The Science of Sport

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

Science of Sport Awards: Surprise of 2011

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:51:00 +0000

Science of Sport awards 2011: Biggest surprise of 2011

Thank you all for your suggestions/nominations for the Science of Sport awards. I'm really glad I asked, because I'd completely overlooked some of the suggestions you made. I'd have felt foolish leaving them out! There was, as expected, quite a lot of overlap, but some "fringe" nominations as well, which is great because it is a useful way to get news out and introduce athletes and performances to people who might otherwise have missed them.

So first up, biggest Surprise of 2011.

Let's begin with some of your nominees:

The collapse of so many professional cycling teams. While arguably true, the cynic in me says that this is more an indictment of the times than a huge surprise. What is surprising perhaps is which teams have vanished (and which teams have replaced them). But cycling's "carousel" was in overdrive this year as big names found themselves, temporarily, without rides. The economic times, perhaps? A reluctance to be associated with a potentially risky sport? Certainly a few years ago, the latter was a big driving factor, but I suspect more global factors are in play now.
The Kenyans taking the whole top 20 in marathon times this year. This was a surprise only because of the extent of the Kenyan dominance. I covered this in a post in November, shortly after the New York Marathon. The Kenyan dominance didn't end at times, however. They also won every single major marathon, the World Championship title (men and women), and generally moved marathon running into a new era. But this is a topic for discussion when we give out another award later this week...
The passing of Sammy Wanjiru. On May 16 this year, the world woke to news that perhaps the greatest marathoner who ever lived, Kenya's Olympic champion Sammy Wanjiru, had died after a fall from his balcony after a domestic dispute. Wanjiru, who was Kenya's first gold medalist in the Olympic marathon, was one of the great competitive marathon runners, and that winning performance from Beijing may well have been the catalyst for a new attitude towards the distance. Wanjiru raced without fear, he was aggressive and courageous. Sadly, his life off the roads was slowly unravelling, which made his death, while shocking, the saddest end to a sadly inevitable spiral. An incident at the end of 2010 with an AK-47 machine gun and his wife was a precursor. No one could have forecast the way it would end, of course, but the warning signs were there. Less of a surprise, perhaps, than a tragic shock.
Cadel Evans winning the Tour de France. Australians everywhere, rejoice. Cadel Evans had long been a contender without being a serious challenger. There had always been an air of inevitability about Evans' Tour de France - solid riding, competitive, stubborn, but unable to produce the five or six high quality climbs to win and then defend yellow. This year was different. Evans was the race's strongest man - he rode assertively, if not in the aggressive manner of Contador before him (though other factors may have influenced this), and he defended when he needed to, most notably when attacked by Andy Schleck on the Col d'Izoard and pulled everyone back on the final climb of the Galibier. Evans consolidated the Tour that day, and then emphatically underlined it in the final time-trial. Given the 2012 route, Evans looks a good bet to defend the title, and this time, it wouldn't be a surprise.
Vernon Philander. This is a South African-centric suggestion, but worth a mention. Philander is South Africa's newest bowing Test cricketer, and has exploded onto the international cricket scene, taking 5 wickets in an innings in his first three matches (only the fifth player in history to do so). He won Man of the Match twice (MVP equivalent), and Man of the Series in the Australia series. Few would have predicted that success, and it'll be interesting to see how soon he regresses to the mean (as he must do, unless he's on route to becoming the greatest bowler in history)

And the winner is...Ibrahim Jeilan winning the 10,000m title in Daegu

There's been a lot that has surprised me in 2011. Apart from the list above, even the "expected" can sometimes be surprising. For example, I'm surprised that Novak Djokovic was as dominant as he was. I was surprised by Chrissie Wellington's remarkable run performance in the Roth Ironman, though she has clearly been building to that for some time. It's still a "surprise" of sorts. I'm still surprised by how South Africans reacted to losing to Australia in the Rugby World Cup...

But my criteria for "surprise" is something that I absolutely could not have seen coming. Something that even in hindsight is remarkable.

And no single moment has been as surprising as the final of the men's 10,000 m in the IAAF World Championships. And not just because the winner, Ibrahim Jeilan of Ethiopia, was largely unheralded before the race. Sure he was a talented youth/junior, but he hadn't even raced in Europe, training instead in Japan.

Rather, it's because of the way the final lap unfolded. Mo Farah of Great Britain was the overwhelming favourite - he'd been outkicking rivals all year, over 5,000m and 10,000m, and so when the race was unspectacularly slow, it was all set up.

Farah then "took" the race on with 500m to go, and opened up what was a winning lead. Or so I thought. With 300m to go, it was going according to script. No surprise at all. Then, with 200m to go, a slight problem - the gap that had been opening suddenly held at about 5 or 6m. With 150m to go, I was officially surprised. The final 100m have to be seen, so watch it below:

So that was a race, or more specifically, a final 53 seconds, that had me saying "Wow, I could not have seen that coming". And so for that reason, it's my surprise of the year.

Feel free to make more suggestions below!

Later today...Villain of the year and Comeback of the year.

Ross

And to wrap up this post, a moment to remember Sammy Wanjiru. This is a clip of the final few minutes of the 2010 Chicago Marathon, where he raced head to head against Tsegay Kebede of Ethiopia. It was classic Wanjiru - he didn't have his greatest form (his personal problems perhaps had begun to chip away at his quality), but he fought, attacked, surged, in what was one of the most brutal finishes to a marathon I've ever seen. It was also the last we saw of Sammy Wanjiru. Strictly, this clip belongs in 2010, but 2011 is the year that took Sammy Wanjiru, so worth remembering now.

Track and Field Videos on Flotrack

2011 Review: Science of Sport call for nominees

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:49:00 +0000

2011 Wrap-up: Your nominees for Science of Sport awards

2011 is winding its way down, or, as the case may be, plummeting to its death, which leaves us just enough time to wrap up 2011 with a look back on the year to hand out our now annual Science of Sport awards for 2011.

So I'm inviting your nominations for the following categories, in no particular order:

Sportsman of the year
Sportswoman of the year
Team of the year
Performance of the year
Sports science story of the year (calling on all the academics among you - what sports science research has grabbed the headlines this year?)
Controversy of the year (because controversy is never far from the science of sport...)
Comeback of the year
Best sports website
Sports video of the year
Villain of the year (this one depends entirely on your point of view)
Biggest surprise of 2011

Remember to give them a sports science spin - it's not only about the athlete, team, or event, but the "hidden side", the "how" and "why" behind the news. In most cases, I'll try to link back to an article I wrote during the year.

I have a pretty good idea of who wins the awards - in that sense, giving awards out is merely an excuse to summarize the stories that struck me this year! But would love to hear your suggestions and thoughts! Feel free to add categories that I may have missed as well! Use the comments section to the post below to give your nominees (or click here to go to the site to throw a name or two into the ring if you're reading this on email).

Bear in mind our focus here is on endurance sport, particularly running and cycling, so I do apologize, but the awards will reflect that bias.

The first awards are made tomorrow!

Ross

The Barefoot running round-table discussion from UKSEM: Thoughts from "inside"

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:11:00 +0000

Thoughts from the Barefoot running round-table discussion at UKSEM: An inside view

Many of you will probably know by now that at the recent UKSEM conference in London, I chaired a session called "Natural Running – advantages and disadvantages. A Round Table Discussion".

The protagonists in the debate were:

Prof Daniel Howell, an anatomy professor from Liberty (USA), known as the "barefoot professor"
Simon Barthold, who formerly worked as a podiatrist but who now works in biomechanics and is Asics global research consultant
Prof Benno Nigg, one of the world's leading biomechanists
Dr Mathias Marquard, a clinician and running coach (who would go on to become the voice of reason in many of the more hostile aspects of the debate, as I'll describe!)
Prof Daniel Lieberman, evolutionary biologist from Harvard, who as you may know, recently published the Nature studies looking at how habitually shod and barefoot runners differ, and who wrote a key paper on how humans are adapted (skeletally and physiologically) to run long distances

The debate concept

That's a pretty high-profile "cast", including some of the world leaders in their fields. Then there was me, chairing a debate which everyone knew could easily become an argument! To begin with, academics don't enjoy this method of getting theories out. I know this because three of the five on the panel said as much before and after, and I suspect it's mostly because scientists like to work according to a linear 'template' that says you first introduce the question, then you describe the gaps in the literature, then you systematically plug those gaps using your experiments, then you present data and move towards understanding.

A debate, however, is not linear, but circular, or more like a "vortex", in that different threads are whirling around together, and I think it can be an uncomfortable way to discuss data. The risk is always that every statement made by one person contradicts another's views, and they want to respond to it, so we would basically get sucked down and never move forward.

I can appreciate this, but I think it's also an excellent way to accelerate understanding for the audience (but then you'll have to tell me this if you were there), because it super-condenses a big topic into a discussion and for that reason, I think it works rather well.

Controlling it, however, was a nerve-jangling prospect. Before the debate, Asics (who sponsored the UKSEM conference, which included naming rights to this debate, which is commendable) had worked with PR teams to try to manage it, because they were understandably concerned about excessive hostilities (lively debate is good, outright hostility is not!) and also about one or two of the members dominating the discussion. "Everyone must get a say". So I had to ensure that neither happened, and with this being such a polarized topic, and knowing that there were pro- and against- academics on stage, I confess to being quite anxious about it. My approach to this of course is to joke and try to entertain (why be dull when you can liven it up?), but that didn't stop me from almost forgetting the names of the first two speakers as I introduced them!

Buy or sell? The first provocative question

Nevertheless, I got past that first little hurdle, and then the debate kicked off with a simple question, based on the media portrayal of the barefoot debate. The question was: "If a runner picks up a magazine or newspaper, they are seeing the following statement: 'Shoes are evil. They do not help, they may even cause injury. Barefoot running is natural, and will help prevent injury, and therefore everyone should be encouraged to run barefoot'. Do you buy or sell this concept?"

That's a very provocative question, and as mentioned, I hate how this issue has been polarized. In fact, if there's anything you take out of this website, it's that when people polarize a debate into one of two extremes, they're both wrong. In science, there's always middle-ground, and a significant "but", whether it's related to barefoot vs shod running, training vs talent, dehydration vs overhydration, doping control, carbs vs fat in diet. But an extreme question was necessary to get the ball rolling.

So from my vantage point, this is what I saw from the five responses:

Only Daniel Howell outright bought the concept. He explained that he has been LIVING barefoot for 6 years, spending 95% of his time without shoes. He is an advocate not only for barefoot running, but for barefoot living. His main argument, which I'll get to shortly, is that barefoot running is the "natural state"

All the other speakers were relatively non-committal. Prof Benno Nigg was most neutral, saying that every year, he asks his students this question in a final exam: "Does barefoot running prevent injuries?", and the only answer he accepts for a good grade is "I don't know because we don't know".

It became clear right away that Prof Nigg was not about opinions. At all. He is perhaps the world's leading biomechanist, and has had in excess of 300 publications on the subject, plus dozens of books, and is really all about the evidence. Which is a bit of a problem in a round-table discussion, but his absolutely neutral answer did two things a) it highlighted that this is a debate that really does lack evidence, and b) that he was going to be the "go to guy" for scientific fact, not opinion! If I wanted to kill the debate, ask Prof Nigg for his opinion!

Professor Daniel Lieberman said the same thing - we don't have the evidence yet, but there is enough theory there, as well as the 'birth' of a line of evidence that may begin to steer us towards it. At this point, they mostly agreed with one another.

"Buy, but keep the receipt for a refund"

Let me digress and state my view on that question, since I didn't get to state it at UKSEM! I believe that EVERYONE can benefit from some barefoot running. That is, I think that barefoot running is, at worst, a good training modality that may have benefit for running performance, even when wearing shoes. We know from research and simple experience that there are significant differences in muscle activation and loading patterns when running barefoot, and these are all potentially favourable, even if barefoot running is used only as a training method. In fact, I'd go so far as to encourage all runners to try barefoot running, even if it is only during a warm-up or cool-down, or once a week for a short time.

For some people, I do believe that barefoot running may be the answer to their injury problems. I think there is enough there to suggest that some individuals who struggle in shoes will fare much better without them. However, here's the catch - we don't fully know who they are, and more importantly, why they benefit. We can surmise that it has to do with the change in loading on different joints (as shown by Lieberman and countless others), the proprioception, the strengthening of joints, and so forth. But we simply don't know.

By extension then, there may well be people who simply cannot adapt to barefoot running. In fact, I'm certain this will be the case. They break down and get new injuries, usually of the ankle, calf, Achilles tendon or foot. And these individuals may never take fully to barefoot running. I still think that the fact that they do pick up these injuries indicates the 'stress' and if the body adapts positively to stress, then they too can benefit from barefoot training, if not fully immersing themselves in it. However, for them, it must be recognized that shoes may be the only thing enabling them to run (regardless of whether it is "natural" or not).

And the one thing I would implore the "barefoot evangelists" to recognize is that just because it works for them, does NOT mean it will work for everyone, and so don't make the same mistake we often accuse shoe companies of making when they gave everyone motion-control and stability devices.

The key thing, I believe, is that barefoot running allows us to study shod running better. It invites the realization that perhaps it is running form/technique that is crucial, and by comparing and contrasting the two, we might understand why people run the way they do, and where the risks may originate.

So in short, my answer to that question is "Buy barefoot running as a concept, try it out as a training modality, but keep the receipt so that you can return it if you don't find the "fit" right for you. At worst, you'll discover a new muscle activation pattern, a new and effective training method, and potentially, changes to running form that will help you run better, in shoes"

Back to the debate...

The tale of two Daniels, and confusing a hypothesis with evidence

The first real point of disagreement in the debate came with a theoretical discussion of "natural running". That's a vague, all-encompassing term, and we could have debated it for an hour, all by itself.

But let's just go with it at a superficial level, for now!

Prof Daniel Howell, the barefoot professor, was asked to elaborate on the evidence for barefoot running. Remember, the panel had all agreed that evidence was lacking, so the next question I put is "what evidence do you need, and what do you have?"

Howell's response was that "barefoot running is natural". We are not born with shoes, our ancestors did not run in shoes, and it is therefore natural for us to run barefoot too. To live barefoot, in fact. What is not always as clear is that somewhere along this logic, "natural" becomes a synonym for "better". Howell at one point challenged Simon Barthold, asking him to justify why he said that people need shoes (I agree with Barthold on this one, by the way. At least for some people).

