

I'll explain a little more of what I felt during those last two days when I show you some pictures, and that will perhaps come tomorrow.

But for now, here are some videos - I tried to do a daily video diary. They're fairly short, only a minute or two, but they show where we are on the mountain, how the ground looks, what we're doing day by day and how I'm progressing. If there are any questions, I'm happy to answer them in the comments, and as I said, I'll do a picture diary tomorrow, with more detail about the feelings and emotions as I dealt with my own little issues on the final two days!

NOTE: To all readers receiving this in email - the YouTube clips may appear as solid, black blocks in your emails. Please CLICK HERE to be taken to the site to watch videos.

Day 1: Rongai Rain Forest - a relatively sedate start

Day 2: The longest day

This was a super long day - 8 hours 51 in total, but with a long break for lunch. Also a challenging day, the gravel and rocks were difficult and was probably largely to blame for the loss of skin in my case! But it was a good day, an optimistic day because it showed us what we were in for - we got a taste of the terrain, the temperature and altitude. Probably just what we needed.

Day 3: Mawenzi Tarn

A short day, but a key day for me personally. By the end of this day, my skin was largely off and I had doubts about making it to the summit. The team coped brilliantly though, and so this was the day I grew 95% confident that we would get 5 people, at least, to the summit. The other great thing about this day is that I was finally convinced that the cold would NOT be a factor in our summit - the African sun was just too strong and would prove decisive in minimizing the frostbite risk. That became crystal clear today.

Day 4: To base camp at Kibo Huts

Perhaps the toughest day for me, mentally, because it took us 5 hours from Mawenzi to Kibo, where we'd be based for our "strike" to the summit. For me, this was tough because it was not the final big effort, but it was difficult enough to be a real challenge. Difficult terrain and a relatively long day. The team again handled it well, and if I was 95% confident yesterday, I was 98% confident today.

Day 5: The summit

This is a really short video of us arriving at the summit. Interestingly enough, this was not the greatest moment of the trip. In fact, the summit was actually a little bit of an anticlimax for me, because my "peak" had happened about 45 minutes early, at Stella Point. That was the moment when I KNEW, with 100% certainty and beyond any doubt, that all six of us would make it. It was a huge release, and that was the single best moment for me. The summit was still amazing though, don't get me wrong! Big celebration!

Day 5: Descending

This video didn't quite work out - the day before, we'd checked out the climb and run down a section of the steep slope (it's about 40%). It's a real rush - you slide with every step, and churn up shale and dust big time. I tried to do it on the way back to Kibo, but by this stage (almost 9 hours of walking, most of it above 5,000m), I was pretty stuffed! And the lack of perspective from the way I filmed it doesn't do justice to the speed of the descent, so it didn't quite come off! It was still really fun to do though!

Day 5: In the tent

I nearly didn't put this video up - I filmed it only minutes after getting back to base camp. I was tired, a little cold, and quite drained. I didn't realize quite how tired until I watched myself - I look and sound shattered! But it's from the moments after the mission had been accomplished, just some thoughts! A longer clip, but with the key message, so bear with me!

Picture diary to come

That's all for now - I'm working through all my pictures, and I'll get a nice story out of that, mostly where I can talk you through the challenges of terrain, cold and altitude, and how we progressed. It also tells the story of my feet quite nicely, but that's for another time!

In the meantime, for more thoughts from the other team members, and very importantly, to make donations to the Red Cross Children's Hospital Trust (a great cause), please visit the official site of the barefoot Kilimanjaro trip!

Chat soon
Ross

The Barefoot Kilimanjaro Challenge

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:45:00 +0000

The Barefoot Kilimanjaro Challenge

Only 3 days to go before I jet off to Kilimanjaro to tackle Africa's highest summit, and the world's highest free-standing mountain...barefoot...

Let me start off by pointing out that doing this climb has NOTHING to do with advocacy for barefoot running (or living) and nor is it even related to the whole barefoot running debate, which I've covered quite a lot lately here on The Science of Sport (you can read the most recent posts here and here if you're interested in my position!)

No, this trip is all about a) the challenge, b) the charity and c) the quite fascinating problem-solving approach required to combat the terrain, the altitude and the cold, and how these three "foes" interact with one another. Basically, it's an exploratory trip, which I think is possible, but I readily accept may not be! (It has been done before, reportedly - local guides report that an Italian man did it, and a woman from Colorado has done it, but wearing cycling booties to cover the top of the feet, apparently). We can only control every variable possible and then hope for best on the day! My mission is to help get ONE person to the top barefoot, and to do it safely. I'd obviously love to be that person, or one of many to do it barefoot, but I accept that given the time-frames, it may not be possible for me. Only time will tell, but as I say, the goal is to get one person, minimum, to the top of Africa.

The bottom line is that people's first response is "Impossible" or "Outrageous". And maybe that's the truth, but it's also the best reason to try, because just maybe, if you think about the challenges, then you start to see potential solutions. And if you can overcome then, then you do the impossible, and that's what I'm looking forward to exploring!

But before I get into that, this trip is also aimed at raising money for a great cause - the Red Cross Children's Hospital in South Africa. It's a world class facility, with some great doctors doing among the best medical work you'll find anywhere. They are the beneficiaries of this trip, and I'd love to help raise them money through your donations. Visit the expedition homepage for more information and to donate!

The start of the journey

To take you back to the very beginning of this particular story (for me, anyway), I met a group of guys last year in September who asked me for some assistance in their preparation for an attempt to become the first people to reach the summit of Kilimanjaro without shoes. They'd been doing pretty much everything barefoot since July 2011 and wanted to know more about altitude and the cold.

I gave them some advice, stayed in touch, until in about November, the expedition organizer, Matt Botha floated a proposal that was simply too good to ignore: "Come with us, help us on the mountain and not just before". I took about 5 seconds to say yes, and another 5 minutes to decide that I didn't want to merely think about the challenges facing these "nutters", to rationalize and intellectualize the effects of cold, altitude and sharp rocks on the team's chance of success - I wanted to feel it. And so I decided in November that I would also try to do this barefoot. I'm willing to accept that in the 6 weeks since that I decision, I may not have had the time to get my feet ready. Much will depend on the surface and on the speed at which we walk (try run on gravel and then walk slowly to see what I mean). So I am, as I type this, a mixture of confident, hopeful, and anxious. But therein lies the challenge...

A set of problems: Terrain, altitude and cold - which one gets you first?

Hiking to 5,895m brings with it a quite fascinating set of problems to solve. Some are obvious, some less so. The obvious ones are the altitude (not unique to being barefoot of course), the cold (a particular problem for us) and the terrain. Kilimanjaro is known for it's sharp, jagged shale and the prospect of many hours on that surface is an anxiety-inducing one!

The terrain and nature's outsole

Getting the feet tough enough is just a matter of being habitually barefoot. It means walking on tar, gravel, off-road at every possible opportunity until "nature's outsole" becomes so thick that those small stones feel like pressure, and not pain. There's not too much to say about this, other than that everyone (barring me) has done it for six months and should be ready in this regard. We've sent an experienced guide up our planed route (the Rongai route from the north-east) armed with a camera to film the various stages. We've scouted it through a collection of photographs, testimonials and videos, and we've walked on surfaces that simulate what we'll encounter, but of course, we will only truly know when we feel it for ourselves. And that's about as well prepared as we can be for now!

Altitude

The altitude is equally difficult to predict. It's impossible to know who will thrive at altitude, and who will suffer. The physiological response to arrival at altitude (even the lower slopes of Kili are high enough to be classified as altitude) is to hyperventilate. We breathe more deeply and more often, and the result is that we breathe of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is known as a volatile acid, because it combines with water to produce carbonic acid. As a result, breathing off CO2 causes our blood pH to rise - we develop what is called respiratory alkalosis. That's not necessarily good news, because as our pH rises, it actually blunts the ventilatory response. So in the very situation where we would want to breathe more, this physiological response kind of dampens it - we breathe with "the handbrake" on.

The next step is that the kidneys kick in, and help to correct this alkalosis by excreting more bicarbonate. The result is a corrected alkalosis, which bascially removes the "handbrake" and allows hyperventilation to help us keep our pO2 and oxygen delivery to the tissues normal. The problem is that this takes time, particularly the metabolic correction, and so when the altitude continues to increase without this adaptation, we are unable to adapt and can, in severe cases, develop acute mountain sickness, the worst symptoms of which are pulmonary and cerebral oedema. If you get those, you're having a bad day out.

Predicting who this will be is a difficult, if not impossible task. Individuals with the highest alveolar ventilation and highest oxygen saturation levels tend to do better at altitude, but there is little correlation to fitness or to training, and so the fact that the team is fit and well-trained has only limited relevance in this case. We'll only really know about the altitude once we're up above 4,000m.

We have a set of plans in place to minimize the effect, and they are not limited to medication.  The trip has been designed to take one day longer to ascend, which gives us a day of adaptation at 4000m. We also have a day where the change in altitude is minimal (from 4300 to 4700m, so only 400 m ascent) and so these are two "buffer days" that we are optimistic will allow us to get above 5,000m feeling strong for that final push.

And this will be vital. One of the "combination problem" we face is that the cold is going to force us to stop often in order to warm our feet up (see below). Therefore, we'll be losing time, and for every 10 minutes, we'll only be walking about 7 minutes.  The ability to walk faster than normal in order to get this lost time back is going to be crucial. That means that we need to not only adapt, but do well at altitude, and this a crucial success factor.

The cold - not an endurance test, but physiology

And finally, we have the cold. This is probably the biggest concern, and has been the main source of worry for me (there have been sleepless nights in the last month!)

The temperature at the summit has remained relatively constant over the last month, at around -5 to -6 degrees celsius (23F). At night, it drops to around -8 (18F). The wind chill factor is worth another 4 to 5 degrees, so we are looking at a temperature of around -9 to -10 degrees at the summit when we go up (we will not go up at night). That's cold enough to keep you up at night with worry, I'm sure you'd agree!