Howell believes that we don't, because it's natural to be barefoot, and that this must be better. I'm paraphrasing of course (I'm sure I'm open to criticism about context here, but that's basically his position, as anyone who heard it will say, I'm sure).

There are fundamental problems with this idea. First, he makes a big error of confusing the hypothesis with the evidence. All he has at this early stage is a theory that can lead to a hypothesis. Prof Lieberman (the other Daniel in the discussion) has a better understanding of this. I had a long lunch with Lieberman the day before, and we discussed the entire debate, and this came up. My point is that we didn't have anti-biotics until recently either, and the result was that many people died as a result of "natural" causes, and the invention of these medicines was clearly a positive step. To equate "natural" with "better" is a very basic mistake to make.

Second, the problem that I think Howell has is that he has not recognized that being barefoot as a runner exists in a larger context, and that context includes about 100 things that make us different from our ancestors. For example, we sit at desks for 8 hours a day, we sleep on comfortable mattresses, we drive, and we "hunt" our food in supermarkets and not in bushlands, we play in shoes (when we're not playing on computer games), and we grow up in them and then at 30, we are faced with a possible change (as a result of this debate). Not one of those things happened before, but every one of them COULD be a contributing factor to injury risk. In other words, weakness of supporting muscles and tendons as a result of years of disuse and TV-watching might mean that being "natural" is a more risky option that being in shoes. There is a real possibility, as stated earlier, that some people need shoes in order to run. The notion that being barefoot works for everyone today because it may have worked for everyone a long time ago is a leap of faith.

Lieberman recognizes this, and it means that he can appreciate that the anthropological finding about what we had on our feet many years ago is not proof of what we should wear today, it's only a starting point for a hypothesis that can be tested.

The skill aspect of running

The consequences of making the over-simplification of "natural = better" are significant. For example, I presented on barefoot running last week, and suggested that barefoot running is a skill that has to be learned. If, like Howell, you believe that natural barefoot running is better, then you don't need to recognize the skill aspect of running. In fact, we know this because he called this skill idea "bull" in a Twitter post recently. The problem is this: The scientific evidence produced by Lieberman shows very clearly that people who have run in shoes for many years do NOT run barefoot the same way as people who have been barefoot for a long period. Thus, there is some learning, some adaptation that takes place, and whether we can all achieve this adaptation remains to be seen.

That is, take the shoes off and you get a pretty dire picture - these individuals continue to heel-strike, at least for a short time, which predisposes them to very high ground reaction forces and a huge vertical loading rate, both of which are surmised to be linked to injury risk. Also, the muscles and tendons are unconditioned for barefoot running, and are then suddenly loaded differently, which further increases the injury risk.

Anecdotally, and from my own coaching (and Lieberman's observations which he shared with me over lunch), new barefoot runners make some fundamental errors because they don't adopt what seems to be the optimal barefoot running gait right away.

If they are running "naturally", however, and we buy into the theory that it's how it was intended by nature, then I fear that we're missing a huge piece of the puzzle, because it is quite clear that not all barefoot running is equal either. And so when people "fail" when barefoot and are surprised, it's probably (this is opinion at this stage - evidence will come) because of faults in the gait, the most obvious of which seems to be over-striding and deliberately forcing a forefoot landing by plantar-flexing at the ankle (pointing the toe down).

This is a recipe for disaster, since it loads the ankle joint on a contracted muscle, and probably led to so many Pose runners breaking down when we monitored a group who'd just learned this technique. I suspect the same risk exists for barefoot running, but it happens "naturally" and if you adopt the historical hypothesis as "proof", then you are blind to this possibility. On the whole, I think that Howell does a disservice to his own advocacy by being blind to the evidence.

But very importantly, if making the transition to barefoot running should be viewed as a skill that has to be learned, then why not view all running as a skill? This is an interesting question and kind of leads into where this debate will go in the future, I think, but more on this later.

The cushioning debate

The biggest point of difference came around a discussion on cushioning and impact forces. Lieberman had the day before presented his Nature study findings, where the impact transient was absent when running barefoot with a forefoot landing, and explained this using an effective mass model. Basically, what he is saying is that when you run in this way, and land forefoot, a lower effective mass decelerates on ground contact, than when you land on the heel. To illustrate this, he used the analogy of a pen falling vertically to the ground compared to a pen falling at an angle of 45 degrees. A greater effective mass "stops" when the pen lands vertically.

This is sound logic, of course. But it led to an argument, because I think Simon Berthold misunderstood the point of the analogy. He had printed off Lieberman's website explaining barefoot running and adamantly criticised Lieberman's explanation. I think it's fairly clear what the analogy was meant to illustrate, and I think there is no doubt that landing on the heel does involve a significantly higher impact transient (just look at the difference in magnitude - it's 700% higher for heel-striking than forefoot landing).

There are some very theoretical questions about the use of this model, and Benno Nigg commented on this, but overall, this was an argument that didn't help the debate, because it obscured the point about impact forces. I think an analogy was mistaken for a literal explanation and Lieberman's website became the focus of argument when we might have been discussing the mechanics a little better. I eventually had to dismiss this discussion and move on, because nothing good was going to come out of it, because Berthold had pursued it down a blind alley to a point where Lieberman couldn't defend the analogy anymore, and Lieberman was getting flustered as a result. End of discussion.

There was some disagreement over cushioning as well. Lieberman's "model" is that part of the benefit of being barefoot is that it reduces the loading rate and effectively removes the impact transient. For this to be beneficial, as opposed to having purely academic value, it has to be shown that these forces on landing are linked to injury. There is some evidence of this from Irene Davis' work, and Lieberman mentioned in the debate that the higher impact forces and loading rates have been linked to injuries like shin-splints and potentially knee problems.

Benno Nigg was of the opinion that it wasn't the impact forces, but rather the forces in mid-stance that were more important. His work suggests that the active forces may be more important, and these are very similar for shod vs barefoot running. One of his big lines of evidence, of course, is to show that the degree of cushioning in the shoe (or running surface) actually doesn't change the impact forces. His explanation for this was perhaps a little rushed, but has to do with the idea that muscle can be "tuned" by activation levels to make it optimal for a given surface. The end result is that whether you run on hard or soft surfaces, the impact is relatively "benign". This became a fairly high-brow biomechanical discussion, which definitely doesn't work in a round-table debate, and so wasn't explored as well as it perhaps needed to be.

Voice of reason: What do shoes really need?

The voice of reason in this debate, as I mentioned, was Mathias Marquard. A highly acclaimed German author of running/coaching books, and a clinician, he adopted a very neutral and sensible view in the debate. His experiences as a runner and a coach had brought him full circle, from going fully barefoot 15 years ago, to now recognizing the value of barefoot running, but not prescribing it. He seems to have found the practical balance, and complemented the scientific discussion very well. He made this point very eloquently on many occasions, and as a result, when I felt the debate was getting off track, he was the "go to guy" to bring it back with pragmatic viewpoint. He was very valuable, mostly because of his pragmatism (and humour!)

It was Marquard who brought up a really interesting question when he said that we need to ask very seriously what shoes actually need to have for running? Do they need massive cushioning? Do they need stability devices? Do they need motion control gadgets and built-up medial arch supports? Do they need rigidity? The answer to all these questions, in his opinion, was "No", and that was one of the most important points to come out of the discussion. It was a point that the whole panel agreed on. There is a perception of needing all these aspects, but no evidence for them, and a real possibility that we're better off without them.

On the cushioning, Nigg and Lieberman both agreed, for their different reasons, and I think on the side of massive motion-control, it's become increasingly clear that we don't need all the devices that used to be common. The shoe industry has already picked up on this, incidentally, and the number of heavy, bulky shoes available has, at least in my estimation, come down enormously compared to a decade ago.

The practical approach

The final point of debate was the practical approach to transitioning barefoot. It was a thread throughout the debate, and right upfront, Simon Barthold asked me the question "If I were to design an experiment to test barefoot running, where a group of runners will do 45 minutes of barefoot running, would my University's Ethics Committee approve that research?".

The answer of course, is no, unless they didn't know any better, because we know that 45 minutes of barefoot running in a population of shod runners is guaranteed to cause injury! This was put forward to Barthold, presumably to illustrate the risks of barefoot running, which is quite true. However, it doesn't say anything about whether barefoot running is good or bad - that's a separate question. For example, if I wrote a proposal saying that I would be putting a group of overweight heart-attack victims on exercise programmes consisting of 30 min a day, that study would also be rejected, but we know that exercise is excellent and even prescribed for this group!

So the point is that it's not bad just because it's risky. It's that it's risky. Simple as that. There is risk and reward, and the practical implication of this is "How do I make the transition?"

This is where, once again, I believe it's vital to recognize the skill aspect, or at least the learning process, and to understand that we don't all learn the same way (and nor should we). Daniel Howell was of the impression that going barefoot first is the best approach. Others, like Barthold, would advocate that you run in minimalist shoes first, lightweight trainers perhaps, then racing flats, to manage the transition. There is really no right or wrong answer here. I think it can work either way, as long as one is very cautious.

You could, for example, build up to say 40 minutes over 3 months, but basically viewing yourself as a beginner runner, starting out with something as basic as 1 min run, 1 min walk for 10 minutes. And then systematically increase as you adapt. Or, like Lieberman did, you can do your normal run, but within sight of home, just take off your shoes and finish the last few minutes barefoot. Do this every second run, each time from slightly further out, and you'll be up to a full run in about the same time.

Change management and running form

I think the key is that while there is no prescribed way, there is a concept, and the concept is that you have to manage the change as though you were doing a training regime for the very first time. It's almost impossible to tell a guy who is running 70km a week to go back down to 10km for a few weeks. He won't do it - he might try, but he'll still err on the high side, and then I think many runners will become injured as a result. So again, it takes recognition that barefoot running is not the solution simply because it's natural, but rather that it has to be learned and adapted to, and then not to simply run barefoot because it's natural and assume that it'll work itself out.

For example, I think it's important to condition the calf muscles before even running. I also think you have to be aware of over-striding and avoid the temptation to actively force the landing onto the forefoot. Let gravity handle the landing. In fact, I think the worst thing to do is to cognitively tinker with running technique, particularly how the foot strikes the ground. I think incremental change will work for most people, whereas wholesale changes that work at a cognitive level equal disaster for most (which is the problem I have with Pose).

There are many other points about running form, and this is probably where this debate will go in future. Nobody knows what "perfect running form" is just yet, and the problem is that it may be individualized based on a set of say 50 different inputs. So what is perfect for me is unlikely to work for you, and this is the reason that some runners are injury free and others are not, I suspect. A runner with glut. medius weakness for example, might succeed with one form, but will fail using "perfect" or better running form, and so on. Injuries are multi-factorial (flexiblity, imbalances, strength etc) and so running form to prevent them will certainly be multi-factorial too.

However, I do think it is wise to at least consider HOW you run. As mentioned, barefoot running is not by itself the answer. It's a means to discover the answer, perhaps, and for some people, it may go on to become the solution. But for most, it's a good way to accelerate the discovery of better running, to strengthen and condition differently, and then to benefit from that later on.

Conclusion - evidence to fill the space between what is known and needs to be known

To wrap up the debate, I said something along the lines of that at that moment, there is a great debate going on, but with many gaps. There is a space between what we know and what we hypothesize, and that gap will be filled by future research. Some of that is on the go already - my lunch with Lieberman was heavily focused on research that he is now doing, and the research that I will soon be doing to get to the bottom of the 'skill' aspect of barefoot running (and thus running as a whole) and also on the long-term injury prospects of barefoot running. That research is coming!

In the meantime, this kind of debate is very valuable, if anyone was there and has some feedback or comments, I'd welcome them. I'm sure my perspective from the round-table will differ from yours in the audience. So as always, thoughts welcome!

UKSEM wrap

The next thing to do is to discuss UKSEM Day 2, which is the day that featured some of the highlights of the conference. Prof Yorck Olaf Schumacher presented on the biological passport, Daniel Coyle presented on better ways to practice and learn, and so I need to summarize those. And of course, there was David Millar's excellent talk on his doping.

But that will come in due course!

Ross

For those not yet saturated by the barefoot topic (which I'll leave alone for now!), check out the following articles from this site:

A presentation on barefoot running, given at the Sports Science Institute of SA recently

A detailed article on the mechanics of barefoot running and the concepts behind it

MOST RECENT: I hosted a Q & A on the Sports Science Institute of South Africa's Facebook page this morning, taking questions on barefoot running from the public. You can read the whole exchange here.

This is actually quite a cool concept, the Facebook Q & A, so look out for more of those in the future!

Ross

Sports Science 2011: Talent vs training and Oscar P

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 23:38:00 +0000

Sports science in the media in 2011: Training, talent, doping and Oscar Pistorius

So yesterday was Day 1 of the fantastic UKSEM conference in London. I gave a presentation on Sports Science in 2011, and that presentation is embedded in the post below. I am a terrible judge of my own presentations, so I'll just say that mine went OK and hope that it did. I always know instantly all the things I haven't explained clearly, when I was clumsy, when I repeated myself and when the point I was trying to make didn't quite come off! But hopefully you can read quietly what I spoke about and it is better than the "live performance"!

I covered some of the more topical stories of the year, but given that I only had 30 minutes, I had to pick three, and they were:

The Kenyan dominance of the marathon, which provided a nice lead in to the training vs talent debate
Doping in cycling, in the context of how doping control changes doping behaviour
Oscar Pistorius, and the scientific cover-up and hatchet job he and his band of "scientists" got away with

The presentation again lacks my voice-over - I may at some stage do a "voice-over" when I have more time, but for now, it should suffice as a read through. Below, I elaborate on part of the talk (the talent vs training part. I may, in the future, do the same for the Pistorius section).

Email subscribers click here to be taken to site to view presentation. All others, click on the grey button, wait for loading, then hover over "More" and click "Fullscreen"

Sports Science in 2011 UKSEM on Prezi

The 10,000 hour concept

The biggest talking point, at least in the discussion I had with delegates afterwards, was the Training vs Talent debate (the first part of the talk). Here, the only reason I included this was because I saw that Matthew Syed who wrote the book "Bounce" was on the programme after me, and his talk was called "The Science of Success". So I decided that it would be good to have a little bit of science on the topic, because he doesn't provide it in support of his "training-sufficiency" position.

Effectively, Syed's thesis is this: Genes and talent are over-rated, and great performers, whether they are sportsmen, doctors, musicians or businessmen, achieve expert performance not because of genetic factors or "talent", but because they accumulate enormous volumes of deliberate practice. He has a few examples of this, and makes a compelling case, at least on the surface.