I won't bore you with discussions of frostbite, other than to say that it's not fun, and equals a very bad day out. I say this from experience... I hope, and will spend every ounce of my energy on the climb to make sure of this, that I will not see a case of frostbite in either my feet of those of the other 6 teams members. This is all about prevention, and not treatment. If anyone develops symptoms, their expedition is over, for safety's sake, and I've worked hard at emphasizing this - there cannot be any "macho" toughing it out, or pushing through the pain. As I said, I'll do everything I can to ensure that we stay well below the limits of freezing our tissues. It's a big challenge.

To prepare, we have been testing the limits of tolerance to various cold temperatures. That is, I've been taking some of the team into a cold room, at temperatures ranging from -6 C to - 18 C and testing how long we can walk for, and how long it to rewarm the feet to allow us to continue. It has been a fascinating experience, but not without peril. I guess the only way to truly know what the "limit" is is to exceed it, which I did on myself. Just over a week ago, I developed mild frostbite in both feet as a result of staying at -10 C for too long without rewarming.

It was a valuable lesson, for me, and for the team, because it drummed home how cautious we will have to be (you can read more about the experience and my thoughts on the cold at this article which I wrote for the Barefoot Impi website). It also finally confirmed for me what the schedule will be on the mountain. The plan at this stage (and it is a flexible plan, that's for sure) is to walk for 7 minutes, then stop for 3 minutes to actively warm our feet. That will be repeated for an hour, followed by a 20 minute stop to properly re-warm. Seven "repeats" of this hour equals the summit. No one said it would be easy...but the idea is that by stopping every 7 minutes, we never allow the tissue to freeze, and then return to baseline every hour with a long heating stop.

There is more to it than this, but I'll share the details with you from the mountain, as the expedition evolves. The other thing that we have in our favour is that we ascend gradually, and the temperature drops along with our ascent. Therefore, on our third day when we are an Mawenzi Tarn (4300m), we expect the temperature to be around + 5 C (41 F). That is cold, but safe, and so we'll have a good idea of what the mountain is throwing at us BEFORE we hit those sub-zero temperatures. On our rest day at 4,700m, we plan to hike up to the rim (partly for altitude adaptation) and return to camp later, and during this day-hike, we'll wear shoes, but check the terrain and temperatures to get an idea of what waits the next day. Learning and adapting on the go will be the name of the game.

Ground temperature - a key factor

And finally, the key factor, the one that is probably going to make or break the expedition, will be the ground temperature. It's one thing for the air temperature to be -5 C, but it's another thing to be walking on a solid surface at -5 C. The cold room we have trained in has a steel floor that is probably -10 C, and that was a huge factor in my own case of frost-bite last week. Walking on freezing ground would be a very, very difficult ask. Probably impossible. However, having viewed countless videos on Kilimanjaro at this time of the year (Jan and Feb are the warmest monthson the mountain, by the way), I am confident that there is no ice on the path. That means the ground temperature is above zero for a good portion of the day, even if the air is -5 C, and that's cause for optimism. If the ground, heated by the sun, reaches anything in the range of positive temperatures, our task will be made exponentially easier. In fact, based on the cold room tests, I'd say that air temperatures of -10 with a ground temperature of +2 C is easier than air temps of -5 and ground temps of -5.

To capitalize on this ppssibility, we will not hike at night. The normal procedure is to start for the summit from the Kibo camp at midnight, so that you get to the top for the sunrise (they allocate 7 hours for these 4.6 km, so steep is the climb and so inhibiting is the effect of the altitude). We have modified this plan - we will start a few hours after sunrise, summit just before sunset, and then put shoes on and head down at night. We are hoping that the addition of radiant heating of the ground does us a big favour. Let's hope for the Africa sun to work its magic.!

Finally, other reasons for confidence... when you are walking 4.6 km in 7 hours, you are taking 9 minutes per 100m. Try walking that slowly. Now, the good thing about this is that if you walk as slowly as that, you can get away with walking on quite sharp, rough ground. Try it. Find some gravel and walk your normal speed (about 1 to 1.5 min per 100m), and then repeat at 5 min per 100m pace. Feel that difference. We are optimistic that this will be in our favour on the shale slopes of Kilimanjaro.

Impossible? Possibly, but delve deeper

Having said this, I remain anxious. Optimistically anxious, I guess you could call it. There is a lot that we cannot predict. We don't know how altitude, or cold (air and ground), or the ground will affect us independently, let alone how they may interact with one another. I am also worried about the time on my feet - 6 to 8 hours, five days, that's a tough ask to repeat barefoot.

Then there are other, more subtle issues to worry about as well. Sore feet mean adapted walking, and so we may end up with overuse injuries as a result of compensating how we walk. Cuts are a factor. Broken toes. So certainly, I'm nervous. We will take no risks - at the first sign of problems like frostbite or acute mountain sickness, we will act decisively to prevent long-term problems. But we are still committed, and I still believe that it is possible. Only time will tell.
Finally, I realise that the first response to this is often "impossible". And perhaps we will return on Jan 31st saying "yes, it is". But what I hope emerges, apart from achieving the first barefoot summit of the mountain, is the realization that when we dismiss something as impossible, we might be blinding ourselves to the fact that all it takes is some planning, preparation and deeper thought before potential solutions emerge. For example, people have told me it's crazy because the temperatures at night are -18 degrees celsius when they did the summit. Well, we're not doing it at night, and the temperatures don't drop that low in January.  It's actually quite disheartening how easily people dismiss things based purely on their experience. It's almost as though they believe that if they got cold then it will be impossible for everyone else.

The point is that there may be solutions to every possible problem you can think of. Imagine if people stopped to think about them and solve them instead of labelling ideas outrageous and never making that second, third and fourth step. Those steps may still fail, of course, but until you take them, you never know.

I've briefly discussed some of the steps we'll be taking in the post above. Over the course of the next 8 days, I will be filming videos from the summit, talking you through what we are doing to combat the three issues mentioned above in more detail. I don't know if I will be able to post these videos "live", but the worst case scenario is that when I return to South Africa on Jan 31st, I'll upload all the videos, and you can watch the trip evolve and hear me talk you through how difficult it is!

Also, I'll try to provide progress updates on Facebook and Twitter. So if you haven't joined those communities, do so now!

And again, any donations to the Children's Hospital are greatly appreciated!

Ross

P.S. As a final comment on Kilimanjaro, have a look at the video at this link (I tried to embed but there seems to be a blogger problem, so click through). It shows Killian Jornet breaking the record for summitting Kilimanjaro - 7 hours 14 minutes return trip from the bottom. Incredible performance. But specifically, have a look at what he wears, on his hands and his head. And yes, I realize that he is running up the climb and generating a lot more heat than we will, but anyone who has ever run at anything close to -10 C knows that your head and hands still get cold. Jornet also doesn't wrap up at the summit when he stops for a break. Look also at his team waiting for him on the summit, warmly dressed but without gloves. There are many other videos of the summit where people are not in gloves at this time of the year.  This is basically to make the point that all the nay-sayers who point out that it's -20 at the summit are probably recalling the wrong time of year! Let's hope so anyway! And besides, it's the ground temperature that really matters!

The video also shows the terrain quite nicely - at 1:50, when Jornet gets onto the rim, there's a great close-up of what we'll be walking on. It's a great video, educational and impressive!

Science of Sport awards: Teams of the year - Kenya & Barcelona

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 10:29:00 +0000

Team of the year - Kenyan athletics and Barcelona

Welcome to 2012! It's an Olympic year, the undoubted highlight of the year for us, but there are Tours, Marathons, meets and matches to cover and we are looking forward to the analysis, debate and discussion. We hit our three millionth visitor on New Year's Eve, and we're hoping for another million this year! Dollars, that is...!

I'm still forging on with the recap of 2011 (better late than never), only three to go, and then we'll start looking ahead to 2012. And today, it's Team of the Year, which is a shared award between Kenya (a pseudo-team, since athletics/running aren't exactly team sports) and Barcelona.

Kenya - total dominance

2011 was the year of the marathon, and it was completely owned by Kenya. Not just dominated, but owned. The year-end lists show that the Top 20 times in the marathon were run by Kenyans. That's right - all 20 were from Kenya. That list includes a new world record, and the winning performances from every major city marathon in 2011, and the World Championships marathon. Not only were the majors won by Kenyans, but the course records at every major city marathon were broken too. Not in that list are the incredible Boston marathon performances, where Mutai and Mosop ran 2:03:02 and 2:03:06 respectively, since those times are not eligible for official lists (the result of that, in case you are wondering, is that Ryan Hall's 2:04:58 also doesn't feature on that list - it's the fastest performance by a non-Kenyan in 2011, but not official).

The result of this Kenyan dominance was that the average of the Top 10 performances was a staggering 2:05:00. That's almost 40 seconds faster than the world record only nine years ago, and more athletes broke 2:07 in 2011 than ever before (25 did it - 24 were Kenyan, only dos Santos of Brazil is in that company. 2:06 was broken by 11 men, incidentally). In November, I analyzed the top performances and discussed the "seismic shift" that has occurred, along with some of the reasons behind it - worth a read for more detail.

Perhaps the most remarkable statistic was this one - 70 Kenyans ran faster over the marathon than the fastest European athlete. That was Oleksandr Sitkovskyy, a Ukranian who ran 2:09:26. Ryan Hall's officially recognized performance from Chicago (2:08:04) is the second-fastest of the year by a non-African (dos Santos being first).

Kenya's dominance does not end with it's men marathon runners. On the women's side, marathon running is not nearly as dominant, but they still have four women in the top 10, including the second fastest performance of 2011 with Keitany's London win. Kenyan women swept the medals in the Daegu World Championships in August (Kiplagat, Jeptoo and Cherop), and they won two of the Majors (London and Berlin). The battle between the Kenyans, particularly Keitany who really should have won New York but for her super fast early pace, and Liliya Shobulkhova, 2011's world number 1 will be one of the highlights of 2012, whether it comes in London in April or in August.

On the track, Kenya had one of their most successful campaigns ever. At the Daegu World Championships, Kenya finished third on the medal table, winning 7 golds, 6 silvers and 4 bronzes. The golds were won across the spectrum - Men's 800, men's 1500m, men's steeplechase, men's marathon, women's 5000m, women's 10000m and women's marathon.

Only one missing accolade

The only area where Kenya have yet to figure out a solution to the Ethiopian riddle is the long track events for men. In the 10,000m in particular, Ethiopian men have shut Kenya out of gold since 1993. In fact, with the exception of Charles Kamathi's gold in 2001, Ethiopian men have won every 10,000m gold since 1993 (admittedly, of the twelve golds won by Ethiopia in this stretch, 11 were shared between two men - Geb and Bekele!)

Unless Kenya can discover a 26:40 man with 52 second final lap closing speed in the next 6 months, that streak looks set to continue in London, though Mo Farah may have something to say about whether it's an Ethiopian streak or just a 'non-Kenyan' one!

Other than this, however, it's difficult to see Kenyan dominance being broken. 20 out of 20 in the marathon. Their gold medallists looked peerless in Daegu. And in Vivian Cheruiyot, they have the world's best female athlete, one of the stars of London 2012 if she maintains her 2011 form. Kenya will therefore be the best performing African nation in London.

For the rest of the world, competing at the very highest level must feel futile. Hall flies the flag, as does Keflezighi, for the USA. The promise of Galen Rupp stepping up to the marathon will be interesting, since he brings 26:40-credentials to the road. That of course is one of the big reasons for the shift in marathon running - the entry of very fast, 26:40 men into the marathon before they have lost that speed. Mo Farah is the other athlete who will be looked at to challenge Kenya over the marathon one day.

The genetic vs training debate

The scientifically fascinating debate is whether this dominance is genetic or environmental. That's an unnecessarily polarized question. To repeat a mantra I used a lot in 2011 - when someone wants to polarize an explanation into one of two things, they are always wrong. The reality is that the kind of dominance that has been achieved by Kenya is too complex to the result of one or two factors. If it was one, or even two-dimensional, then the world would imitate it very easily. The fascinating thought experiment would be to apply the same environmental factors (training, diet, altitude, culture, socio-economic factors) to a few groups around the world, over three or four generations, and see how successful they are. Of course, this experiment isn't going to happen, so we speculate.

There's no question that the pioneers of distance running in Kenya, the men who won Kenya's first global medals in the 1960s, were the catalyst for a generation of young athletes who could now simply imitate and aspire to follow in their footsteps. Physical activity is a part of life in Kenya (not always running to and from school, I might add), and so is the desire to become a great runner. The economic incentives are enormous, there are sufficient competition structures to identify the most talented athletes, and a culture of success that is demonstrated by the 2011 marathon results - "he did it, why not me?"

But none of these factors, as well-described as they are, disprove that some genetic factor is also in play. The same ingredients applied elsewhere (because let's face it, there are many other regions around the world with similar isolated factors) may not produce the same results. In a nation of 270 million people, for example, is there not a single athlete who has trained as hard as 100 Kenyans, with the same desire to succeed? Of course there will be, but the ceiling that can be reached is genetically influenced.

I am something of a believer in the role of genes in performance, as you may recall from our talent vs training debate. The failure of science to discover that gene, I believe, is more a function of genetic complexity combined with our limited ability to understand it. As mentioned in the genetic debate, it takes 300,000 gene variants to explain only 50% of something like height. Only 45% of training response can be explained by vast gene arrays. How much more complex might performance be?

2011 produced some of the first scientific evidence that the response to training was strongly influenced by genes. That is, it was found that individuals who had a certain number of specific genetic variants (called SNPs) were "high-responders", whereas those who lacked these specific gene variants saw almost no change in their VO2max or performance after months of training (the "low responders"). You can read more on this study here. What hasn't been done yet is to show whether these SNPs are present more in certain populations than in others. That's the study that would show whether the probability of discovering a high responder (and thus potential great runner) is greater in some groups than others. Of course, as molecular methods improve, and genome-wide association studies become more powerful, these potential links will become clearer.

The fact that Jamaica and the USA dominate sprints and that east Africa dominate distance running is one of the most intriguing areas of exercise physiology. And exercise economics, when you look at things like incentives, culture, economic factors. The addition of genes to this mix is what makes Kenyan running so fascinating.

Until those answers are provided, we have only questions and theories. There's no doubt however, about who the team to beat is in international running. The only question, for the rest of the world, is "How"?

Barcelona - changing the way coaches approach sport

The second winner of the Team of the Year award is Barcelona's all conquering football team. On the surface, that's an easy award to give out, because Barcelona have been exceptional. In 2011, they won the Champions League, Spanish League title, World Club Championships, and a host of other trophies, bringing to 12 (out of a possible 15) the number of titles they've won under coach Pep Guardiola.

The fascinating thing for me, at least from a sports science/management perspective, is the manner in which they have achieved this success. Yes, they have some of the greatest players in the world - the Player of the Year award title for 2010 (awarded in 2011) was a straight shootout between three Barca players in Lionel Messi, Xavi and Andres Iniesta (Messi won it). But the Barcelona "way" is so distinctive that it has begun to inspire coaches and sports administrators from other sports to want to imitate it.

Much has been written about the Barcelona style of football, and their now legendary youth academy, La Masia (one such story can be read here), which produced Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, Puyol, Pique, Febregas, Busquets and Valdez of the current typical starting 11.

Barcelona's movement off the ball, the positional awareness of the players, the work rate when not in possession, and the ability to manipulate space and defenders are the "buzzwords" that I've heard a great deal around the sport of rugby, for example! One rugby coach has expressed that it is his vision to be the "Barcelona of Sevens rugby", such is the influence of Barcelona on other coaches.

And why not? Barcelona's dominance has been complete and distinctive, technically speaking, to the point that their opposition have likened playing them to playing against Playstation figures. I'd be going beyond the limits of my own football knowledge to describe the technical characteristics of what the players learn at La Masia, and at the senior team, the specifics of what make them so remarkable.

The success of the club is again not the product of any single factor (in the same way that Kenyans aren't great runners for one reason alone). So the Barcelona approach to youth development, their focus on skill and movement rather than size, strength and speed, and their desire to teach sportsmanship and creativity ahead of winning are only part of the mix. Not one of these factors should be viewed as a competitive advantage, however - they are all easily replicated, in theory anyway.

The youth academy concept is now so common in sports, particularly football and rugby, and many of the elements and principles are shared, at least on paper. The ethos of youth development is not unique, and nor is the attitude that "we invest in the person, not just the player". This approach to youth-development is now accepted as best-practice, and every academy will have a code of conduct that dictates how young players are to be taught and managed. So again, simply following the "recipe" doesn't guarantee the end-product.

The challenge for other coaches and sports administrators, even in sports like rugby, who want to imitate the Barcelona way, is to recognize how difficult it is to develop the culture that underscores the technical excellence and the on-field results.

Nevertheless, the Barcelona model will continue to be discussed, and attempts made to imitate it. It is the sincerest form of flattery. What we (the outsiders) see is the end result, which is sometimes breath-taking. The 5 goal demolition of Real Madrid in 2010, the 4-0 defeat of Santos in the Club World Championship final in December, and the defeat of Manchester United in the Champions League Final at Wembley are some of the highlights from Barcelona's on-field "end product". Whether the system can be reverse engineered, I have my doubts, but when a team is held up as the gold standard for how to play, then they're worthy of "Team of the Year".

Ross

Science of Sport awards: Sports science story of the year

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 15:50:00 +0000

Sports science story of the year: Looking into the brain

Looking back on 2011, but through an academic lens, leaves the impossible task of trying to pick a research highlight. I guess in much the same way as your choice of a Sports Star of the Year would be influenced by your choice of sport (Messi, Djokovic, Cavendish or Wellington), the choice of most exciting or impactful sports science story of the year is heavily influenced by your particular focus within the sciences.

Similarly, within sports science, you may be heavily invested in physical activity and disease, molecular basis for injuries, applied physiology, or performance physiology.

My personal focus, at least during my PhD was fatigue, and specifically the role of the brain in the regulation of performance and pacing strategy. Therefore, my pick as the sports science story of 2011 is a series of studies out of Switzerland, which have provided the first evidence of how brain structures interact with one another during fatiguing exercise. To quote from the third of the three studies:

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to empirically demonstrate that muscle fatigue leads to changes in interaction between structures of a brain's neural network

Background - the brain was clearly involved, but the "how" was missing

As I was finishing my PhD, the problem I encountered is that we were able to observe how performance and specifically pacing strategy was affected by various interventions (heat, high or low oxygen, energy supply, deception or manipulation of distance information), but we didn't have the tools to measure the neural processes that were producing these changes.

Briefly, it was pretty clear that exercise performance was regulated by the brain, and over time, the theory evolved that the brain was monitoring all the physiological systems and ensuring that performance was optimized in the face of potentially limiting (or even harmful) changes in homeostasis. For example, it had been shown pretty clearly that when we hit a body temperature of around 40 degrees celsius, we stopped - limiting fatigue due to hyperthermia. Therefore, as soon as exercise was self-paced, the brain would monitor the rate at which the temperature was rising, and then regulate exercise intensity in order to prevent us from hitting this "limit" before the known end of exercise.

The same was true for exercise at altitude, with low glycogen stores, and when you lied to athletes about how much exercise remained - there was an anticipatory component to fatigue, so that fatigue was not merely the failure of physiology, but the process by which that potential failure (in performance, in this case), might be regulated.

The problem is that our ability to measure the neural contributions was limited. We were able to measure muscle activation levels, albeit crudely during dynamic exercise, but it gave a pretty clear picture of how the degree of muscle recruitment was altered by the brain over the course of exercise and with different situations. However, much had to be inferred from how power output or running speed changed as a function of changes in various physiological systems.