But when you really interrogate what he is saying, then you realise that the reality is that he is saying that in order to succeed at something at the highest level, to become an expert performer, you need to practice. OK then... nobody should be surprised at this, and nor would they be. The problem is that his (and Gladwell's) position seems to exist outside of a world where genetic factors also have an influence, and it's this exclusivity in his thinking that forces a closer look.

Unnecessarily polarizing the complexity of performance by ignoring genes and talent

So the issue is not that they advocate hard work and a lot of training, it is that they downplay the importance of talent or innate ability. I emphasized this in my own talk, but it bears repeating - if Syed is correct, and the secret to success is training and accumulating many years and hours of practice, then Talent ID is a waste of time and money. We should rather spend that money on getting 100 more children to train, because they should all (or most) become champions, provided they get through the required hours.

Note that this also completely overlooks the fact that children tend to do what they are good at, and that simply running a child through a "10,000 hour factory" is an imagined concept only. I guess the real question is why are some children good at something almost within the first moments that they start it, thereby encouraging them to do it more? It seems to me that this could be an innate difference too...

In a competitive sport, training is obviously a crucial determinant of success

But the theory that practice is important is so obvious it doesn't need emphasis. As soon as you have competition, then within a narrow range of individuals (the top 10 tennis players, or the Olympic finalists, for example), training will become a crucial determinant of who wins and loses.

In "a small pond", where there is no competition, it's possible to succeed with talent alone. Just think back to school level athletics, when there's no competition, a young athlete can show up on the day and dominate to win. But the higher the level, the better the competition, the more important training becomes. And those individuals who get attempt to by on talent alone are washed away in this more competitive landscape. Syed made this point, and of course he's correct. But the key is that the athlete who succeeds all the way to the Olympic podium is the one who dominated without training (that is, he's talented or genetically gifted), but then also trained incredibly hard to stay a champion as the competition intensified. In otherwords, he has BOTH talent and training.

In fact, I challenged him on this after his talk, and basically made the point that if he had walked into that venue today, with 200 people in the audience, and asked them to please raise their hands if they thought that sporting success was ENTIRELY genetic, he would have been the only person with his hand in the air. He may have been laughed out the room had he tried to propose that the current belief is that success is all genetic. Everyone knows that it is not.

Yet he seems to have arrived at this belief that someone out there believes that expert performance is achieved solely on the basis of genes and natural talent. Now, maybe I missed this in my studies, but I have not once heard this theory. The established theory in sports science is that many, many years of training are required to hone and refine skills and physiology in order to become a world or Olympic champion. The reality is that sports science does NOT believe that it's ALL in the genes, and nor do they believe that it's all about training. So the first problem with the 10,000 hour concept is that it attacks a straw man that need not exist.

To polarize the debate the way that he (and others, most notably Malcolm Gladwell) have done is unnecessary, and it has quite important financial and policy implications for where money should be spent by sports federations and coaches to help improve performance. Their books and emphasis are not without merit, certainly - they have emphasized how important it is that we recognize that not all young aspirant athletes develop equally, and that we may need to consider how coaching is provided to more children to prevent some from falling through the cracks. But sports science already knew this. What these books have done is spawn a theory that now says that practice is sufficient for expert performance, which it clearly is not.

The work of Elferink-Gemser, who presented today after Syed, confirmed this, because she has been studying the progress of young sportspeople for 10 years, and has found large differences between children in terms of how they respond to training sessions and coaching. But more important, she finds that it is possible to predict which children will become professional within the first few years of them entering the sports academy. In other words, by the time children are 15 or 16, there are already differences between those who will become "great" and those who are merely "good". It has little to do with accumulating the "magical 10,000 hours". The mere fact that these young athletes have such different responses to training tells you that you can't generalize potential performance to a group, and that the outcome of training will also differ between individuals.

The three 'failings' of the 10,000 hour, "practice is sufficient" model

I think there are three key points about this 10,000 hour concept:

Firstly, if you can find ONE case of an exception, then you have disproved the "rule". That is, if you can find a guy who trains 10,000 hours but doesn't succeed, then you have shown that it's not sufficient. Or, if you can find a guy who trains only 5,000 hours, but who does succeed, then you have shown that it is not necessary.

And the truth is that both of these cases exist, everywhere. Baker has shown it in triathlon, it has been found in chess (so it's not only "physiological" sports where innate ability seems to matter), and it has been found in football, wrestling, field hockey, skeleton. Every single sport has examples of athletes who have shot to the top within a few years of starting the sport, and it is littered with athletes who fail despite doing 20,000 hours. Today I spoke with a woman whose husband taught music for a school for gifted musicians in New York, and they discover children who within months of starting are playing at near-professional expert levels. Now, unless those children have managed to get 10,000 hours of training in in one hour (by discovering how to slow down time), they have achieved expertise well before the theoretical minimum.

There's no question that talent, or innate ability, or genetics, play a role.

The second point is that there is no good evidence at all to suggest that 10,000 hours is required for expert performance. The study that is always cited is a violin study, which found that expert violinists had accumulated an AVERAGE of 10,000 hours by the time they went to music school, whereas those who were merely good had done 8,000 hours. Two problems. First, you can't infer cause from this kind of retrospective study. Who is to say that the talented, genetically gifted violinists didn't train more BECAUSE they had more talent from the age of 8? Perhaps their innate ability was the catalyst to get them more practice (mom sends them for lessons, and they enjoy it). And secondly, the study showed absolutely no indication of ranges or variance. So we don't know whether there are some people who became experts with less training, and nor do we know whether some failed despite doing their 10,000 hours, because the author did not show that data. I hope I don't have to emphasize that if either of these people exist, then the theory is wrong.

Which brings me to the third point about this theory - it is entirely unfalsifiable. To the "evangelists" who proclaim that anyone can become an expert if they just practice enough, it's too easy and too convenient to simply dismiss the exceptions because they clearly didn't practice in the right way. So if someone has done 25,000 hours and has not succeeded, then they simply say "He obviously didn't practice the right way". Or if someone becomes an expert in only 3,000 hours (which happens, all the time), they say "He must have compressed his 10,000 hours into a third of the time".

So it's a completely unfalsifiable theory. It cannot be proven, and it cannot be disproven. Therefore, it does not belong in science.

What the science does say - "responders" and "non-responders"

What does belong in science are studies that look at how different individuals have been shown to adapt to training. And sure enough, those studies exist, though Gladwell and Syed would never admit to them. The Heritage study, for example, took hundreds of unrelated people and gave them standardized training programmes, and then measured the responses.

The result? A complete spectrum, ranging from those who show absolutely no response to training, all the way to those who improve by more than 40% as a result of training. And as expected by the scientific theory, the difference between these people can very reliably be linked to genetic factors. Specifically, there are Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) which account for half this training resopnse. Individuals who have 9 or fewer of the identified 21 SNPs are the "low-responders", whereas people who have 19 or more of these SNPs are "high responders".

The answer therefore is that it's not about having different genes, it could also be about having different variants of the same gene, the result being that you and I show completely different responses to training. And you have to ask yourself, if you are a coach, would you rather have an individual who is a "high responder" or a "low responder"? And more importantly, if you have $100,000 to invest in a sport, where do you spend it to find a champion? On talent ID, to find those "high responders", or do you believe that anyone can succeed if you just spend the money to help them all do 10,000 hours of training? In terms of policy, it's clear that the science, at least for this physiological variable, points you in the direction of finding the right people to spend the money on. And that means understanding the value of genetic factors to performance.

And just to dispel the idea that skill-based activities benefit more from training, when you look at studies in chess, you find that there is a massive difference in the time taken to reach Master level - some do it in 3,000 hours, some have been at it for 25,000 hours and counting. In darts, 15 years of practice (almost 15,000 hours) only accounts for 28% of the variability in performance. In otherwords, 72% of the difference in performance between two players cannot be explained by the hours spent training. In darts...

In sport, countless studies show that elite athletes get to the top within 6,000 hours of starting their sport, and the success of Talent ID programmes proves that talent transfer (something that is impossible if the 10,000 hour theory is correct) exists.

Conclusion - training is the realization of genetic potential

The bottom line is that a theory of deliberate practice gives us one important message - if you want to succeed, practice. Coaches around the world breathe a sigh of relief, you're not redundant. But this is so obvious, I guess the reminder is always good though.

But the application of this theory, and the dismissal of genes that it somehow seems associated with, is a huge oversimplication and wrong, at least for sports. Syed today argued about school performance, and about how teachers should downplay the idea that some children are more "talented" with numbers or better at mathematics than others. And that's fine, because whatever helps people improve is great. But if we're in the business of finding Olympic champions, then this theory has no place in its polarized form.

Not only this, but it could be extremely damaging. If you take it literally, and you buy into a 10,000 hour concept, then you'll be obliged to start training a child at the age of about 10, because you need them to become world-class in their early-20s. All good and well, except the evidence shows quite clearly that the earlier you start intensive training, the LESS likely you are to succeed. And so there are all kinds of implications for how we manage children's sport participation.

The ultimate conclusion, in my opinion (and as always, I welcome your views), is that training is nothing more than the realization of genetic potential. Without both, you will not become an Olympic champion (in a competitive sport, that is). Training will improve everyone, and so everyone should be encouraged to train. But genetic factors determine where we start, how we respond to training (trainability), how much training we can tolerate before burnout or injury (because let's face it, chess players rarely get injuries that force 6-week layoffs, like stress fractures), and finally, where the "performance ceiling" exists.

Training will get you to your ceiling, you'll realize your genetic potential. But will it win you a medal? Only if you chose your parents right!

Ross

P.S. For a more detailed discussion of these issues, please do read the previous two articles I wrote on the subject:

Barefoot running: An overview

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 07:15:00 +0000

Barefoot running presentation: Overview of the science

So last night, at the Sports Science Institute of South Africa where I'm based, I gave a presentation on barefoot running, aimed at the public. A big topic, obviously, always guaranteed to pull a good crowd and generate lively debate. Which it did.

It's a topic I've covered in great detail before on this site, with approaches ranging from a look at the evidence for shoes, to the findings of the latest barefoot running research. I fly to London tonight for the UKSEM conference, where I'll be chairing a debate on running injuries (among other talks), and which will probably be one of the highlights of the meeting, since it includes Daniel Lieberman and Benno Nigg, both of whom have done research on this subject. So there'll be more to come from that, no doubt.

But for today, I just wanted to share with you the presentation that I did last night. It will lack the sound and my explanations, of course, but most of it should be fairly self-explanatory. For those who want to read through a more detailed description, you can read the article I wrote after the ACSM meeting earlier this year - most of the concepts covered in the presentation below are also described in that article.

I would say that the three key points about this whole debate are:

Evidence linking the mechanics to the injury outcome still lacking

There is as yet no conclusive evidence that either proves or disproves the benefits of shoes or barefoot running, or links the mechanical characteristics of barefoot running to a reduced risk of injury. That is, for all the work showing how impact forces and loading rates are reduced when barefoot, it remains to be proven that this leads to lower injury rates. I began last night's talk by saying that this was the first time a "scientific" presentation would be given with so little conclusive scientific evidence! There are plenty of theories, of course, and some are sound, but we await the real evidence for the injury and performance side of the debate, which will come from long-term, prospective studies.

Recognize that running barefoot may be a skill and that people acquire skills at different rates (or not at all)

The evidence so far suggests that barefoot running produces some potentially beneficial changes, mostly related to how running form and kinetics are altered without shoes. However, it also points to a potentially large group of people who, when running barefoot, may have increased risk of injury, especially early on - these are the people who continue to heel-strike when barefoot, and who may "force" a forefoot landing, leading to huge strain on the calf muscle and Achilles tendons.

The key point is that barefoot running (and thus running in general) should be recognized as a SKILL, and it is clear that we do not all have the ability to acquire skills equally. Those who do not may be substantially worse off, and require much longer to make the adjustments. Whether they should even try is a good question.

The issue however is not necessarily whether barefoot running is "good for you", but rather whether barefoot running helps us understand anything about how we run that might help us reduce injury risk. If barefoot running provides these answers for a given runner, then of course it would be enormously beneficial. But it may be that simply learning about barefoot running helps runners in shoes just as much!

It's also vital to recognize that huge differences may exist between individuals: some adapt very quickly to minimalist shoes or barefoot running - these people are the "responders" and they tend to go on to become "evangelists" who tell everyone to throw away their shoes! At the other extreme, however, are non-responders, who, for reasons unknown, will battle to run without "traditional shoes". In both cases, we have to be careful about generalizing the "extreme" observation to the general population. That's the mistake shoe companies made when telling everyone they needed all manner of gadgets in their shoe, and it's a mistake that people now make when advocating barefoot running.

We do not fully understand why some people adapt faster than others. The studies required in the future need to assess how biomechanical and neuromuscular changes are learned and relearned when running barefoot, and then to establish whether this impacts on injury risk. Those will come, in time.

Worth a try, or inclusion into training. But respect the length of the investment: Change management

In terms of advocacy, I believe that barefoot running will help most runners. It may be as part of a training programme where barefoot running helps with adaptation because it loads the joints differently, activates muscles in different patterns and therefore provides a good training impulse. For some, barefoot running (or minimalist shoes) will go on to become the "only way". For others, it will remain a training technique, and that's fine too. But I'd certainly look at incorporating it, just for the training adaptations it provides.

The key, as mentioned in #2 above, is to recognize that going from shoes to either minimalist shoes or barefoot is a skill and involves a significant change. Therefore, it's essential to respect the time that it will take to fully adapt to the different loading stresses associated with running either barefoot or in minimalist shoes. I've given an illustration of a programme in the presentation, where I've 'budgeted' 12 weeks to build up to 40 minutes of solid running (plus 2 to 4 weeks of preparation). Some people may take even longer than this - the question that has to be asked then is whether it's worth it? Is a 6-month intervention worth the benefit, when the benefit hasn't yet been clearly established? I doubt it.

Nevertheless, if you're sold on the idea of giving it a try, recognize that you're making a long-term investment, and that if you simply continue your normal training barefoot, you're pretty much guaranteed to get injured!

More to come in the future, I am sure. Looking forward to meeting Lieberman for a few runs along the Thames, and we will be discussing the future research that needs to be done!

Until then, enjoy the presentation below! Again, click the grey arrow, hover over "More" and click "Fullscreen". Email subscribers click here to visit the site to view presentation

Ross

Barefoot running on Prezi

Read the previous article on barefoot running with more detailed explanations of the topics covered in the presentation

UCT Research in 2011: Wrap-up

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:18:00 +0000

Wrapping up the 2011 academic year: UCT/ESSM research cocktail party conversation topics

Such a busy time recently, hence the big gap between posts! I am off to London tomorrow for the UKSEM Conference, where I will be presenting three talks. The first is on Sports Science in the media in 2011, where I'll tackle the topical stories of the year (Oscar Pistorius, doping in cycling and the Kenyan marathon dominance and the genetics vs training debate).

The second is on the fallacy and oversimplification of the 10,000 hour concept, because I saw from the conference programme that Matthew Syed of "Bounce" fame would be presenting a talk called "The Science of Success", and I feel it's important to at least counter this with some science....

That is, to present the proper scientific view of the role of genes in performance, because unlike Syed has said, genes do not play little to no role in performance, and it is definitely not "all about the training" (for more on this, you can read the posts I wrote back in August this year).

And then the third talk will be on doping and the limits to performance. I guess it's topical again now, with the "sub-2 hour marathon debate" once again opening up, albeit very prematurely. If you followed the Tour de France coverage on site these last few years, you'll also be aware of the idea that there is a physiologically believable performance limit, and that's the topic of the third talk at UKSEM.

Then I'm also going to chair a round-table discussion on running injuries, which features Daniel Lieberman (of barefoot running fame) and Benno Nigg (biomechanics guru), among others. As a matter of fact, I'm giving a presentation tonight at the Sports Science Institute of SA on barefoot running, which I'll share with you as soon as it is done.

So all in all, UKSEM should provide plenty of fodder for the site in weeks to come. Assuming I can find the time to post!

ESSM 2011: The academic year ends

But for today, I just wanted to do a recap of the year in research at the University of Cape Town, where I am jointly employed. The unit is the Exercise Science and Sports Medicine research unit (ESSM for short), and last week, we held our annual year-end function. This is a function where all those eager and interested "guinea-pigs" who have volunteered to be studied as part of our research get to come for a finger-dinner and listen to a few presentations on our research. It's just feedback and information, mostly to say thank you for their time (and blood, sweat, tears and occasional muscle sample), but also to get sports science out, to translate it in a way that makes it more accessible.

My mission from the evening has always been to give each person one item of "cocktail party conversation". That is, next time they're at a social event, whatever it is, they need to be able to say "Hey, I heard about this really interesting stuff being studied at Sports Science, where they're looking at..."

So my presentation on the evening was to summarize what the ESSM Unit had been doing in 2011. Consider that we have about 40 people involved in research at a time, and that's no easy task - it means effectively trying to summarize 40 years of research, assuming each person has had a productive year, into a 30 min presentation!

But below is that presentation. I created a mock-up newspaper, with "articles" featuring some of the research areas, and then I did a short interview with the relevant scientist responsible. Each "interview" was 2 to 3 minutes long, where they elaborated on their work, a few questions, and then moved on as I took the audience through the "newspaper".

There's no sound, unfortunately, so the detail is absent. But this is really just a filler and to showcase some fo the work that the unit is responsible for. It doesn't get nearly enough air-time, in most instances.

Enjoy, and speak to you again from London!

Ross

P.S. Presentation may take a while to load. Just click the grey "play" arrow, hover your cursor over "More" and click "Full-screen".

Oh, and if you get this in an email, please CLICK HERE to be taken to the site where you can watch the presentation

ESSM feedback 2011 on Prezi

The marathon era: A seismic shift and commercial influence

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 15:41:00 +0000

The (r)evolution of the marathon: An unprecedented era

The marathon is in the midst of a quite extra-ordinary and unprecedented era. This was encapsulated on the weekend by an incredible performance from Geoffrey Mutai in winning the New York Marathon in 2:05:05, breaking the difficult New York course record by an astonishing 2:38.

Only a week earlier, Wilson Kipsang, until then an unheralded name in marathon running, gave Patrick Makau's six-week old world record a real fright by running 2:03:42 in the Frankfurt Marathon.

Kenyan dominance

But then again, perhaps we should not be surprised at what Kenyan marathon runners are producing this year. Mutai's victory in New York wraps up the 2011 Major Marathon season, and it means, quite incredibly, Kenyans have won every single major marathon this year. No exceptions. They took London, Boston, Paris, Chicago, Berlin, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, New York and the IAAF World Championships in Daegu, Korea. Even more amazingly, the course records in every single one of the World Marathon Majors has been broken THIS YEAR (all by Kenyans, of course). The London record fell to Emmanuel Mutai (2:04:40), Moses Mosop won Chicago in 2:05:37, and then Geoffrey Mutai bagged two, first in Boston in that amazing 2:03:02 (admittedly, wind-aided), and then New York this past weekend.

And of course, there was Makau, who took Gebrselassie's world record in Berlin with his 2:03:38. The world is used to Kenyan dominance in distance events, but not like this. Looking back, Kenyans have consistently made up more than half of the world's top 20, so it's not too surprising. However, their "monopoly" has always been broken by the odd Ethiopian, a Moroccan. They have, to date, been absent in 2011 - Kenyans occupy every one of the top 20 places in the world-rankings, and the highest ranked non-Kenyan this year is Marilson dos Santos of Brazil in 21st place. The best placed Ethiopian is Bekana Daba, down in 26th (he is also the first non-Kenyan to win a marathon of any significance this year - Houston in 2:07:04).

But in the larger scheme of things, Kenyan dominance aside, the marathon is currently in the midst of a quite remarkable "paradigm shift". It was less than a decade ago that the world record stood at 2:05:42 (Khannouchi). Jump ahead, and the average time of the top 10 in the world has been FASTER than this since 2009. And consider this: having been the fastest time in history until 2002, FIVE men bettered it in 2008, 7 in 2009, 8 in 2010 and 9 in 2011. The world record from a decade ago would now only just scrape into the top 10. It is an incredible surge in both quality and depth, the likes of which have not been seen in any event before.

Putting the marathon evolution into context - the stats

To put this into context (and a graphical form), I looked back over the last eleven years of marathon running. And below is a graph that is pretty heavy on data, but it shows four key stats:

The bars represent the AVERAGE time of the top 10 athletes per year
The blue diamond shows the world record time coming into the year (as it stood on Jan 1 of that year)
The black circle shows the fastest time in each year
Below the graph, two numbers - the top one is the number of runners who broke 2:07 and the lower number (in maroon) is the number of Kenyan athletes in the Top 20 of the world rankings

What you are looking at here is a shift in performances, particularly over the last three years. For example, look at the black circles, showing the fastest time in the world each year - since 2007, the fastest time in the world has been better than the world record as it stood in 2007. In other words, the performance that would have broken the world record in 2007 is now beaten yearly. The average time of the top 10 men since 2009 has been at least 20 seconds faster than Khalid Khannouchi's 2003 world record of 2:05:38!

This exceptional increase in quality has been accompanied by a huge growth in depth - the cumulative number of sub-2:07 performers in 2009, 2010 and 2011 is greater than the preceding eight years. A typical year used to see between 5 and 10 sub-2:07 performers. This year, it's 25 already, with 20 and 19 in the preceding years.

And finally, the Kenyan dominance has become, if anything, more dominant. Marathon running has always been the domain of the east Africans. The only year in the above graph when east Africans did not dominate was 2001 - back then, five out of the top 10 were Europeans. However, every year since, Kenya have produced more than half of the top 20, with the bulk of the remaining places filled by Ethiopians.

Interestingly, the Ethiopians are now absent from the top lists. Three will race in New York this week (Gebremariam, Kebede and Lelisa), but their absence has cleared the way for near-complete monopolization at the top by Kenya.

The progress of the evolution

That dominance aside, and looking at the larger picture, it is interesting to track the seismic shift in marathon running. Back in 2003, when Paul Tergat broke 2:05 for the first time, it was a taste of what was to come, but interestingly, it didn't produce an immediate change in the way the marathon was raced, as we are seeing now. Instead, the times in 2004, 2005 and 2006 went back to pre-Tergat days - the number of sub-2:07s declined, average time got slower and nobody came close to threatening 2:05 again.

This first drop then, was the "Tergat-effect", but it would take a few more years for the next kick to happen. It was inevitably going to come, however, because in the 1990s, the world records on the track were being broken in astonishing amounts by the athletes who would soon move up in distance. When Tergat and Gebrselassie, the two champions of that track-generation, eventually moved up to the marathon, it was inevitably going to break barriers.

Tergat was the first to succeed, whereas Gebrselassie took longer. Not that he was unsuccessful, and he topped the yearly lists with amazing consistency. But the big breakthrough took until 2007, when he ran 2:04:26 to win in Berlin. That, in hindsight (and one must be careful to find patterns where there are none) was the performance that broke open the flood-gates.

2008 ushers in the "brave new world" with Wanjiru and Geb showing the way

The following year was 2008, and Gebrselassie went even better, breaking the sub-2:04 barrier, and all of a sudden, a host of other runners were breaking 2:06 - call this the "Gebrselassie-effect". It's not shown on the graph, but in 2007, Gebrselassie was the only man under 2:06 (so the "Tergat-effect" had still not caught on). In 2008, however, it's a different story - five men broke 2:06, the first time since 2003 that anyone other than Gebrselassie had done it. Of course 2008 was notable for the breaking of another barrier - 2:04, when Haile Gebrselassie ran his 2:03:59 world record in Berlin.

That Berlin performance was perhaps not even the most significant marathon of 2008. As long-time friend Jim Ferstle points out in his comment below, it was Sammy Wanjiru's performance in Beijing that may have been the real catalyst for the attitude of marathon runners today. For it was his courage and fearlessness, on a hot, humid day in Beijing that transformed the marathon from an event that demanded caution to one where aggression would be rewarded. Jim wrote about this recently, ahead of the Chicago Marathon, and he sums up the "Wanjiru-effect" very nicely.

Remember, no Kenyan had ever won gold in the marathon - it was a glaring omission from the world's dominant distance nation, and Wanjiru responded to that pressure in a manner rarely seen. Tactics? Fast and hard early, conditions be damned. Many would have warned against a suicidal pace early on - Wanjiru seemed to interpret this as a means to kill off any pretenders to gold. It was, and remains, one of the great dominant marathon performances ever seen. And so the next time you watch a major city marathon and a Kenyan man is surging at 30km while on world record pace, think of Sammy Wanjiru...

And so perhaps it was the combination of Wanjiru showing the world a new attitude towards marathon running, and Gebrselassie showing it a new target, a 2:03:xx, that lit the way into the era we now find ourselves. In 2009, we saw two men race head-to-head and run 2:04:27 in Rotterdam, and another six would break 2:06 that year. So in total, that's EIGHT sub-2:06 performances, and now the floodgates were open and runners, most of the Kenyan, were pouring through it.

Commercial forces: Driving marathon at the expense of track

Kenyan dominance is however nothing new, so something else must be in play to explain why the last three of four years have seen such a shift in the event. It's still too early to tell if this is just a golden patch (and if we're being fooled into seeing a pattern where there isn't one), or if something real is driving it, but there are some good debates about it. There's always a good discussion of genetics, training, opportunity and culture when it comes to Kenyan distance running, and that's a debate I will save for another time. For those who want a taste of what the talent vs training discussion involves, you can read Part 1 and Part 2 of my series on this from a few months ago.

But one of the key factors driving the current shift, I believe, is the growing commercial value of the marathon (for the event organizers, that is). In the past, there was a pretty well-established "pipeline" that led a great runner onto the track for a few years before he turned to the marathon later. The exception was the athlete who never quite possessed the speed to compete over 10,000m, and who would turn to marathons early. But this runner had a capacity of maybe 28-min for 10km, and so was always going to battle to run much faster than 2:08. However, as a result of being in this pathway, the best track runners often stepped up to the marathon when they were 5% beyond their very best, in the twilight of their careers. The result is that the "experiment" of taking an athlete with 26:30 potential (ala Terget and Geb) and exposing them to marathon training and racing had never really happened.

However, this seems to have changed, and runners with tremendous pedigree are racing marathons much sooner than was the case a decade ago (it would be very interesting to compare the average age of the winners and top 10 of the big six marathons now and in 2000). The late, great Sammy Wanjiru was perhaps the first to make this move, racing marathons at 20. He pulled along a host of others, again, mostly from Kenya, who are racing marathons having by-passed that track pipeline.

From a commercial point of view, it's really interesting to consider why the marathon attracts so much money compared to track. It's mostly dictated by sponsorships and very importantly, who owns the rights to the event. For potential sponsors, the ability to engage with many thousands of runners (New York had 47,000 for example, who succeeded in a lottery that attracted a staggering 140,000) is superior to taking out what is effectively a billboard at an athletics meeting made of up 100 athletes and 25,000 fans for one night only.

The total exposure and awareness is much higher for a marathon, because the event is self-standing, the focal point of all sponsor advertising, and usually involves much more television coverage and a week-long expo to allow what is called experiential marketing. Being seen is not enough given the clutter in the 'marketplace' - what sponsors want is to be experienced, and the marathon affords more opportunity to leverage the sponsorship to potential customers.

Allied to this, there may be more focus on health and participation, and also a reduction in the sponsorship spend in general as a result of the economic climate, and the net result is that an event for the masses may appear far more valuable to a potential sponsor than an elite spectator event. What money is available is funneled to those 'products', and therefore, a relatively smallish event like the Frankfurt Marathon can attract valuable sponsorships.

It is not for nothing that the sponsorship value of the New York marathon rose 30% in the last year, despite the economic conditions that are negatively affecting sponsorships in many other sports (including athletics). The marathon, at least at that large scale, remains 'recession-proof'. The impact all this will have on track and field is another matter entirely. In the words of one agent, "Track is Usain Bolt and clapping hands", and it has a fight on its hands to sustain interest.

These marathon sponsorships in turn find their way down to athletes in the form of appearance fees (essential, because guaranteed income always trumps potential income, it's a valuable premium) and prize money for successful athletes.

And athletes are not exactly in short supply - the demand to race from within Kenya is extra-ordinary, and for every Kipsang, Mutai or Makau, there could be ten more who COULD produce similar performances given the right support and circumstances. The end result is that there are now dozens of lucrative opportunities, extreme competition to secure those opportunities, and performance is being driven ever faster as a result. The culture of the sport in Kenya further tears down barriers, and so more and more athletes are recognizing a) how fast they can run, inspired by others, and b) what riches and rewards await them when they do.