Therefore, at the conclusion of my PhD back in 2006, we had a theory, sometimes called the "central governor" model, which I believe accurately explained what was observed during exercise, but was in need of a mechanistic component. The theory began to evolve into the realms of philosophy (sometimes deliberate, other times out of ignorance). And one of the problems was this lent itself to gross misunderstandings. A very respected scientist came to me in Denver this year and mocked the theory because it meant there must "be a little man dancing around in your head telling you how to exercise".

Of course, that is not part of any theory I've ever seen, but in the absence of measurements of brain function during exercise, it is, I suppose, the inevitable criticism. This lack of mechanistic explanation is one of the primary reasons that I looked elsewhere for future research, because we had taken our observations to a point where we had a model, a theory for how fatigue and physiology were inter-related, how pacing and performance were regulated, but we could not move beyond the hypothetical.

And so when, only a few months ago, a series of three studies on fatigue and the brain were published, it was an exciting breakthrough, the first, I suspect, of many, which will push the field of fatigue and exercise into the next phase of understanding.

The three studies: Building the model of fatigue

Science Daily have a really concise summary of the three studies, including some quotes from the scientists involved. I won't rehash the translation of the science here, but rather direct you to their summary.

For those interested in the papers discussed in that article, they are at the followings links:

The studies are certainly a breakthrough, but by no means a complete picture. For example, the first of the three studies produces a similar finding to a body of work by Markus Ammann (not in 2011, but over the last 4 or 5 years), which have shown a similar role of afferent (feedback) information from the muscle to the brain. The motor output (think muscle activation) is clearly influenced by this information, which should be obvious as soon as one accept that fatigue, and therefore performance, are regulated in the same way that any system is (blood glucose, body temperature etc - there are sensors, there is feedback, there is an effector).

What is needed next is to move this technology on from isolated muscle contractions and onto dynamic exercise. The above studies all used pretty isolated exercise (handgrips or leg extensions), or they use EEG during cycling (in Study 3). When we can measure brain activity using fMRI in different regions of the brain during a 10km running time-trial, for example, then we will have some extremely powerful information.

That breakthrough may be coming - at my University, some colleagues have done some great work and are in fairly advanced stages of being able to measure brain activity using fMRI during cycling activity, and that should unlock more secrets - the video is below.

Next step - decoding the "lights" and making sense of data

Once this can be done, then it's a matter of understanding what it all means. The field of neuroscience has long ago evolved from a "black box" approach to understanding brain function, towards an integrated model. The danger for sports science is that the same may happen. Indeed, it already exists - this mindset has been another source of criticism for the central governor, in that people seem to expect it to be a distinct anatomical structure. Even the approach to studying fatigue has probably been held back by too specific approach to what is clearly a multi-faceted, complex phenomenon.

The reality is that it's far too complex for that, and only many years of research will build the picture of how the brain integrates such vast complexity to regulate performance in the obvious way that it does!

2011 may have provided the first steps, but they are the first of many!

Ross

Next time: Sports stars of the year

Science of Sport Awards: More controversies

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:11:00 +0000

Controversies of 2011: Honorable mentions

Having earlier awarded "Controversy of the Year" to the Oscar Pistorius story, here are some other noteworthy controversies that affected sport in 2011.

Caster Semenya - back on the stage

Caster Semenya was undoubtedly the big controversy of 2009, when she won the 800m world title amid speculation and tests about her gender. 2010 was a quiet year because the IAAF and various legal teams were ironing out the details of the treatment of whatever medical condition was present before Semenya could return to the sport. That return happened in 2011, and Semenya once again became a big story at the World Championships.

Having enjoyed a patchy season in 2011, where one very solid performance was followed by a poor showing, Semenya was always going to be an "all or nothing" performer in Daegu. It turned out to be "all", at least in terms of the time she was able to produce. More controversial was the manner of her racing - she looked unbelievably easy and relaxed, even when finishing fifth or sixth, and many speculated that she was losing on purpose to avoid the attention given to the winner. That mistrust stems directly from the lack of transparency around the whole affair - having announced (unwittingly) to the world that there were problems, nobody took the initiative to inform athletics how those problems were resolved. So Semenya was destined through that silence to be doubted and mistrusted, and that happened every time she raced, regardless of the outcome.

In Daegu, through the heats and semi-final, she looked dominant, and there was an ominous feeling among athletics followers going into the final. There, the pace was quick - a 55.86s first lap, with Semenya in fifth and Marina Savinova on her shoulder in 6th. 600m was reached in 1:26:07, and a time matching the 1:55.45 that Semenya produced in Berlin in 2009 was on the cards. As was the win - Semenya moved to the front with the same effortless style she had produced in 2009 and in some of her European races this year. But Savinova held on, and the gap didn't grow as it had in Berlin, and with 50m to go, the Russian moved onto Semenya's shoulder and took gold in 1:55.87. Semenya came in second in 1:56.35, just under a second slower than the winning time in Berlin, but with much stiffer competition, two years of maturity and more experience.

I am reliably informed that the moment that Savinova took the lead from Semenya with 50m to go, there were loud cheers in the press box in Daegu, further proof of just how negatively the athlete is viewed by the media. That is partly situational, but hasn't been helped by some extraordinary stupidity by her management team, who at one point in 2011 announced that any media who wished to interview her would have to pay for that privilege. This, along with sponsor requests, complaints about money and a general veil of secrecy make Semenya one of the most controversial athletes in the world.

Pointedly, in the aftermath of her World Championship silver, Semenya smiled, spoke openly to the media and showed a side of herself that hadn't been seen, but probably should be seen more often. She could be an incredibly media-friendly personality and it would be a good antidote to the negative perceptions that currently exist. It will never remove them, of course, but it's a step in the right direction. 2012 will tell whether she embraces her status or continues, through her management, to play the villain. She recently split with her coach, and has now teamed up with Maria Mutola, which gives another dimension to the story.

As for what happened in the 18 months between Berlin and Daegu, we are none the wiser. I am still firmly of the belief that chemical treatment was enforced to lower testosterone levels, though I have no idea how this is being monitored, or even if it is. As long as that ignorance remains, Semenya's races, regardless of result, will always be accompanied by claims that she "lost on purpose", "threw the race", or wasn't trying hard enough. I'd suggest that going to the front of the World Championship final with 200m to run, and then losing in the last 50m is MORE attention grabbing that staying in fourth or third the whole way, but the rumor mill will circulate. Watch this space in 2012.

Read the report after Semenya's silver in the Daegu 800m final

Cycling and anti-doping

This is always controversial. 2011 started well enough, with three CAS cases being won before April, the first time that the biological passport had been tested in court. It stood up to the test, a good sign for its future legal credibility. However, it came at a cost - literally. The financial burden of having to defend the bans handed down on the basis of the biological passport proved, over the remainder of 2011, to be a huge impediment to the effective implementation of the passport concept.

In August, Gerard Vroomen, co-founder of the Cervelo team, raised questions about the testing being done as part of the passport system. He wrote:

“I have not heard of a rider being tested for the biological passport between the end of the 2010 Tour and April 2011. After that I am not sure,” he stated. “While it is logical that the frequency of testing might decrease somewhat once profiles are established, the fact remains that the profile in itself is not a deterrent. The deterrent comes from testing current values against those profiles to see if there are clues indicating doping.

And of course, he is quite right. We posted on this a few times in 2011, most recently when I presented at the UKSEM conference, and presented some of the data showing how doping behavior was changed as a result of the biological passport (it's in the presentation at the link). However, without the testing, any rational cyclist (who is willing to dope) will change behavior back and resume doping.

The UCI of course reacted to this, making public their stats that 1,577 tests had been conducted during the period in question. However, Prof Michael Ashenden, one of the leading experts in the fight against doping, also contributed his opinion that "It’s correct that the observation made by Gerard Vroomen matches with my experience. I have noticed a significant gap between tests in some of the profiles I have reviewed. It’s definitely not in every single profile, but enough to have left an impression on me.”

The UCI is certainly not an organization one would call fully transparent. Or trustworthy (both reputations have been "earned") And so their statement and statistics were met with more than a hint of skepticism, most commentators jumping not on the actual number, but the fact that it may represent a significant decrease in testing compared to previous years, and certainly to the vision of the passport system. It was even labelled a "PR exercise".

And make no mistake, the biological passport is expensive. What may push it over the edge, however, is the legal struggle that inevitably surrounds the cases it brings to light. The cost of defending the finding may ultimately cripple the entire system. Even the testing process is expensive, and the result is that the sport may have itself an effective tool that is extremely inefficient. Contrast this to the idea that a urine test could catch dopers by detecting banned substances in the urine, which was theoretically efficient but utterly ineffective, and you appreciate that if the sport is to stay on top of the doping problem, it needs a whole lot more money. And a whole lot more transparency.

The false-start rule, courtesy Usain Bolt

You may remember a time when every athlete in a sprint race was allowed a false start. The result was that you could, in theory, have nine false starts before the first athlete was disqualified. That made for drawn out races, it affected TV times and it allowed gamesmanship, and so the rule was changed, first to allow one false start for the race in 2003 (the second one, regardless of who it was, was out), and then to disqualify athletes immediately when false-starting.

This rule took effect in 2010, and many wondered how long it would take to claim its first high-profile 'victim'. In the end, that person could not have been more high-profile - on Sunday August 28th, Usain Bolt went into his blocks for the final of the men's 100m in the IAAF World Championships, and then jumped the gun.

For Bolt to be the victim of a rule that people had warned against fueled a big debate, the "told-you-so" camp against the "those are the rules" camp. It's a sad situation for those in the stadium who had paid big money to see the world's most recognizable athlete (and indeed, sportsman, so influential is Bolt), and so the analogy that was made at the time is that disqualifying an athlete for a 'mistake' is the same as sending Lionel Messi off in the 2nd minute of a Champions League final for an innocuous foul.