All in all, it's a perfect melting pot, and a possible (and brief) explanation of what may be driving the graph above. Of course, there's much more to it than this, and the genetic discussion is too good to miss, especially for a sports science point of view. Perhaps for another time!

Until then, enjoy Kipsang's pursuit of the World Record from Frankfurt, and a really great marathon finish - I agree with the Letsrun.com guys, this is what the sport needs to get even more commercial value!

Ross

Rugby World Cup: The ref debate

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 21:51:00 +0000

It's been a long time between posts - busy work periods, lack of inspiration, lack of news stories (well, that's not entirely true!), but pick the excuse. Apologies for the long break. I'm back with a viewpoint on rugby - probably not the topic of interest for most of you reading this in the USA, but as our national sport in SA, felt compelled to put it out there! I'm planning a series on fatigue, probably as a series of short video posts in the coming week, so hopefully that breaks the silence on sports science! Join us soon! And for those who followed the Rugby World Cup, congratulations to New Zealand. Some thoughts on the refereeing below!

Rugby World Cup: New Zealand's drought ends and rugby's referee problem

So 24 years of waiting is over for New Zealand, who beat France 8-7 in a pulsating and perhaps unexpectedly competitive Rugby World Cup Final today. It may have been the lowest scoring final ever played, but it was suspenseful and adventurous, certainly more than the previous two finals. France produced a performance worthy of the showpiece match of the tournament, having come into it with two losses and the anticipation of a blowout victory to New Zealand. Rather, it was France who played the adventurous rugby, and only some ineffectiveness in attack and New Zealand's resolute defending prevented them from winning their first title.

Instead, New Zealand won their second, but it was significant in that they have been, for the most part, the best team going into each of the six World Cup tournaments, sometimes by a large margin. Having failed to win the World Cup on five occasions despite being the favorites had earned New Zealand the tag of "chokers", a team that peaked between World Cups but failed to deliver when it mattered. Two of those famous defeats came at the hands of France (in 1999 and 2007) and so when this French team stood firm and began to control the match following a second half try that brought the score back to 8-7, a blanket of anxiety settled over Eden Park in Auckland.

Choking vs panic

There were times when New Zealand appeared close to panic in this final - they were flustered, made unforced errors, chose poor tactical options and generally seemed to be hanging on and defending a one-point lead with desire rather than application. At this point, it seemed to me that had New Zealand NOT won this World Cup, it would have been because of panic, rather than choking (an explanation that is just too convenient to use, and unfairly earned, not only by NZ rugby by also by SA cricket). Their composure deserted them, though the injury to their flyhalf, which meant that they played most of the final with a fourth choice pivot, certainly influenced their tactical approach. As did their lead, and they seemed more concerned with defending the one-point advantage than playing proactively, which set the final 30 minutes up as France with the ball, New Zealand without it.

For an explanation of how choking differs from panic, and why a team that loses a match is not necessarily choking, read this piece by Malcolm Gladwell. I've never really been fond of simply throwing out the excuse of "chokers" every time the more favored team loses - sometimes you are just outplayed or out-thought by a team who are better than you on the day. The margins in international sport are so small that this can happen fairly easily, and it's too simple to say "New Zealand choked", when in fact, France may have simply been unbeatable on a given day, as was the case in 1999. For a comparable case in tennis, Federer's loss to Tsonga in Wimbledon earlier this year is the best I can think of - sometimes, however great you are, the other team/player just rises to a level that no one would match, and it's your bad fortune to be there at the time!

The influence of the referee in rugby

However, the tactical and technical nature of the game is not what I want to focus on in this post - that is something that rugby websites around the world will do enough of (see this example for a match report).

Instead, I thought I would give some of my thoughts on a topic that follows every rugby match, and that is the debate and criticism of the referee. The reality is that the referee in a rugby match has become incredibly influential in determining how the game is played. The result is that rugby has a growing credibility problem, where every match threatens to degenerate into objections about the performance of the referee, rather than assessment of the relative performances of its players. Whenever the result on the scoreboard can be dismissed as being the result of someone's opinion or bias, there is a problem.

And this has happened in virtually every close match in the 2011 Rugby World Cup, which will be remembered not solely for the on-field performances, but for weak referee performances, some of which have been questionable, some outright poor. The most controversial of these probably came in the Quarter-final, where Australia beat South Africa 11-9 in a match that was later alleged to have been "bent" as part of the condemnation on the performance of referee Bryce Lawrence (more on my views of that allegation later)

Rugby presents a unique challenge in that the referee is required to make a specific decision about a contested tackle almost 200 times a match (once every 30 seconds), and this decision is multi-dimensional, instantaneous and open to interpretation. As a result, these decisions (and there are so many of them) influence the game to the extent that accusation, criticism and allegation are inevitable. It's part of sport, certainly, but rugby seems more prone to accusations that "the ref helped ABC win" than any other sport. The problem is that from this point, it's a short journey to allegations of fixing, corruption and cheating, when the problem may be simple incompetence or interpretation of the tackle rules of the sport. Either way, the credibility of a result is called into question.

This situation exists because so much of the contest in rugby revolves around competing for the ball after a tackle, in the breakdown contest. The attacking team needs to recycle possession quickly, whereas the defending team are at worst trying to slow it down to re-organize in defence, at best trying to win the ball on the ground. The result is a huge contest, the outcome of which goes a considerable distance towards determining the match result, but which is itself determined by how the referee interprets how both sets of players test the boundaries of the law (because this is what players will do, understandably - it's like football players trying to play close to the offside line)

A unique situation?

I cannot think of another sport where the interpretation of the rule by an official so clearly influences the way that teams play the match. In football (soccer), the most contentious decisions are those when a penalty appeal is made, offsides is ruled, or when foul-play is adjudged. They are fairly clear-cut, and far less frequent than in rugby. And certainly, they can influence matches in a big way - I'm not downplaying how significant a referee decision can be. In the NFL, decisions can be similarly significant, but usually involve clear transgressions of rules. Tennis, there's no influence, particularly now that television replays are used. And similarly, cricket umpires are often criticized and single decisions can be very influential, but with TV assistance, the incidence of these has certainly come down. If there is a sport that I'm missing, please let me know.

The rugby situation - too much interpretation

Rugby is different - the most contentious decision in rugby is one that is made on average twice a minute (five times a minute if you use ball in play time rather than total time), and it influences the next minute, rather than being a decision in isolation. Consider that a typical match has about 170 rucks (or contests for the ball in a tackle) , and you realize that there are probably 100 decisions (because not all are contested the same way) where the referee must interpret, in a split second, a dizzying array of laws, and where each decision has implications for what follows.

Different referees have a different sequence or approach to the decision, but they must judge, more or less in order: how the tackler interacts with the tackled player, when the tackle actually occurs, that the tackler releases the tackled player, that the tackled player releases the ball, when the ruck is formed, that players arriving to join the ruck remain on their feet, and that they join from the correct position and do not seal the ball off to prevent the contest. Add in that there are often multiple tacklers, so the referee has to decide who the tackler is, and you appreciate that within half a second, there's a lot to judge. Then the next problem is that many times, four or five things happen more or less simultaneously, and so it really is a judgment call.

Ultimately, what the decision comes down to is a) assigning roles to the involved players, and b) deciding on the order in which events occur - every tackle has similar events, and the job of the referee is to sort through the order in which they occur, and if he sees a different order to you or I, then his decision will be accordingly different. And this is precisely what happens to make these decisions so contentious.

I've been fortunate enough to work with the SA Sevens team for the last three seasons, and at every tournament, the IRB Head of Referees, all the coaches and technical staff of competing teams, and all the referees have a sit-down meeting a few days before the tournament starts. The meetings involve discussion around how the referees have been instructed to officiate and usually include clips of tackles and rucks from previous tournaments. Now bear in mind that this is Sevens, where the contest involves fewer players and with less congestion than you'd see in 15s, and then consider that even so, there rarely agreement in these meetings. The situation in 15-man rugby is of course even more complex (though the tackle contest may be more significant in 7s, but that's for another discussion!)

For each clip, one coach will point to the tackler, another to the tackled player, another to the arriving player, another to the offside line, each one pointing out a different possible transgression PER RUCK! Mostly, it boils to disagreement about the order in which events happen, and which player should be entitled to do what. Eventually, even in slow-motion, it takes consensus or a swing vote to sort through the order of decisions that a referee must make. Even then, it's often a 50-50 call as to whether a player released the tackled player or the ball and so on (if you are reading this without much knowledge of rugby and you're confused at how complex it sounds, well, that's exactly the point!)

A general approach to the decision and its implications

The reality is that rugby, by design, prioritizes the contest for the ball on the ground, and therefore the spotlight falls squarely on the man who must judge whether players are transgressing those laws. Simple on paper - there is a very distinct set of rules governing the tackle. But here's the problem - the rules may be clear, but the judgment of them is not. So much is open to interpretation, and it is interpretation that happens in an instant, while on the run. The result is that a match can very, very easily look 'influenced' by the referee, who generally speaking, can take one of two extreme approaches to how they cut through this organized chaos to make a decision. Call it "conservative" vs "liberal" decision-making, but at its simplest, a referee is going to lean one of two ways.

The first approach is to over-police the contest (the conservative). The result is that the referee will appear to punish legitimate contesting for the ball, and will reward penalties frequently, forcing players to back right off, killing the contest for the ball. This favors the team in possession. Alternatively, the referee can under-police the breakdowns (liberal), and allow much more to go unpenalized.

Importantly, when this happens, the result is that the defending team will usually be favoured, because the referee will fail to prevent them from slowing the ball down, and slowing it down creates a disproportionate advantage. I believe this is what happened in the South Africa - Australia match, where the rucks were highly contested and too much was allowed on the ground. The result is that the defending team is advantaged. But, significantly, the problem in that particular match is that the defending team was mostly Australia.

The stats reveal this - South Africa had 131 rucks, compared to Australia's 44. That is, for every one opportunity for South Africa to contest and slow down Australian ball, there were three chances for Australia to do so. So, by allowing too much contesting, the referee effectively gave Australia three times as many chances to push the limits of what was legal (and some would say exceed those limits).

When one team is as dominant as this (in terms of possession), and the more liberal referee is making the extreme "decision" to under-police and allow more, then it will always appear that he is deliberately biased. The reality is that if the possession was equal, and if both teams have the same number of rucks, then nobody would really notice the referee because BOTH TEAMS would get away with slowing the other team's ball down! You'd get a very messy match, but the liberal referee would be far more "anonymous" because his leaning affects both sides equally.

Instead, this match was one-sided, and South Africa seemed to be on the receiving end of an unfair performance. I do think that Lawrence was poor, and I do think that his poor performance affected SA more, but it wasn't deliberate. And as for match-fixing? Not based on decisions that didn't go our way, no. Rather, I think that the referee was poor and didn't do enough to control the rucks, but my point is that this may be because he was either instructed to allow the contest, and "over-applied" the instruction, or he just has a natural inclination to be liberal towards the contest.

In the case of Bryce Lawrence, it would not surprise me if he was told to allow a contest for the ball, because earlier in the tournament (in the Aus v Ireland match), he was criticized for penalizing Australia TOO MUCH at the breakdown. I strongly suspect that what happened next is that he was asked to be a little slower on the whistle, and he erred on the other extreme, and didn't do enough. In the end, it appeared that South Africa were hard done by, but as I have said, that's more because whenever one team dominates play, an error like Lawrence's appears to favour the team without the ball (Australia).

Analyzing referees - navigating with a broken compass

It may not surprise you to learn, for example, that many international teams now attempt to analyze referee trends, so that they can attempt to guess whether a given referee is likely to decide one way or the other. At the most basic level, for example, you can look at whether a particular referee tends to award a penalty to the attacking team or the defending team to get an idea of that referee's "in-built bias". This partly reveals whether that referee's priority in assessing the breakdown is whether the attacking team player releases the ball (penalty against the attacking team) or whether the tackler releases the player (defending team). You can then go further to see whether the referee is more or less lenient on the tackler or the tackled player and the arriving supporting players from either team.

The problem with this approach is two-fold. First, it's subjective. When analysing clips, you have to judge not only what the referee does decide, but what he does not. This means you have to make a call yourself, and this brings us back to the point about disputable situations, especially because on TV, you don't see what the referee does.

The second problem, more significant, is that the referees, in my experience anyway, are too unpredictable to code in this way. They are influenced by individual players and teams, and they change their approach too often, probably because they are very susceptible to suggestion and to the instructions coming down at them from their superiors.

For example, we tried this in the Sevens setup,but it was a futile quest, because the referees changed their approach too often. We worked out that what was happening was that the IRB were evaluating the referees and providing feedback on their performances (which is a good thing, of course), but this feedback was influencing the way that referee approached their next match. The result was that for each referee, if you plotted a graph showing how they made decisions, it would look like a zig-zag curve of mountain peaks and valleys - one week they leaned one way, the next week they went the other. And so trying to pre-empt how they would decide was like navigating with a broken compass.

Yet again, what this showed is the "unstable" nature of the decision-making process. Again, 170 decisions per match, each one in a fraction of a second at speed, with five or more variables to assess is going to introduce some "interpretation", and the problem is that this can lean one way or another very easily.

Emotion - the inherent bias when working backwards

The other factor in all this is that emotion and passion are such significant influencers of how we interpret this watching on television. Fans (and even neutral spectators) have an inherent bias (it's what makes them fans!) and the result is that when they assess a referee performance, they exist in a world of black and white - the referee is either right or wrong. Unfortunately for rugby, the decision is rarely black and white. It is grey, because of the previously mentioned decisions around judging the order in which events occur, and who does what in the tackle, and so there is always conflict between what fans see and what is actually happening on the ground.

Consider an example from football (soccer): A player scores a goal but is offside when he received the pass. The referee/assistant see this, and the goal is correctly disallowed. On first viewing, a fan who feels that his team has been robbed can make all manner of accusations including match-fixing and bias, but a replay will prove him wrong in most cases. Similarly, in tennis, the ball is either in or out, and in the Hawkeye era, there's little dispute over those calls. NFL, there are debatable calls (pass interference, roughing the passer etc), but they're much less frequent and different in nature to the ongoing, continuous rugby tackle calls.

Rugby, however, has a much more subjective decision happening 170 times a match, and that's why I laboured the point about how "grey" the decision-making process can be earlier in this post. The end result is that people who watch matches can make the logic mistake of working backwards. They then interpret their observations to fit their theory, and of course their desired theory is that their team must win!

It's a lot like bent science, in fact, in that you start out with the finding already "known" (in a fan's mind, there is only one team that can win - they "know" the result before the match!). Then you have a series of "experiments", also known as the tackle situation, where the outcome of each must be known too. The entire match is an observed experiment, and unwittingly, people mix emotion with interpretation and they will come up with accusations of bias because their observation will always fit their model. This is the danger of looking for proof of what you already believe, because you will always succeed at finding it!

Don't trust the passionate perception

I made this mistake myself when working with the Sevens team. Every single decision was "wrong" as long as it went against our team! Such is the desire to win, that I stood on the sidelines and could not believe that a penalty should not be awarded to us. We lose the ball, it could only be because the other team cheated, and the referee missed it!

Only in the cold light of day, often the next morning, sitting in the hotel lobby, did I have the opportunity to review the match, sometimes to talk to the referee and he would explain what he was seeing as he made the call, and then it became much clearer to me that what was "obvious" to me was in fact "obvious" in exactly the other direction! I was wrong, pure and simple. But at the time I could not see that I was looking at it incorrectly. I learned to have a deep mistrust of my own perceptions in those emotional, stressful situations, and learned instead to wait, hold the opinion and rather decide when removed from the passion and emotion. It was a valuable lesson.

Sometimes, of course, the referees did make mistakes - more than once, I still believe we were wrongly judged and that it cost matches. Sometimes, referees even admitted it, and apologized. But we have also been the beneficiaries of the decisions, and that's the result of rugby's tackle rule. It certainly needs to be fixed, but this was a difficult lesson to learn, but an important one.

The reality is that fans need to step away from the emotion, and if they did, they may, in the case of South Africa anyway, recognize a few other reasons why it was New Zealand, and not us, lifting that trophy in Auckland yesterday.

The solution - analysis and a scorecard

As for the solution, my bias as a scientist is to measure and analyse, so that's where I'd look for rugby's problem. And transparency would help - no one really knows what the IRB does with referees - they are accused of being a "protected species", which may not necessarily be a bad thing, but I do feel that some more open discussion would help. At the moment, it's all left to the media, and in this day and age, the "media" now includes social networking, and so the public WILL have their say, and they are rarely going to be diplomatic in the absence of information. Rather control the perception by making some information available (it's a lot like the Caster Semenya case - the secrecy around her testing and treatment only fueled the flames and allowed people to make up the "truth". And that version is always worse than the real truth).

And for rugby, the solution to me is that the performance of referees needs to be evaluated more transparently. A panel of independent officials could analyze matches, producing a report on the match. This report could analyze every single one of the 200 decisions a referee has to make in a match. How many of the 200 were incorrect? 20? 30? And of those 30, how many were clear, conclusive errors, and how many were interpretive calls? One has to build in this human interpretation element, because it would be wrong to think that one can accurately judge off TV when the referee is 5m away from the decision he is making.

And of those conclusive errors, do they favor one team? If you find for example that 30 decisions out of 200 are wrong, and 90% of them go against one team, then you have some weight behind accusations of bias or fixing. But until that kind of evaluation is done, people speculate, and speculation is almost always worse than the truth.

Especially when the passions of die-hard fans are involved. Just ask any referee...

Ross

Berlin 2011: Inside Makau's 2:03:38 World Record

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 11:19:00 +0000

Inside Makau's world record

Patrick Makau has broken Haile Gebrselassie's 3-year old world record with a sensational run in Berlin, clocking 2:03:38. You can read my real-time comments and thoughts at the live post I did during the race, but below is a more detailed look at Makau compared to that 2008 record of Geb's also in Berlin.

The graph below compares the 5km splits for Makau's 2:03:38, to those in the previous record of 2:03:59. It's an ideal comparison because it's the same course and very similar race situations with an organized attempt, pacemakers etc.

The red line shows Gebrselassie's 5km splits, the green line Makau's. Below each marker is the cumulative time gap between Geb and Makau in seconds. And at the top are the times for the individual segments, with the 2011 vs 2008 gap for that segment beneath it.

Makau's is a world record that was clearly established from 10km to 35km, whereas Gebrselassie owed his to a very fast final 20km. He got faster and faster from 25km onwards, whereas Makau put himself in an excellent position by halfway, blew the race wide open with an incredible sixth interval of 14:20 (25 to 30km), and then hung on to the finish.

The precision of pacing

The first point about looking at pace is to emphasize just how incredibly precise one has to be to run at this level and to beat a world record. Consider for example that we're celebrating Makau today because he broke the record by a fairly large margin - it was 21 seconds. Geb had broken it by 29 and 27 seconds in his two records, respectively.

In fact, in the last seven records, the margin of record-breaking has been 23 seconds, 4 seconds, 43 seconds, 29 seconds, 27 seconds and now 21 seconds. The point is - world records don't get "smashed" anymore. And 21 seconds over 42 km, you can work out pretty easily is 0.5 seconds per kilometer and thus only 2.5 seconds over each 5km interval. I think it's safe to say that any runner who goes out and runs 2 sec/km faster than a world record is heading for a major meltdown!

That's amazing precision, and should be borne in mind when considering the splits, because the elite field are on a razor's edge, and so particularly the first half has to be very accurately paced. Today, the first half was run just under one second per kilometer faster than the previous record, and it was consistently paced up to halfway. There was talk of it being too fast, but in the end, it was a sustainable pace...just...and so very good to begin with.

Makau's race - building a 'buffer' and hanging on

The dashed line in the graph above shows the required pace per 5 km segment to match the world record - it's 14:41.5 per 5km. Today, Makau was faster than this all the way to 20km, building up a 'reserve' so that by 20km, his time of 58:30 put him on course for a 2:03:25. Also, up to this point, the pace had been very consistent - those "bumps" you see in the first half represent a range of only 1 second per kilometer, and the field was always faster than the required pace.

The comparison to Gebrselassie in 2008 is also interesting. The opening 10km was basically the same - 29:17 for Makau vs 29:12 for Geb. Then, from 10km to 20km, Makau began building his buffer - had there been a "virtual Gebrselassie" on the road, Makau would have been pulling further and further away from him.

A 14:34 and a 14:39 put Makau up by 12 seconds and then 20 seconds at 20km. He'd have been over 100m ahead of Gebrselassie at halfway. At this stage, the commentators were talking about it as being "suicidal", which it certainly was not. It was fast, but the way the race was to unfold (hindsight is wonderful!), this was actually very solid pace setting, because the race was pretty much on course for a mid 2:03:20 from the outset.

Makau's surge

Then things started to open up. The race fragmented after halfway - a group of 11 was cut very quickly, and soon it was Makau, Geb and about three pacemakers. I'm not 100% sure what happened at around 27km, but it was here that Makau made what would be the race's decisive surge. He went to the front, Gebrselassie stepped off the road just after 27km and Makau just kept going.

He hit 25km in 1:13:18, fully 47 seconds ahead of what Gebrselassie had done in 2008. That segment, covered in 14:20, was easily the fastest of any of the three world records set in Berlin since 2007. It was a huge surge, and to put into context what Makau was doing, Geb, despite stopping, was 1:10 down at that stage. That means that Geb was only 23 seconds slower than he'd been on route to his world record, but now found himself trailing by over a minute (and he'd stopped, of course).

The question now was not so much whether Makau could sustain the pace, but rather whether that surge would cost him? He had built up such a buffer that he could afford to run the final 10km in 29:49, which was much slower than anything they'd been producing up to that point.

Hanging on, holding pace and running alone

The next 5km were actually the most significant period for the record - having surged at 14:20 pace, it was here that we'd see a substantial drop-off if there was going to be one. Makau was now all alone, just the clock and the race car for company. But he held it together enough to run a 14:38 for the segment. That was actually quicker than Geb over the same interval in 2008, and meant that Makau extended his "lead" over the virtual Gebrselassie to 49 seconds (as seen on the graph).

Now, with only 7km to, only a massive blowout would cost Makau the record, and the question was whether he'd hold that pace, and break the record by over 45 seconds, or whether he'd come back slightly. But the world record was now pencilled in.

The answer was that he would pay for the early pace, but only a little. His final 5km segment, from 35 to 40km was easily the slowest of his race, but it was still 14:59. Compare Makau's line to that of Gebrselassie, who built from halfway to get faster and faster when he broke 2:04 in 2008. Makau's graph is "going the wrong" way, but not quickly enough to save the record.

The result of Makau's slowing, however, was that suddenly, that gap of 49 seconds to Gebreselassie in 2008 was cut to 19 seconds. However, there were only 2.2km remaining, and the pace he needed to run to match the record was now 3:04/km, so his "fatigue" was not costing him enough to save the record. Also, Gebrselassie had slowed significantly in his final 2.2km back in 2008 as well, so Makau just had to hang on and claim the record.

At 37.2km, with 5km to, I timed Makau as needing to run 15:20 for the final 5km, and it was clear that though he was fighting by this point, he wasn't going to implode to that extent! The 6:23 for the final 2.2km was in fact similar to Gebrselassie in 2008 (6:25) and it gave Makau the record by 21 seconds.

Optimal pacing?

The first half was run in 61:45, the second in 61:53. That's near enough even pace (you'd be picky to argue over 8 seconds), but the two halves were constructed very differently - look at the green line in the chart to see that. Of course, the theoretically perfect race is exactly even, no variation, but you never see that. Makau was definitely more variable than Gebrselassie in 2008, but that's largely because of the 14:20 he put in just after halfway, and the fact that he slowed to a 14:59 at the end.

The most striking difference between Makau 2011 and Gebrselassie 2008 is the shape of the curve over the second half. You can see this in the graph very clearly - Gebrselassie got faster and faster after halfway, Makau was up-and-down. Again, this was the result of his 14:20 and the 14:59 that it 'cost' later.

The first 20km were a talking point during the race - it was considered too fast to sustain, but in the end, it was pretty precise, based on the halves. All in all, I'd say it was very well paced, from a global perspective. But a more conservative sixth interval (25km to 30km) might have left Makau with a bit more for the final 10km, and that may have helped him a few seconds faster.

Future of marathon running - 2:02:59 looms

But really, that's all we're talking, a few seconds. And it's hard to fault Makau for this performance, which is simply exceptional. It means that we've seen three performances under 2:04 this year alone, though of course two of them came on the Boston course, which was massively wind-aided this year (and won't stand, though not for that reason!)

Makau is now the marathon king, with three wins in five starts. It's actually extra-ordinary to think of what Kenya in particular have in the marathon. Geoffrey Mutai and Moses Mosop were the Boston runners who nearly broke 2:03, and then Abel Kirui dominated the World Championship marathon in Daegu with the kind of performance that would suggest that he's capable of something very close to 2:04 as well. This record, exceptional as it is, may not have too long a shelf-life!

As always, attention will now turn to the limits for marathon running and people will start talking about sub-2 hour clockings. That's a little premature - if each record lasts say 3 years (because weather and pacing can undermine even the most gifted athlete), and if the times improve by around 20 seconds per record, we'll be commenting on another eleven world records and will be waiting until 2044 for that to happen. If it happens at all. That kind of speculation is always fun though.

It certainly seems as though it's a matter of time before 2:03 is challenged, perhaps a decade or so, if the next generation are as exceptional as the current one. If it happens, we'll be on it!

Ross

Berlin Marathon 2011: Live

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 06:43:00 +0000

Berlin 2011: Magnificent Makau 2:03:38!

Patrick Makau has broken the world marathon record. He raced to a 2:03:38 on the streets of Berlin, breaking Gebrselassie's world record by 21 seconds. It was a terrible day for the Ethiopian emperor - he stepped off the road soon after Makau launched a big surge at around 27km, and while he did resume running, he was not a factor and it seems that he bailed some time later.

The questions will begin again - it is Geb's second DNF if two marathons, after New York. On that occasion, he retired, and questions will now be asked again. It's a sad way to go if it's true - two DNFs and the loss of his world record.

But today, it was Makau all the way. Below are the splits (for the men - I lost track of the women's race as the men's world record became more and more apparent), and my comments as the race unfolded.

For a more detailed breakdown of the race, including a comparison between Makau 2011 and Gebrselassie 2008, click here

But briefly, halfway was reached in 61:45, which projects a 2:03:30, and that was more or less the pace from the start. Makau and Geb were in the group, 11 strong, until around 25km when things began to fragment. That's when Makau, perhaps sensing a weakness is Geb, pushed the pace, and under the pressure of his surge, Gebrselassie stepped off the road. He seemed to be clutching his stomach - it was either a stitch, stomach cramp, or maybe asthma. We'll find out later.

But the pace of the Makau surge was brutal - 14:20 for the 5km segment from 25km to 30km, and that's what took Makau from being in with a shout to having a real shot at it. He did pay for that surge later in the race, and when we compare the splits later, you'll see that Makau got slower and slower from that point onwards.

But he had enough of a 'buffer' in hand - he was 49 seconds ahead of Gebrselassie's time at the same point in the 2008 record, and 45 seconds ahead of the pace required to break the 2:03:59. So even though Makau did slow over the final 5km in particular, he had the record in the bag, and went on to break it by 21 seconds.

That's the short version - below is my coverage of the race as it unfolded, and here is the more detailed breakdown for those interested.

And thanks for following our live coverage of the race!

Splits

Men Women

5km - 14:36 (2:03:13 pace) 5km - 16:37 (2:20:14)
10km - 29:17 (2:03:34) 10km - 33:16 (2:20:22)
15km - 43:51 (2:03:21) 15km - 49:50 (2:20:11)
20km - 58:30 (2:03:25) 20km - 1:06:32 (2:20:22)
Half-marathon - 61:43 (2:03:26) Half-marathon - 1:10:11 (2:20:22)
25km - 1:13:18 (2:03:43) 25km - 1:23:15 (2:20:31)
30km - 1:27:38 (2:03:15)
35km - 1:42:16 (2:03:17)
40km - 1:57:15 (3:03:41)
Finish - 2:03:38 Finish - 2:19:44

Apologies - in all the drama of the men's world record, I missed a few women's splits, and the truth is, Kiplagat was just churning out consistent kilometers. I'll see if I can update the splits later.

The men's race deserves more analysis, and so I'll have a closer look at that in a follow-up post

Commentary

Comments in reverse order - most recent at the top

Finish

WORLD RECORD!

2:03:38

Makau has done it, he has held on to break the world record by 21 seconds! That was a hard effort at the end, Makau was fighting over the final 5km but he did it, and did it in style. Even vaulted the advertising wedges in the finish straight to do it!

More analysis to come, including a comparison of this race with Geb's 2008 record. Check in shortly!