The difference, I suppose, is that a false-start is not an innocuous foul. It's paramount to the result of the race, and entirely controllable by the athlete. There is, of course, an issue with the starter, who oftens holds athletes at "get set" and causes the false start, so that's an issue that needs to be controlled by the IAAF.

However, generally, if the rule exists, and the athlete knows it, one can't make exceptions after the fact. It's an impossible situation for the sport to deal with, because if one false start is allowed as an allowance of "human error", then the second error is punished disproportionately harshly. Also, allowing one false start gives one athlete the opportunity to play games with the other seven by deliberately jumping the gun. It's also not quite the same as swimming, because the start carries relatively greater importance (the race is shorter and acceleration is faster).

So in the end, it's a rule that won't change. Bolt was at fault, not the rule, and London 2012 will reveal if he's learned a lesson. Incidentally, Bolt is not new to false starts in major races. He jumped in 2009 as well, but because they had the one false start rule then, he got a reprieve and went on to run 9.58s. So for the world's fastest man, the challenge is to control his desire to match his rivals out the blocks, and that alone will make London interesting.

Then, just as an aside, the plot thickened in the aftermath of Bolt's disqualification. HD video of the incident showed that Yohan Blake twitched in the lane immediately adjacent to Bolt. That twitch, theoretically, could constitute a false start, and could also be viewed as the trigger for Bolt's false start. If that was the case, then it should have been Blake, and not Bolt, who was disqualified. If you believe that Bolt's false start was entirely unrelated to Blake's twitch, then they could be viewed as unrelated events, and both might have been disqualified. Or the third option, and the one which proved to be borne out by the start data, is that Blake's twitch, while clear on TV slow-motion replays, was not large enough to trigger the equipment, and therefore can't be called a twitch in the first place.

I guess it raises questions of what threshold the equipment should have, whether it should be trusted more than the eye of the starter and officials. Ultimately, that's an academic debate.

Rugby's referee debacle

The Rugby World Cup produced South Africa's big controversy of 2011 when Bryce Lawrence was blamed for our team's quarter-final defeat against Australia. Lawrence, from New Zealand, was accused of being incompetent at best, corrupt at worst, part of a plot to ensure that the South African team did not derail New Zealand's chances of winning the tournament on home soil.

The accusations of corruption came from influential sources, but lacked evidence, fueled largely by emotion. Admittedly, Lawrence was absolutely terrible in that match, but unfortunately the South African "disease" of blaming everyone but themselves meant that we failed to take the lessons out of the match, adapt to the referee and win it anyway. Which we should have done. In short, Lawrence's failures on the day were simply incompetence, or perhaps instruction, in that he clearly erred on the side of the team without the ball, perhaps under orders to allow a free-flowing match. He allowed far too much to happen in the rucks and the result was that the team defending was given the advantage. The problem for South Africa is that this team was Australia, who barely had the ball as an attacking force. The end result is that he appeared biased because he was advantaging the team without the ball. Fixed? No. Incompetent? Yes.

And this introduced the larger problem faced by rugby. I wrote a post on this in October, describing how the sport has a credibility problem, because too much is left open to interpretation and therefore post-match criticism of the referee. The IRB hasn't managed to control the standard or the interpretation of admittedly challenging rules, and so every result is questioned by angry and emotional fans (and sometimes coaches). This is equally true in Sevens, where I'm involved with the SA Sevens team, and where the IRB just cannot seem to take seriously enough the development of its own referees. The end result is farcical officiating, which unfortunately exerts too great an influence on the outcome of matches.

Match-fixing in cricket

Cricket is a sport that has been dogged by match-fixing for over a decade. It was a South African who was the main protagonist when the problem was first thrust into the global limelight, when Hansie Cronje was tried and found guilty of match-fixing. The problem had of course existed long before he fell prey to it, and 2011 showed that it is still very much alive. Three Pakistani cricketers, Salman Butt, Mohammad Aamer and Mohammad Asif were jailed in November for their part in a 2010 match-fixing conspiracy in London.

Specifically, it was a "spot-fixing" scandal, where betters can place a very specific bet within the context of the match (things like who bowls which over, whether a batsmen will score above or below a certain target, number of boundaries etc). In this case, the bet was that Aamer, Pakistan's fast bowler, would deliver a no-ball on the first ball of the third over, and another on the sixth delivery of the tenth over, this time by Mohammed Asif. Sure enough, both were (massive) no balls, and when a video came to light by News of the World showing the player's agent making these predictions, the plot was exposed. Picking exactly which ball out of 540 in a day of cricket would be a no-ball may seem a ridiculous bet to make, but that's the nature of cricket, and it's why the game lends itself so easily to corruption like this.

Add to this the fact that the money in the game in India is absolutely enormous, and cricket is ripe for corruption. The governing body for the sport, the ICC, has an anti-corruption unit which has made some impact, but when you consider how easily aspects of cricket can be fixed, it is an impossible battle to win.

Soccer's racism controversy - the extreme manifestation of a deeper problem

A final one, and really just a brief opinion, on the most recent controversy affecting sport, that of racism in football. Luis Suarez of Liverpool received an 8-match ban for making racist comments to Patrice Evra of Manchester United, and John Terry, Chelsea's England international, faces criminal charges for his accused racist comments towards Anton Ferdinand.

There has been a real uproar about this in the media, not surprisingly. It was discussed recently on radio in South Africa and got me thinking about the root cause of the problem. That root cause, I believe, is not racism, but just the plain lack of respect that football seems to facilitate between players. Racism is the manifestation or application of the problem, it's not the problem in an of itself.

Don't get me wrong - racism is clearly a problem, there's no doubt about it. But it's one of the extreme expressions of the same thing along a continuum, and if the sport is serious about stamping out the extreme, it has to act on the less severe cases as well.

I have seen footage of Suarez and Evra's exchange, the argument that got Suarez the 8-match ban. It's disgraceful, and it doesn't matter what he actually said. Whether he was making racist comments, or attacking Evra's hairstyle, language, family, football ability, should not change the fact that the two of them were clearly way beyond a line of respect and decency and deserve bans. Proving who started it, or who is more to blame is a trickier proposition, of course, but the point is that the two of them should both be sanctioned for their behavior towards one another.

That there is a racist undertone to it simply shows that it progressed far enough along that extreme that Suarez brought out more personal insults. Suarez, for his part, has shown his character repeatedly since he became infamous in 2010 for his hand ball against Ghana and subsequent celebrations, and sadly, his character is not condemned nearly enough in football. Nor is the lack of quality displayed by many footballers, who seem celebrated rather than condemned for what is actually just disgraceful behavior.

For example, when Jose Mourinho flicked Barcelona's assistant on the ear earlier this year, he should have been given a ban of 10 or more matches. No debate, instant ban. And when Pinto, the Barcelona reserve goalkeeper, got involved in a skirmish, it should have produced six matches. Every player who storms a referee screaming for a decision should get a two match ban. Swearing should be an automatic one match, at the report of the referee. Football needs to be cleaned up, and focusing on the far extreme behavior and getting worked up over racism is a waste of energy, in my opinion, when the problem exists at the far left, where a basic disrespect for people is facilitated by the "beautiful game".

Football fans will no doubt unite and say it isn't so, but the fact is, football is tarnished by the behavior of its players, and it condones this behavior with inaction. We shouldn't be debating whether Suarez is a racist or not, we should simply say that he deserves 8 matches for behavior that is undesirable and doesn't belong in the sport.

And I don't want the sport to be sanitized to the point where there is no 'sledging', no hostility. Players in high pressure situations should express themselves, the sport needs the antagonism. But a line needs to be drawn and defended. Football currently has no such line, and then we are surprised that players might be racist?

Ross

And in breaking news, Suarez gets an unrelated 1-match ban for a gesture made to opposition fans. It should be six more matchs, but proves the point...

Next time: Sports Science stories of 2011!

Science of Sport Awards: Controversy of the year, Oscar Pistorius

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 06:50:00 +0000

2011 Awards: Controversy of the year - Pistorius, go-karts and Formula 1 machines

Controversy is never far from sport, and therefore the science of sport. Many of the controversies in recent years have been directly related to science - think Caster Semenya in 2009, doping in sport (every year), swimsuits and performance in 2008.

2011 didn't produce a "new" controversy, but rather reruns of the same dramas we've discussed before. However, one of those was comfortably, for this site anyway, the most relevant and debated story in sports science, and it was the case of Oscar Pistorius, the Controversy of 2011.

Pistorius - the scientific evidence and the PR machine

So much has been written on this topic that I won't devote an entire post to explaining the science...again. I am sure every one of you knows the story - a South African double-amputee, bursts onto the scene in 2004, declares an intention to run in the Olympic Games in 2007, then goes through two rounds of scientific testing to confirm his claims that the high-tech carbon fiber blades that he runs with (called Cheetahs) do not give him a performance advantage.

Those two rounds of testing are done first at the request of the IAAF in Germany, and then in Texas as part of Pistorius' appeal against the ban issued based on the results from the Germany tests.

But what did the tests show? Somewhere along the journey, the science is hijacked by a massive PR machine that has followed Pistorius since 2007, and which applies pressure to the IAAF to permit his participation, and then ultimately on the process by which the Court of Arbitration ultimately declared that there was insufficient evidence to ban Pistorius.

2011 then was not the year that the Pistorius question was first asked. Rather, it was the year that it became relevant, for Pistorius qualified for the IAAF World Championships and raced in Daegu in August. That created a firestorm of media coverage, and the resultant question was asked. The same will likely be true in 2012, and so this is an issue that will almost certainly be revisited then.

But these are the crucial facts, most of which have been overlooked by the media, or obscured by lies and PR tactics.

The scientific explanation - back to theory, proven by tests

The two rounds of testing revealed fairly conclusively that Pistorius did not "run" in the manner that able-bodied runners do. Mechanically, it was a totally different locomotion, which Peter Bruggemann, the German biomechanist who did the German testing, described as a "bouncing locomotion at a lower metabolic cost".