40km

Makau is hanging on to world record pace - the last 5km was run in 14:59, and Makau only needed to run 15:20 to get this record. So he is on course for a 2:03:41. He has slowed slightly - the last interval was easily the slowest of the race! But he has a buffer of sorts, and the last 2.2km are a race against the clock!

In 2008, Geb reached 40km in 1:57:34. Makau reached it 19 seconds faster (1:57:15). But remember, he was 49 seconds ahead at 35km, and so he is "losing ground" to the virtual figure of Gebrselassie on the road!

6 minutes of running is all that stands between him and the WR. It's going to be a great finish!

37km

Makau is still on course for a big world record. It's looking more and more like he is not just going to edge it, he is going to smash this record! He's looking at a sub-2:03:30 time, and this is history in the making!

5km to go, and Makau needs to run it in 15:20, this is a world record on the way!

35km

Makau is on course for the world record!

Makau is out on his own now - it's a tough, tough ask to race the final 10km at world record pace. You'll recall that Gebrselassie had James Kwambai with him in 2008. The time at 35km is 1:42:16. In 2008, Geb covered it in 1:43:05.

So Makau is still ahead, and he is holding onto the pace he needs. To put it into context: At 30km, Makau was 47 seconds ahead of Gebrselassie's split from 2008 (1:27:38 for Makau vs 1:28:25 for Geb). Now he is 49 seconds ahead, and so the world record is on! Makau has run these 5km as fast as Geb did in 2008 (14:38)! But the section 35km to 40km is where Geb really picked it up 3 years ago! Does he have enough in reserve to do this? Fascinating finish in prospect!

32km

With 10km to go, Makau needs to run 29:49 to break 2:04 and the world record. It's definitely on, the only question is how Makau recovers on the run from that 14:20, and whether those first 20km were just too quick?

30km

It's Makau's race now - he's out in front with two pace-makers for company, probably over a minute clear of Gebrselassie. The last 5km were run in 14:20, which is incredible - that was the acceleration that pulled Makau clear of Gebrselassie, just before the Ethiopian stepped off track. That was very, very quick and now the race, and possibly the World Record's, is Makau's to chase. His projected time at 30km, by the way, is 2:03:15.

The big question is what the surge takes out - Makau now has to consolidate - it may be "only" 12km to go, but the potential for time losses here are enormous. He needs to run just inside 3 min/km to get that world record. That is definitely doable, and this could be a great race to the line against the clock!

Gebrselassie is up and running again. One of the pacemakers has dropped back and is now pulling him again. He seems to making ground on those runners between himself and Makau. He is 1:10 down on Makau, and we'll check that again at 35km to see if Geb has really recovered. Quite extra-ordinary developments with Geb stepping off the road and now seemingly back, running still well under 2:04:30 pace!

27.2km

Gebrselassie has STOPPED! He was dropped by Makau and he has stepped off the road, clutching his stomach, bending over and cearly in trouble! Maybe asthma - he seemed to gesture that he was unable to brath. Either that or a stomach problem. Cramp/stitch maybe. He is crouched over. Now he is back running again, but he's lost big ground. What a great pity!

Gebrselassie is now running again, and doesn't seem to be going too slowly. It is very peculiar because he really did look to be in trouble there. He was either struggling for breath, or had some kind of cramping or stitch pain. But to reverse that and resume racing a minute later...very interesting. We'll get you a split of the gap shortly, and keep an eye on it.

25km

The men have now begun to slow - the last 5km were run in 14:48. It's the first time that a 5km split has been outside of the pace required for a world record (that's 14:41, by the way). The projected time is now 2:03:43. However, I can tell you that if they maintain the 14:48 pace for the rest of this race, they will finish in 2:04:12.

The TV coverage keeps flashing a projected finish time of 2:03:05, which is never going to happen. not sure where that projection comes from. Makau and Geb playing games shadowing one another! A taste of things to come? The last 10km might be very slow if they start racing and playing tactical battles

On the women's side, no change. Kiplagat ran the last 5km in 16:43.

Halfway

The men's halfway split is 61:43. Easy maths - it projects a 2:03:26. The world record is now a definite possibility (it was at the start, of course). The key will be after 30km, when most of those pace-makers drop out, and we're left with Makau and Gebrselassie. Then we'll see if the early pace is costly. If the pace is going to drop, it's going to be 25km to 40km. Fascinating race developing though - the possibility of Geb vs Makau needing a 29-min final 10km to break the WR is mouth-watering.

Kiplagat has reached halfway in 1:10:11, 19 seconds ahead of Radcliffe. If both keep going at this pace, they'll run 2:20:22 and 2:21:10 respectively. That's probably a "par" for Radcliffe, given the build-up and hear she has had. For Kiplagat, it's a good comeback after failing to finish Boston.

20km

Still no sign of slowing - after hitting 15km 12 seconds faster than the WR split from 2008, they ran a 2:58 and a 2:55. So not surprisingly, they hit 20km in 58:30 . The 2008 split at 20km was 58:50, so they're 20 seconds ahead of that. That's a big improvement - it projects a 35 seconds breaking of the world record. The last 5km, incidentally, were done in 14:39, so they're holding faster than WR pace. Every split so far has been faster than the WR pace. It's still an 11-man group.

Kiplagat has continued to roll - 16:42 for the last 5km, so a small slowing in the pace. She is 17 seconds ahead of Radcliffe, who has now dropped back to around 17 min/5km pace. Unless there's a dramatic change of fortunes for one (or both), the women's race is developing into a victory for Kiplagat by just over a minute. She's on for a 2:20:22 still.

15km

The men have actually sped up on the last interval - 14:34 giving them a 43:51 at 15km. For comparison's sake, when Geb broke the world record in 2008, he hit 15km in 44:03. They're actually saying that they ran the 15th kilometer in 2:45, which is unbelievably fast. I'm more inclined to call that an error in the distance markings than a real time! But it's very fast. It now projects 2:03:21, so they're setting up an incredible day. Or a big meltdown over the final 10km!

On the women's side - a big development - Kiplagat is nine seconds ahead at 15km. Radcliffe has dropped off the pace somewhat. Kiplagat has run with amazing precision. The last 5km were 16:34, for a 15km split of 49:50. Radcliffe came through in 49:59, so that's interesting. Kiplagat meanwhile, has produced splits of 16:37, 16:39 and 16:34, and she's on course for a 2:20:11. Will keep an eye on Radcliffe to see if she's going back, or holding that gap.

10km situation

The men have hit 10km in 29:17, so that's 14:41 for the last 5km. The projected time now is 2:03:34. There are still 11 men there, five of them pace-makers. The other four (excluding Geb and Makau) are running many minutes faster than their bests, so that group could get very thin very quickly once the pace-makers start dropping off.

The commentators are saying that it's unusual for Gebrselassie to misjudge the pace. I remember the Dubai race a few years ago where he went through 10km in a mid-28 time, projecting 2:02. And I think the same happened the next year. So it's not entirely unusual.

In the women's race, Radcliffe and Kiplagat have already opened up a sizeable lead over Mikitenko. Their 10km split was 33:16, a last 5km of 16:39, so they're rolling along at the same pace. Projects a 2:20:22.

5km reached

The men hit 5km in 14:36. That's 2:03:13 pace, so fast, but that's normal for the first split. There are eleven men in the lead group, five of them pace-makers. Gebrselassie and Makau are there. They've requested 62 minutes to halfway, so if they get that, they'll be on course for a world record, and a race between Makau and Gebrselassie at that pace will be fascinating. Early days yet.

Nice slow-motion shot of the elite runners feet landing - notice how they're heel-striking? Gebrselassie in the yellow shoes - used to be a very clear forefoot striker on track. It's a quick transition to mid-foot though, so the definition of "heel-strike" is disputable. Flat at best. But it sure isn't a fore-foot strike...

The women are on course for a 2:20:14 at 5km - 16:37. The split was Kiplagat's, with Radcliffe listed at the same time. So far no coverage of that race.

Shots of Geb training in Ethiopia now. Nice touch for the human side of the race.

Pre-race

They're saying there are 30 pace-makers in the race today. Not all for the elite men, but for various groups. Of course, the build-up to this race included discussion of the role of pace-makers given the IAAF's recent decision that they will not recognize women's records set in mixed races, because this allows women to be paced by men.

I appreciate the reason for this, but I can't help feeling that if men are able to be paced to 30 or 35km, then women should receive at least the same benefit. Of course, women's running lacks the depth of the men's race, and so they can't find six or seven women to get to 30km in the 1:40 required for a 2:20 marathon. So women are either advantaged (by having men as pace-makers all the way to the finish), or disadvantaged (by having no pace-makers, or pace-makers to only halfway, for example). There doesn't seem to be a middle ground.

But there's no question that the men get a large benefit - when the current record was broken by Gebrselassie, he was surrounded by men for 30km and then had Kwambai for "company" over the final 10km. It's impossible to quantify the advantage this would provide, but it's fair to assume that it does help for a variety of reasons, both physiological and psychological.

To me, the best solution would be to allow men to do a pace-maker job for women, but only up to 30km. Enforce something similar to the Ironman triathlons, where there is a "no drafting" rule that prevents athletes from riding in groups. Why not have a rule that says after 30km, any men who are pace-making for women must drop back by a minimum of 50m? They can still finish, but may no longer support and set the pace for the women. Seems like the most reasonable compromise, given that it is a tricky situation, where either of the current situations creates advantages and disadvantages.

Anyway, enough of that, the race is about to start...

IAAF World Champs: 800m women, questions but few answers

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 12:37:00 +0000

Women's 800m: Savinova pips Semenya

The women's 800m event deserves a post all of its own. I'll post on the rest of the day's action a little later, but the women's 800m gold has just been won, and it wasn't Caster Semenya winning it. Instead, it was Mariya Savinova of Russia who won in a very quick 1:55.87, edging Semenya in the final 50m. Semenya ran 1:56.35, easily the fastest time she has done since her Berlin triumph two years ago, when the controversy began, and Janeth Jepkosgei took bronze, reward for her efforts in setting the race up with a very fast first lap.

The race was an intriguing tactical one - Janeth Jepkosgei took the pace out hard (26.61s first 200m), and led through the bell in 55.86s, with Semenya in fifth and Savinova sixth, about 5m behind. Savinova had clearly decided that she would mark Semenya the whole way, and as Semenya made her move down the backstraight, she followed. 600m was reached in 1:26.07, a 30-second interval for Jepkosgei, probably half a second quicker for Semenya, who was on the shoulder of the leaders and poised to move clear.

Coming off the final bend, Semenya had taken the lead, and it looked like a dead certainty that she would run away from the field. Given the fast pace up to 600m, a repeat or even an improvement of the 1:55.45 of Berlin looked on the cards. But Savinova held her, and with 50m to go, began to close the 3m gap that she'd held her at down the back straight. In the final, 20m, Semenya faded and Savinova come through to win gold.

Caster Semenya - the questions will continue

Semenya again looked very relaxed, casual even, when being passed for gold in the final 20m, and I am sure that there will once again be suspicions that she "lost deliberately". In the aftermath of her semi-final, where she looked completely dominant, that theme began to reappear, with chat forums resonating with the theory that Semenya had been losing races on purpose this season to keep the attention off her.

I am sure that the questions will continue, and Semenya will again be labeled as either a cheat (if she wins), or a 'fixer' (when she loses, as people suggest, on purpose). I think both are slightly unfair accusations, and require some clarification and context. Certainly, she is not a cheat - she may well have had an advantage as a result of whatever intersex condition may have led to increased testosterone levels, but that's not the same as cheating. So again, I'd caution against "personalizing" the debate, making it about Semenya. It's not too different from Pistorius case, actually - it's not a question of cheating, but is a question of unfair advantage. And that's certainly a valid concern, which is why the post-Berlin process happened.

In Semenya's case, and I've written this before, I am fairly certain that in the aftermath of Berlin, she did receive some medical treatment. There is no other explanation for the length of time that it took to clear her to run. A legal issue would have taken weeks, maybe a few months, but to miss nearly a year can only be explained if there was medical intervention that required observation. Also, if you look at the IAAF's latest position stand on intersex conditions, they have clearly learned from the Semenya experience, and it's no co-incidence that the statement includes mention of correcting testosterone to normal female levels. The IAAF, I think, knew that they had to intervene, and I believe they did, setting a precedent that they then wrote into future policy.

So I'm confident in saying that there was chemical treatment to reduce the testosterone levels. That would also explain the injury problems, the inconsistencies, and the relatively poorer performances in the last twelve months. If that is the case, then people can of course still object to Semenya's participation on the grounds that she has "historical" advantage because of the shape of the skeleton etc. But I believe that most advantages would diminish soon, and certainly will over more time.

My opinion is that if her testosterone levels have been within the normal range for six months, and continue to stay there, then I'd be satisfied that the advantage is no longer of concern for competition. She would be at the extreme in certain respects, but not threatening to cross the 'line' we draw to make the distinction between male and female competition. Of course, when she runs 1:56.35, less than a second slower than the Berlin time, people will question the effectiveness of the treatment, and that will be an interesting debate to follow in coming weeks.

Monitoring of an intervention?

The big question, however, is monitoring of those levels. The irony is that if Semenya has received chemical treatment, then she may be one of the only athletes in the world who is required to use drugs. And failure to use the drugs (dope) would be the problem. If Semenya's participation is dependent on lowering the testosterone levels, then ensuring the effectiveness is crucial.

Now I don't know how this has been monitored. Is it possible that Semenya can stop medication and return to the Berlin situation? I don't know enough about the process, how long the treatment would last or how effective it might be (will make some enquiries with endocrinologists) and so I'll steer clear of speculating on that detail. But I believe that if the testosterone levels were raised (which is a near certainty), then the right thing was done in reducing them, and I have no objections to Semenya's participation, providing it is monitored regularly.

Semenya's racing strategy

As for the theory that Semenya is running slowly on purpose, I can appreciate why people think that, because certainly, I can't think of many athletes who look as casual as Semenya in any race situation - it is so startling how she seems to "jog" when others are failing. But I see it differently. There are far better ways to win a silver medal, lose a race and divert attention of yourself than what Semenya did today. If she was deliberately trying NOT to win, then it would be far easier to come through late, especially in a race like today's where early pace is fast and the gaps are large. Would a late charge from sixth to second (possible if you watch the race) not divert attention more than a fade into silver? But instead, Semenya attacked the race with 250m to go, assumed the lead, ran in front for the world to see, and looked to be going away before losing gold.