The "metabolic cost" statement was important, and was made based on tests that showed that Pistorius used 25% less oxygen during 400m sprinting than able-bodied runners. That by itself is not a performance advantage, but it is very important when you keep in mind the entire scientific process. That process must begin with a question and scientific rationale. That question is "Does Pistorius enjoy a performance advantage?" and the rationale is:

More energy return from carbon fiber than human tendon means that metabolic cost would be reduced. That's important because the ability to run at a given pace for 400m is limited by metabolic changes in the muscle. These can't be measured directly, but metabolic cost is a proxy for them
Lighter mass of carbon fiber limbs means lower cost of accelerating the limbs, allowing quicker limb movement and therefore sprinting
Carbon fiber does not fatigue, whereas muscle/tendon is known to be significantly affected by the end of a 400m race

So the metabolic finding by Bruggemann confirmed the first 2 points above. Directly, using less oxygen has little bearing on sprint performance, but it does point to confirmation of energy return, metabolic and performance advantages. On the note of the energy return, Bruggemann measured energy loss in the human tendon at 41%, compared to only 8% for the carbon fiber blade, so the picture came together pretty clearly. Hence the ban. You can read more about the German-testing at this detailed piece I wrote in August

However, there were problems with the research, particularly the measurement of oxygen during sprinting. There's no doubt the conclusion was made too broadly based on the tests, a mistake that would prove costly in the scientific "debate" at CAS, because it gave Pistorius a fairly easy means to refute the finding.

That is, Pistorius was able to appeal the decision and perform his own tests, and his team designed a test that would measure oxygen use during slower, low-intensity running.

Those tests again showed that Pistorius used less oxygen than able-bodied runners, even when running slowly (17% lower, to be precise). However, by "creatively" adding in data from world class distance runners measured over a period of ten years, the researchers were able to manipulate the data sufficiently to show that he was not statistically different from other runners. The fact that these runners were not sprinters, but marathon runners, seemed not to matter to either the scientists, or CAS, or the media who have covered the story.

It's an extra-ordinary comparison to make, particularly when you consider that data do exist for other sprinters. And most tellingly, when you compare Pistorius to these other sprinters, then suddenly you get a picture that shows that he is 14% and 2.3 SD more economical. That's a big difference, and had they included those comparisons, as they should have, then the conclusion of the "scientific" paper would have been totally different - it would have had to conclude that Pistorius is metabolically and mechanically different from able-bodied runners, and these differences are consistent with a performance advantage.

You can read about this research, and how the data were compared selectively for the CAS in this detailed post.

The "missing evidence" - never presented at CAS

Then the story got even more remarkable. Having cleared Pistorius to compete, a research article was published by a team of six scientists. This is the research described above, where Pistorius was found to be metabolically similar to distance runners. This is the foundation of the data presented to the CAS.

But 18 months later, an extra-ordinary announcement followed. It was made by Peter Weyand and Matthew Bundle, TWO of the group of six scientists in the Pistorius research team. They came out in November 2009 with the statement that "Pistorius enjoys a large advantage", and that "we knew it all along".

This remarkable statement was followed by a point-counterpoint debate in the Journal of Applied Physiology, which revealed a split among those six scientists. It transpired that on the very first day of testing, Weyand (the world's leading authority on sprint mechanics) and Bundle noted that Pistorius' mechanics were "off the charts". Specifically, his lighter carbon fiber prosthetic blades enabled him to accelerate his limbs so rapidly that he could do what no other runner could in terms of repositioning his limbs.

Weyand had previously established that a limit to sprinting, regardless of speed, was the ability to reposition the limbs, and Pistorius "broke" the limit considerably. That led Weyand to recognize the performance advantage. Weyand and Bundle describe this in their own words:

"Reduced limb repositioning times allow Mr. Pistorius to spend less time in the air between steps. Shorter aerial periods, in turn, substantially reduce how hard Mr. Pistorius must hit the ground during each stance period to lift and move his body forward into the next step.

In this sense, the level of sprinting athleticism required for Mr. Pistorius to achieve world class speeds is dramatically reduced compared to his intact limb competitors. Mr. Pistorius attains world-class sprinting speeds with the ground forces and foot-ground contact times of a slow and relatively uncompetitive runner. Mr. Pistorius’ intact-limb competitors, with natural limb weights and swing times, lack this option, and therefore must achieve their speeds via exclusively biological means. Mr. Pistorius, in contrast, achieves these speeds through the use of technology"

You can read more about this discovery and the basis for the 12-second advantage they calculated (an overestimate in my opinion) in the detailed article on this site written in August.

Weyand and Bundle speak

The above statements come from a piece that was written by Weyand and Bundle in response to articles I wrote on this site in August. They contacted me to request a one-time post on The Science of Sport, and I was very happy to oblige. However, for various reasons, the posts didn't happen here, but they were published on the SMU website. I would highly encourage you to read them - they are lucid, to the point, and they clear up many of the misconceptions that you'd have read in the popular media as a result of lies told by Pistorius, Hugh Herr and co.

The CAS hearing: Evidence not presented, the cover-up of omission

I got the distinct impression that Weyand and Bundle wanted to speak because they had not been given the opportunity to do so, until these posts.

What emerges is the even more remarkable fact that when it came time to present the science to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the Weyand-Bundle finding on the advantage was NOT even presented. Neither Weyand nor Bundle even attended the hearing.

In other words, having identified on the very first day that there was an advantage ("we knew all along"), Weyand and Bundle did not have the opportunity to present what they knew, and their colleagues who represented them deemed it unnecessary to present this evidence.

The end result is that the judges at CAS made a decision based on half the scientific evidence (evidence which was, as I've described, flawed to begin with as a result of those creative comparisons), and completely overlooked the half that suggests the advantage.

It was, quite simply, a cover-up of omission. How can the search for scientific truth be punctuated by:

Failure to make the correct comparison between a sprinter and another sprinter, but rather to include data from other research on distance runners? This only obscures the truth, by creating a false similarity
Failure to even disclose the evidence that suggests, based on all that we know about the theory of sprinting performance, that the athlete in question has a large performance advantage?

For these reasons, this case should be kept alive, and the media, who have been astonishingly passive in trying to pursue the story, should be roused into answering these questions. At the very least, the CAS should take heed of the fact that they had a hearing where evidence was not discussed in an objective manner, and their decision is thus an ignorant one.

The end result of this is that Pistorius was "cleared", based not on science, but on a legal process that was manipulated by science and the huge drive to permit Pistorius to run. And make no mistake, there is inspiration in the story.

In fact, it got to the point where despite the science, I can appreciate the viewpoint of those who say "Sure, there is an advantage, but there's only one such athlete, and he's not running away with the gold medals, and so the good outweighs the bad, so let him compete despite that advantage".

I disagree with that, but I can respect the opinion of those who believe it. What cannot be accepted, however, is the assertion that there is no advantage. Everything about the science points to the advantage, from the pacing strategy he uses, to the German-testing that found mechanical and metabolic differences, to the Texas testing which provided evidence of an athletic advantage.

The science was clear, from the point of hypothesis, to the theory behind it, to the evidence. The deceit in the case, fueled by a willfully ignorant media who would rather portray as villains anyone who dares suggest what the science really says, is equally clear, to me at least.

2012 will bring the discussion around once again. Perhaps it will even defend its title of "Controversy of the year"!

Ross

P.S. Honorable mentions in the category "Controversy of the Year" get their own post later today!

Merry Christmas from The Science of Sport

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:49:00 +0000

Merry Christmas everyone

To all our readers:

Thank you so much for your support and readership over the course of the year. Christmas is now only days away, and being the time for giving, it's appropriate to give our thanks for all your comments, feedback, discussion and even criticisms!

The Year in Review, aka Science of Sport Awards will continue after a well-deserved Christmas break, sometime before the end of the year! Have a wonderful time, wherever in the world you are!

Ross & Jonathan

Science of Sport Awards: Website of the year

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 07:39:00 +0000

2011 Awards: The website of the year award

Choosing a best website is an impossible task, because it depends very much what you are looking for. My criteria for a great website include insight and analysis - I don't wish to simply read about what happened, because chances are, if I'm a sports fan, I've already seen it. I don't wish to wake up to read that Novak Djokovic beat Rafael Nadal in the US Open Final, because I was awake until 2am watching it! Rather give insight, analysis and break down why he won, how he did it.

Similarly, when Andy Schleck attacked on the Col d'Izoard in this year's Tour de France, most of the reporting was on who covered which break, how big the time gaps got, and so on. Nice to know, but I enjoyed watching it myself. So again, peel away what happened, and tell me why and how.

Of course, that doesn't negate the need for a great news website, and so some of the honorable mentions in this category of Best Website are just that - great sources of news. They are:

Letsrun.com - the best source of athletics news that I know. It's the first website I visit every morning, because by then (SA time), it's been updated with pretty much every snippet of information from the world of athletics in the last 24 hours. So within 2 minutes, I have a sense of who is doing what, and where. It's here that I learned of Wanjiru's death, Bekele's comeback, and a host of doping positives. Sometimes it's very US-centric, but that's perfectly understandable, and they do a great job of promoting the NCAA competitions. During major competitions, and in the build-up to major marathons, the Johnson brothers also do some great analysis, and for any athletics follower who wants to be informed, it's a great place to start
Supersport.com - one of your nominees, and I'll back it since it's local. A great collection of news stories, covering the entire spectrum. The same can be said of Sports Illustrated (particularly for NFL, MLB and NBA coverage)

Now for the insight and analysis...

We'll do this by sport, since different sports lend themselves to a different way of analyzing them"

Football - Zonal Marking

This was my pick as the best website of 2010, and it remains #1 in 2011. It's part of the Guardian Sports Network of which we are also members (more on this later), and it provides analysis of football tactics. It's lucid, to the point and so insightful that even a part-time watcher can feel like an expert for understanding the intricacies of the game. I do quite a bit of work with rugby analysis, and the clarity of analysis of this site is something to aspire to. For a recent example, here is the analysis of Barcelona's 3-1 victory over Real Madrid from early December.

Tennis - award withheld, but Jon Wertheim's column gets an honourable mention

Tennis is a sport that is really lacking in quality analysis. Unless I'm missing something, in which case please let me know. It just seems that there is no technical analysis of the game, despite the fact that the sport would lend itself to some amazing analysis. I've tried to do this myself - two years ago, I emailed Hawkeye, the company that do Tennis' Review system, because part of what they collect is a dizzying array of data on things like shot placement, rally hit point, shot speed, shot accuracy and so forth. To pull some of that data and use it to analysis match-ups and opponents seems, to me anyway, too good to be true. Yet it doesn't happen. The Hawkeye people told me that they keep the data for a few weeks, then discard it, and it isn't made publicly available. Yet this is clearly not true, based on what I've seen over the years.

To give you an example, they show stats and data during the change of end breaks during matches, and will from time to time show how a player (say Rafael Nadal) is returning serve. They can tell you where he hits the ball relative to his own baseline, and where his return of serve is landing on the other side of the court. Earlier this year, I think at Wimbledon, they showed a comparison between Nadal in 2010 and Nadal in 2011, basically showing that he was further back when receiving and was dropping his returns around 1 to 2m shorter than the previous year. Against the same opponent. This kind of data would have me licking my lips at the range of possible questions one can answer. Why does Federer struggle against Nadal? Why has Djokovic not lost to Nadal in 2011? Is a given player vulnerable to certain shots? Of course, the answer to these questions is often known intuitively and based on experience, by coaches, players, keen observers. But a website that turns this data into meaningful insight would be great for tennis.

So tennis doesn't have a website - it's actually very weak. But for an honorable mention, check out Jon Wertheim's column with Sports Illustrated. Sometimes it takes the form of a mailbag, with Q & A, others it's just comment on the game. It's also lucid, to the point and insightful.

General - the Guardian Sports Network

I mention this mostly because one of our big developments of 2011 was joining the Guardian as a member of a network of blogs they created to cover sport more comprehensively. You can read about the network and its members here. There's a heavy focus on football (it's the UK, after all), but some excellent sites covering things like sports law, cricket, sports management and general sport. Well worth a scan once in a while, and you may find a site that particularly appeals to you (excluding ours of course!) I am sure that with the London Olympics on the horizon, there'll be some great pieces coming out of this network in 2012.

Cycling - the Inner Ring

Many of you nominated The Inner Ring as your favourite website. It does, well, pretty much everything. The sub-heading is "News, Comment, Analysis, Chat", and that's pretty much you get. Here's their "About" page which pretty much sums up their value. If you want to stay on top of news, but get some insight, this is a great place to start

Twitter

Perhaps a surprising choice, but those of you who are active on Twitter will know exactly what I mean. There is no better way to zone in on your area of interest, and then stay in a permanent state of "eavesdropping" on your sport than Twitter. We have a Twitter page ourselves (follow now!), but I confess that I don't use it for news as much as to add a little value to what is on the website. I also don't follow as many people as I should, but I think that if I did, my day would rapidly evaporate as I pursue every intriguing comment and link that is tweeted by journalists and those within the sport.

During events (the Tour, the IAAF World Championships, doping cases etc), it's the best way to get instant news updates, and as a starting point for further reading. Of course, the danger is the "clutter", but you'll soon learn who tweets the valuable content and who throws out opinion only (unless of course the opinion is what you're after!)

Overall, Twitter has changed the way we follow sport, and so in terms of broader impact, it's probably the most significant website of the year.

So that's a wrap of the websites that cover some of the sports that I'm interested in. Apologies for not providing links to other sports, like cricket, rugby, darts and so forth! Feel free to use the comments section below to throw some of your own favourites out there!

Next time, we'll look at the biggest controversy of the year in sport. But first, Christmas...!

Ross

Science of Sport awards: Videos of the year

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:16:00 +0000

Videos of the year

The title "Video of the Year" is often a euphemism for one of two things: 1) extreme sports men or women doing outrageous stunts that defy belief (and sanity), or 2) people doing ordinary things, like mountain-biking, before some extra-ordinary event turns them into YouTube sensations.

Both the above categories are catered for in the collection of videos below...

In no particular order, our (and your) favourite videos of 2011 are:

The mountain biker who is T-boned by a red hartebees - MTB, African style

Whitewater kayaking - amazing footage, great soundtrack. In another life, I'd choose to be one of these guys. This is definitely one to watch fullscreen This is my favourite one, thanks for the link!

2011 Whitewater Grand Prix from Tribe Alliance on Vimeo.

Danny Hart wins the downill MTB world title - the ride is spectacular, the commentary is equally wild

Ibrahim Jeilan vs Mo Farah for 10,000m gold in Daegu - we showed this clip yesterday, but it's a great sporting clip worth a watch

Joey's OK...but first he is airborne. Cyclo-cross in the USA

Danny MacAskill doing just about anything

In 2009, a video of Danny MacAskill did the rounds and we actually chose it as our Video of the Year. Now there are dozens of similar videos, noteworthy for the amazing composition and MacAskill's ability. Just search for "Danny MacAskill" on YouTube and you'll fill an hour watching him. I have to choose one, and since I'm in Cape Town, it's Danny Plays Cape Town.

Skiing videos

For those of you in winter - similarly spectacular scenery is the backdrop for equally amazing skill. This first is particularly inspirational. The second is the skiing equivalent of Danny MacAskill.

Ross

Science of Sport awards: Comeback of 2011

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 08:46:00 +0000

The best sports comeback of 2011

The third of our 2011 Awards is for the best comeback of the year. We'll do this one in reverse order - winner first, and then a list of "honorable mentions".

South Africa vs Australia, IRB Sevens World Series, Edinburgh

I admit, I am unashamedly biased on this one, but it's the one that I was part of, and it was the most amazing three minute stretch I've experienced. The equivalent of three touchdowns, two with recovered onside kicks, in three minutes. At half-time, just to give some background, we were 21-7 down, then fell 28-7 behind, but scored twice to make it 28-19 with 6 minutes to play. At that point, the next score would win the game, and the momentum was with us. But it was Australia who scored, and they went 35-19 ahead with 2:54 to go. We also had a "skeleton" team with three players out to injury, and a few others playing despite injury. We really had no business winning from the position we were in, but for the next 3 minutes, all the hard work of the players and the management paid off. The video starts with Australia going 35-19 clear. As for that dive at the end, we didn't see it from the sidelines, we were too busy celebrating, but that was a heart-stopping moment. I asked him about it after the match, he said he had it "under control, no worries". It was three minutes of being in the zone, and I suspect that Sibu Sithole was experiencing life in slow-motion by that point!

On that note, this is a great advertisement for Sevens, a game where anything can happen and the result is almost always unknown until the final play of the match. That's the essence of valuable sport - compare this to some sports where only three or four teams can ever win, and the result is a ground out procession. So if the world's rugby bodies would get out of their own way (IRB at the top, and all the national federations below), then this sport, which will make its debut in the Olympic Games in 2016 in Rio, can become one of the most popular in the world. And most commercially lucrative. We are in Las Vegas on February 11 and 12 next year, for those who fancy a weekend of great sport and entertainment.

Honorable mentions

First, the comebacks to the sport after retirements and injuries, followed by single match comebacks:

Liu Xiang - as we approach London 2012, remember back to Beijing 2008. Difficult to think of an athlete who carried as much expectation as Xiang did for China. He was "spared" some pressure by virtue of the fact that China was collecting gold medals almost hourly, but as their only real medal chance for a track gold, the pressure on Xiang was enormous. He was also the defending champion in the men's 110m hurdles, but failed to get out of the blocks, leaving the Bird's Nest stadium in tears and stunned silence. The injury was an Achilles tendon one, and it forced a 13-month layoff before Liu Xiang returned in 2009. Strictly speaking then, his "comeback" is not a 2011 event, but it was 2011 that saw his return to the medals in Daegu, when he won silver (upgraded from bronze after Robles' controversial disqualification). But for Robles, people argue that Xiang may have won gold, signaling a return to the summit of the sport. That may have to wait for London 2012, where Xiang will once again mark an Olympic cycle with expectation, and perhaps, delivery. It will be one of the best races of the Games.
Swimmers - it's probably inevitable that with the Olympic Games one year away, a number of athletes who had previously retired would return for one last 'dance'. It seems most common in swimming, where perhaps the highest profile return was that of Ian Thorpe, Australia's swimming legend. To a lesser extent, Michael Phelps is on something of a comeback trail, at least in terms of winning global medals, though he was slightly overshadowed by Ryan Lochte at the World Champs in Shanghai. Their duels will be a highlight of London. One most relevant to South African Olympic followers who are banking on a medal from Cameron van der Burgh, was that of Brendan Hansen. The former world record holder retired in 2008, but returned to win the US Nationals in 2011, posting a time that would have placed him fifth in the World Championships. It will be interesting to follow the progress of the comebacks in 2012.
Novak Djokovic and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, who came back from 2 sets down to win matches against Roger Federer. Amazingly, the Swiss champion had never lost a professional match when leading 2-0, but then did it in consecutive Grand Slam tournaments. The first, at Wimbledon, saw Tsonga's raw power and serving overwhelm Federer to win 6-4 in the fifth. Then in the US Open, it was Djokovic who came back from the dead to win an epic, which featured a point that Federer would later label a "lucky shot". It happened on match-point, with Federer serving, and Djokovic coiled and unwound a winning return with apparently no fear. I guess a season like he was having would create a perception of being bullet-proof. That point, and the comeback, helped Djokovic into the final, where he won his third Slam of the year, leaving Federer without one for the first time in many years.
The St Louis Cardinals, 2011 MLB World Series champions. Baseball is not a sport I follow much from SA, but the Cardinals completed a historic World Series triumph in 2011, twice facing down defeat to come from two runs down to beat the Texas Rangers in Game 6 of the 7-match series. They went on to win Game 7 6-2, but it was the Game 6 comebacks that grabbed the attention. The nature of baseball (much like tennis, in fact) is that a game is often one strike from being won, and that was the case in Game 6, where the Texas Rangers were a strike away from a first World Series on two occasions. They couldn't close the deal, the Cardinals resisted and history records them as champions.

In the last two comebacks, spare a thought for the loser, who by definition, has had victory snatched away at the last possible moment. Having won the Edinburgh tournament in such a dramatic comeback fashion, for example, we found ourselves in the opposite position in Port Elizabeth only two weeks ago, when New Zealand came from behind to beat us in the World Series final. It really is a dark place to be! So for Australia, Roger Federer and the Texas Rangers, a word of consolation - they're the unwilling participants in the drama of sport!

Next time, a collection of the best sports videos of 2011!

Ross

Science of Sport Awards: The Villain of 2011

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 20:05:00 +0000

The villain of the year

Let's jump right to it - sport tends to create heroes and villains, hence its appeal (or part of it). But we're less interested in the parochial rivalries and specific players who fans love to hate simply because of rivalries (though we are not immune to these, of course), and more in the management of the sport, the behind the scenes action that affects play.

For that reason, most of the nominees in the category of villain of the year come from "outside the lines/ropes", and are administrators or sports officials of some kind. We didn't get too many nominees for this category (a good sign, perhaps), but we'll narrow it down progressively. There were nominations for Sepp Blatter (honestly, I don't even know what he was nominated for specifically, there seems to be a wide range of possibilities), for Jonathan Vaughters (for neutralizing Paris-Roubaix this year), and I'll throw in two of my own: 1) The International Rugby Board, for their continued failure to manage and improve their referees properly, particularly in 7s, but also in 15s, which undermines the credibility of the sport. 2) Jose Mourinho, for dragging the Barcelona vs Real Madrid matches down with 'trench warfare' tactics and snide behavior off-field, which is actually only fitting for a man who calls himself "the special one" (the most special people don't name themselves...). Oh, and then there was the driver of the car that put Johnny Hoogerland into a barbed-wire fence during the Tour de France.

But the big nominees (total of three) are:

Oscar Pistorius, South Africa's controversial blade runner. I don't think I'd go so far as to say that Pistorius is the "villain", though my thoughts on his participation are very clear and I'm happy to repeat over and over why. And there was the whole issue of a cover-up, the denial of the science etc. But I am not sure that he is the "villain" in this piece. What he is is a hugely controversial figure, if you believe in sports science and facts. If you don't, then he's an inspiration (and I am the villain, thanks to what has been pushed by the PR machine who back him). So I'm going to amend this slightly, and say that if I were to nominate anyone linked to this whole story, it would be Pistorius, plus his team of scientists who failed to present all the scientific evidence to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, plus the team of PR guys who attack anyone not buying the fairytale. But, there'll be a lot more on this story later in our awards round-up, including first-time comments from the scientists who were actually involved in the case, so I'll pick up this discussion then.
The IAAF for reaching the conclusion that women's world records set in mixed races should no longer be recognized as world records. The result was that for a time, Paula Radcliffe's performance of 2:15:25 was suddenly "scratched" and replaced by her 2:17:42 from London in 2005, when the women started 45 minutes before the men. The decision was roundly criticized, mostly because it showed up a double-standard when compared to men's races, where a herd of pacemakers usually accompanies the top three of four men to at least 32 km. One photograph from Berlin this year showed about six pacemakers surrounding Makau and Gebrselassie.

The other issue is that anyone who follows athletics even tangentially can see that women's records on the track, from 100m all the way to 10,000m are seriously tainted not by having male pace-makers, but by doping. Nobody has come within 5% of some of the records since the 1980s, and if the IAAF are serious about "unfair advantages", I'd suggest they look there, rather than at marathons, for which there is certainly some advantage from pacing, but it's marginal when compared to the men, who get much the same benefit.

Fortunately, the IAAF backtracked on the decision...sort of. They now plan to enforce the rule in 2011, but will still allow Radcliffe's record to stand. If that's confusing, then it introduces the other problem with this kind of unnecessary policy making - it sows confusion. A big part of the appeal of running is its simplicity. To those outside the sport (who should really be a target of the governing body's marketing plans), the introduction of "ifs" and "buts" to records does little to improve the appeal of the sport. One can appreciate the desire of the IAAF to control records, because there does need to be some regulation (a 10,000m record of 25 minutes is possible if the whole route is 10% downhill), but this was clumsy, impossible to enforce and unfortunately detracted from the performances of great marathon runners (Radcliffe was not alone in seeing her efforts invalidated, for a time). Backtracking (sort of) means the IAAF remain a nominee rather than the award winner!
Bryce Lawrence, the New Zealand referee who was in charge of South Africa's Rugby World Cup Quarter-final loss to Australia. If a poll were conducted in South Africa to wrap up 2011, and a "villain" category was included, Lawrence would win 80% of the votes. He is reviled in South Africa, blamed for the fact that we did not defend our World title (despite the fact that we would have had to win two more matches after Aus), and is probably the least popular sportsperson in the country. In fact, at every sporting event in SA since the World Cup, a banner or poster will mock either Lawrence, or throw out an insult that usually invokes his name. All in all, he is the big South African villain.

And make no mistake, he was poor. It was a dreadful performance by a referee, and criticism is justified. However, the reaction here in SA is neither justified nor constructive. There were accusations of deliberate match-fixing, there were death threats, and there has been whining that has persisted long after it should have subsided. The issue of match-fixing will come up again later in our Awards round-up, when we discuss the biggest controversies of 2011, but the reality is that in rugby, the problem is far more likely incompetence than corruption, and the problem for Lawrence is that his poor performance came in a match where one side was completely dominant, and he made "errors of omission". That is, his mistakes tended to favor the defensive team, because he gave allowed too much to happen. The result is that the dominant team (SA) seemed discriminated against. I wrote a little on this back in October when the fallout began, for those who would like to read more. Again, it was a poor performance, but the real villain in this whole story is the South African public, I'm afraid to say, for pointing the finger in the wrong direction. It's just too easy to blame the referee and overlook your own failures. And believe me, I've been there, done that, with a professional team at the international level of rugby. The referee may have been poor, but did we do enough to win the match? Answer is yes, and so the villain may not be where we are quick to point.

The winner is...The Contador case - all involved, though all are probably not guilty

But those three villains are no match for our winner. In fact, our winner is so convoluted that I'm not even 100% sure who to give the award to. But I'll bundle it all into one category and go with the UCI, the Spanish Anti-Doping Authorities, WADA, CAS and Alberto Contador's lawyers, for the prolonged drama that is the clenbuterol case of the 2010 Tour de France champion.

I don't even recall where the case began and ended, and if I tried to sum it up, I'd misrepresent one or more of the parties involved. Going all the way back to 2010, when the case first broke, it was clear that the UCI had known about the test result long before the German media eventually "forced" the announcement. That prompted Contador's admission that the UCI had informed him that they'd "take care of it", whatever that is supposed to mean.

Carrying this into 2011, the confusion kicked off in January, when the Spanish federation "proposed" a one year ban for Contador. A few weeks later, in mid-February, the same committee cleared Contador of doping, something that happened, it seems, as a result of a politician's pressure and turning the concept of "strict liability" inside out. That is, rather than accepting the normal approach which says that the athlete is responsible for any substances in their body, the decision now seemed to be "Prove that it's NOT doping or he is innocent". At the time, I wrote a post that inspired some good discussion on this issue, for those wishing to revisit it.

The case was always destined for the CAS, of course, except the Spanish Federation decision meant that the UCI and then WADA would be making the appeal, rather than Contador. Meanwhile, Contador continued to race, his first big stage race being the Giro, because there was so much doubt as to whether he'd be able to compete in the Tour de France, given that the CAS hearing was set for before the race (it was supposed to be June 6 to 8). The case was however postponed, this time to August 1st, soon after the Tour.

So Contador raced the Tour, finishing fifth after winning the Giro. The CAS hearing was delayed again, this time because WADA requests more time to prepare its response, and it would take until November 21 for the case to finally be heard. The hearing ended on the 24th, and then it was announced that a decision may be ready by "early next year".

Make no mistake, this is a complicated case. The drug in question is clenbuterol, and the Contador defense is accidental ingestion from contaminated meat. This is possible - there have been a few such cases. There is also the matter of alleged plasticizers in Contador's blood, the result of blood doping but only detectable using a test that is not yet approved. So that adds a dimension to the WADA case, but may not hold up legally. And apparently Contador's lawyers have absolutely buried the case in paperwork and technical details, testimonies, lie detector tests, case studies and so forth, which was the reason for at least one of the delays in having the hearing (when WADA was forced to ask for more time).

All in all, it's a very, very messy legal situation. And probably a little harsh to single out any one party for the lengthy delay. After all, what are they to do? Each acting independently is doing what they feel they need to in order to win a case, but their actions produce reactions that force delays.

The end result however has dragged on, and of the dozens of responses to my call for nominations, this was almost ubiquitous. There seems a universal frustration at the delay, understandably, and so while I apologize for not knowing exactly who the "villain" is (if he doped, then it's clearly Contador, of course), the award goes to all involved.

As for what happens next, I'd bet strongly that Contador will be cleared. That's partly because I have zero faith in the CAS (who after all missed gaping holes in the Pistorius case) and I have only revulsion for lawyers who play the system from inside. And those factors together, along with the mountain of technical information they have thrown at this, will, I strongly suspect, see the verdict go in favour of Contador. That will in turn have ramifications for anti-doping. For one thing, it will mean that they may as well take clenbuterol off the banned list, but it will also challenge the concept of strict liability. Whether it would create a legal precedent, I don't know (the specific details of the case would determine this), but it certainly would leave a bad taste. It already has, thanks to the delays.

Ross

Next time: Comeback of the year