That's a sure way to attract attention, not to deflect it, (for proof of this, see the forums which are already buzzing with allegations of "tanking on purpose"). I remain unconvinced about this deliberate loss argument. I think it more likely that Semenya is just a runner who always looks casual, regardless of race situation or effort. Back in 2008, at the World Junior Championships in Poland, Semenya finished seventh in her heat and looked the same as she did today - she seems not to have it in her style to lose form and look like she is straining. It may be the shape of her skeleton, the large upper body and that she seems to 'lope', and I think this is more likely than the theory that she hit the front, opened up a lead in the final 50m of the World Champs, and then decided to lose the race on purpose from there.

The lack of transparency

In all this, the biggest issue has been the lack of transparency and the secrecy. The initial leak was of course wrong, and Semenya should never have been subjected to public speculation about her biological sex. But once out, once the world knew there was a problem, it was critical to resolve the situation, or at least reassure people that something had been done to ensure fair competition (even if that meant announcing that there was no advantage to begin with - people wouldn't have believed it, but it would be something).

That was, of course, Semenya's prerogative. The IAAF could not announce that there was a condition and that it had been treated, because the medical information belongs to the patient. So I felt from the outset that Semenya needed to disclose something. Not the full details, not a complete description, but something to assure people that her participation had been cleared and perhaps that she would continue to co-operate with the authorities in the future. Maybe even release testosterone level results today, in the same way that some cyclists have taken to making public their blood data as part of the biological passport system.

The problem we have now is that everyone knows half the story, and in the absence of facts, they will create the other half! And, whether the result of being misinformed, ignorant or hostile, the blanks that are filled in will almost always be worse than the reality. The end result is that Semenya loses either way, and the only way I can see this being overcome is to control the information herself.

But instead of truth, what we have is a shroud of secrecy, mostly from Semenya's management. Her management team have made some extra-ordinary statements, including one that she was going to win the double in Daegu, even though she was not even entered into the 1500m. They have asked for millions for sponsorship back here in South Africa. They also hinted recently that she would be asking for money to give interviews to the media, which is astonishing.

You can't blame Semenya for her mistrust of the media, but the moronic press releases made by her PR and management teams defy belief, and only serve to heighten the focus (and negative attention) on her. She'll find a great deal of sympathy (as she should) for her character in continuing the sport, for her resolve, which has been incredible. But she'll also face a great deal of hostility because of how little people know about the science and the process involved.

And she can control the flow of that information, including the public perception, by talking about it. Again, cycling has set the precedent that cyclists sometimes disclose their blood data, and Semenya could do the same. She'll never win everyone over, but I think many will accept what has happened as the best possible resolution, provided they know it. As it stands now, few people will because they simply don't know.

On that note, it was very good to see the smiles and interaction with her fellow competitors after this race. It's easy to be a good sport when you're winning, but even Savinova seemed more amiable than her previous comments might have suggested. These are good signs, not proof, but hopefully a sign that among fellow athletes, things are returning to normal.

An insoluble problem?

Ultimately, Semenya's situation asks questions for which there may be no answer. I compared it earlier to the Pistorius case, but in truth, it's even more complex, because a) there is less scientific evidence available to quantify the Semenya advantage than for Pistorius' advantage and b) there seems to have been some treatment to correct the possible advantage. If that has happened, and the process has been followed, then what next? Either it didn't work, or it should be accepted. Key there is simply disclosing it, and if that were to happen, I'd encourage people to accept the treatment and the IAAF decision. As it stands, we don't know, so how can anyone be asked be blindly accept it?

If there was no treatment, or if the treatment has not been monitored properly, well, that's a different situation, and goes all the way back to 2009 and the debates we had about eligibility at the time. And so I'd also love for there to be some kind of disclosure so that people at least know that this has happened (if it has, of course). And finally, I'd hope that Semenya opens up, maybe that someone saves her from her own management team, and maybe even uses this as an opportunity to inform and educate. Full transparency, testosterone levels, the truth.

Ross

IAAF World Champs: USA's hat-trick on a day of surprises

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 17:01:00 +0000

IAAF World Champs report Day 6: The USA claim three on a day of surprises

Six finals, and four nations won medals today, as the USA delivered a hat-trick of titles in what was a day of mild (and big) surprises.

The USA's medals came in the form of Jesse Williams in the high jump (least surprising - he was the world leader after all), Lashinda Demus in the 400m hurdles (mildly surprising, though she was second in Berlin and is a class act, always competitive), and then Jennifer Barringer-Simpson, in the biggest surprise of all, in the women's 1500m in a very peculiar race.

Also claiming gold were Ezekiel Kemboi of Kenya (Steeplechase), Dai Greene of Great Britain (400m hurdles) and Olha Saladuha of Ukraine in the triple-jump.

A short summary of the track finals is below, along with YouTube clips of some, for those who missed them!

Kemboi explodes, celebrates and entertains for Kenya's fourth gold

Ezekiel Kemboi of Kenya defended his 3000m steeplechase world title with an incredible explosion of speed in the final 200m, opening up such a huge lead that he actually won the race in lane 7 by the end. The sprint was on after a slow race, yet Kemboi got so far clear that he had time to celebrate pretty much from the final barrier, and drifted out into lane 7 doing so! Brimin Kipruto got silver, holding off a fasting finishing Mahiedine Mekhissi-Benabbad on the line.

This was always going to be a fascinating race. Earlier in the year, France's Benabbad had delivered a huge warning to Kenya that their dominance in the Steeplechase would be challenged in a big way in Daegu, when he ran away from a strong field, including Kemboi, to win the Paris Diamond League event. On that occasion, Benabbad ran 8:02, and won by five seconds from Kemboi, and it was a performance that gave the Daegu final an added dimension - not only would it see great competition, but it might bring out a great tactical battle.

Kenya, of course, had four athletes in the race, by virtue of the fact that Kemboi was defending champion. The other was Brimin Kipruto, who had missed the world record by 1/100th of a second earlier this season, having been led by Paul Koech in a great Diamond League race in Monaco. Koech had been left out of this race, and so it was expected to be a Kipruto-Kemboi battle against Benabbad. And given Benabbad's great finish in that Paris race (he put five seconds on the field in the final lap), I fully expected Kenya to send one of their two "lesser" runners out and make this a super fast race, given that Kipruto and Kemboi had run 7:55 or faster earlier this year.

That didn't happen. Then again, Bennabad didn't seem to be quite as strong as he had been in Paris, because he ran the whole race about 5m off the Kenyans, never in among them, which was surprising. The early pace was set by Ramolefi, but it was slow - 2:47 to the first kilometer. That was followed by 2:46, by which time the east Africans (three Kenyans and two Ugandans) were in front, and Benabbad and Tahri, also of France, just behind. Down the back-straight, it was Kemboi and Kipruto who went clear, and only a massive late charge by Bennabad got him bronze, and in truth, he nearly caught Kipruto from behind (when you watch the video below, look at how far behind Benabbad is coming into the final straight, and watch how close he comes to catching Kipruto - he makes up about 2 seconds in 80m! That kind of speed was however "wasted", and Benabbad, in my opinion, ran a strange race to allow that gap to appear in the first place. I was surprised that he wasn't more attentive throughout the race, given his Paris victory and his obvious speed)

But Kemboi was untouchable today. He was beaten into second by Kipruto in that Monaco race, running 7:55.76, but this was a championship race, and he has been remarkable in medal races in the last eight years. Here is the list of performances: 2nd in 2003 World Champs, 1st 2004 Olympics, 2nd 2005 World Champs, 1st 2006 Commonwealth Games, 2nd 2007 World Champs, 1st 2009 World Champs and 2nd 2010 Commonwealth Games. The only blemish was a 7th in Beijing, but other than that, Kemboi has been a 'guaranteed' silver or gold!

The video below shows the final 500m and watch for the Kemboi kick as they clear the third-last barrier at the end of the back straight. It's so good, as mentioned, that he had time to start celebrating after the final jump, 50m from the line. He danced over the line, and continued to celebrate, stripping off the vest and dancing, perhaps the Kenyan equivalent of Usain Bolt's "chicken dance" from Beijing! Kemboi is a great entertainer, the sport needs it. In all, it was a magnificent performance - that final 200m was as impressive a sprint as anything I've seen.

In case you missed it, here is a clip (not English, but the quality is the best I could find on YouTube now). It really is worth a watch.

Jennifer Barringer-Simpson wins the 1500m title

The biggest surprise came from Jenny Barringer Simpson, who won gold in the women's 1500m in what was a strange race for a number of reasons. For one, none of the favourites came through. A fall with 550m unfortunately took out one of those favourites, Morgan Uceny of the USA. Even more strange was that the big favourite, Maryan Jamal of Bahrain, began drifting away from the front of the race as early as 450m to go, was completely out of contention with 250m to go, and trailed in last place, fully 17 seconds behind the winner. And yes, she shut down once out of contention, but her "challenge" was notable because, well, it was completely non-existent in the final 300m (she was seemingly bumped with about 450m to go, and perhaps that affected her finish. She certainly has developed a habit of producing massively inconsistent performances though)

The USA would have had high hopes for this race, but most of them were with Uceny, who had been winning Diamond League races this season. Barringer-Simpson was, not to be unkind, "the other American", though her 1500m credentials are impressive, including a sub-4 PB back in 2009. It's jsut that she hadn't really showed that kind of form this year. And so when Uceny went down in a pretty spectacular tumble with 550m to go, it seemed that the USA's chances took a drastic turn for the worse.

Not according to Barringer-Simpson - she ran a perfect race, always in contention, avoiding the barging and congestion that comes with a slow pace. She moved out into lane two with about 150m to run, and as the final straight unfolded, she was right there, with clear track in front of her, and she took advantage. Hannah England was a strong (and delightedly surprised) second, and Natalia Rodriguez of Spain (another pre-race favourite) faded somewhat having led into the final straight to come third.

In the end, the pace was slow, which made it all the more peculiar. The first lap was 68.78, followed by a 65.16, leading to the congestion that would ultimately end Uceny's challenge in the fall. The pace was ramped up with 500m to go, when Rodriguez went to the front. She led through the bell, and all the way to about 40m to go, when Barringer-Simpson swept by.

The final 300m were covered in about 46s, which is fast, but not spectacular - final laps of under 60 seconds have been run before (sub 45s for final 300m), off more or less the same pace. But in the end, it was a race of attrition, a wide open race to begin with, that opened up repeatedly during the final, and Barringer-Simpson was there, deservedly, to move through and claim gold. The race is below if you missed it

Men's 400m hurdles - Dai Greene for Great Britain

Great Britain have had a good, though perhaps slightly disappointing World Champs until tonight. They would have been very positive about their chances for gold with Jessica Ennis in the heptathlon and Mo Farah in the 10,000m, but ended up with silver instead.

Tonight would have rectified their predictions somewhat - first came Hannah England's silver in the 1500m (surely an unexpected medal), and then Dai Greene delivered by claiming the men's 400m hurdles gold with a storming final 80m. It's perhaps not a huge surprise - Greene was always going to be in contention, and looked strong in the semi-finals, but he was not an overwhelming favourite. He beat Javier Culson into silver, while LJ van Zyl of South Africa claimed bronze, holding off a fast finishing Felix Sanchez. Bershawn Jackson and Angelo Taylor finished sixth and seventh, which is significant because it's the first World Championships since 2001 where a medal has not gone to the USA in the event. Greene's medal also has historical significance - it's the first medal for GBR in the event since 1991!

The time was also relatively slow - 48.27s. There was some wind, of course, but it's interesting to note that this was the slowest winning time in the 400m hurdles in the history of the World Championships, dating back to 1983. The 400m hurdles has been this way all season, in fact - since LJ van Zyl's world leader back in April, very few sub-48s performances have been seen. Like the women's 1500m, the 400m hurdles is wide open leading into London.

Women's 400m hurdles - Demus runs a perfect race

"Slow" is not a word you'd use to describe the women's 400m hurdles final. In fact, it was the third fastest race in history, as Lashinda Demus of the USA picked up the gold with a brilliant 52.47 performance, holding off Melaine Walker, the Jamaican defending champion who started out in Lane 8 as a result of her relatively poor semi-final performance.

Walker had a great race, actually, running a season's best of 52.73s (anything sub-53s is rare - only 15 women in history have done it), but Demus was just better. They raced into the final hurdle together, Demus slightly ahead, but Demus had the stride pattern perfect, hit the hurdle at speed, and extended the margin to win, improving on her silver from Berlin two years ago. The race is below

Bolt's false start and Blake's 'twitch' - the actual start block data explained

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:15:00 +0000

The official start data from the 100m final - Blake's twitch doesn't register

This is a final post on the Bolt false start controversy, since as you'll all know, there was some talk that Yohan Blake in Lane 6 (immediately to Bolt's right) might have "twitched" while in the "set" position, and that perhaps he should have received the false start, that he "pushed" Bolt into the false start.

So yesterday, I posted on this question about whether Blake's twitch might have constituted a false start, and wrote the following:

If you believe that Bolt was 'triggered' to jump by Blake's movement, then Bolt should NOT have been disqualified, but Blake should have been
If you believe that Bolt was unaffected by that movement, then BOTH should have been disqualified
And if you believe that Blake's movement was too small and not "irregular", then Bolt is the only athlete who should have been disqualified

So today, I can provide you with the actual data from the starting equipment during the race, courtesy a reader and journalist in Daegu (Thank you so much Remo!).

The image from Lanes 4, 5 and 6 is shown below, for clarity. You'll recall that Walter Dix is the athlete in Lane 4, while Bolt is in 5 and Blake in 6. The image should be fairly self-explanatory, but I've explained it briefly below (click to enlarge)

So the vertical grey lines show the firing of the gun, and the green lines immediately to the right of them are the 100ms limit for a false start. The vertical red line is the point where the actual start of each athlete is registered. As I wrote yesterday, a start that happens BEFORE this cut-off line shown in green is deemed a false start.

So, each of the sensors in the start blocks is sensitive to the pressure being applied by the athlete. At some point, as the pressure increases as the athlete pushes off, and the blocks will register enough pressure to signal a start. I have shown that as a start pressure threshold with the red arrows for all three athletes. You'll see, for example, that Walter Dix in Lane 4 reaches the threshold soon after the green line, and the start is triggered 139 ms after the firing of the gun (grey line).

Now look at Blake's graph, in Lane 6. You'll see a small bump there BEFORE the gun, which I have circled in blue. This is the twitch that was picked up in the slow motion replays, and which you can see in the video to my previous post on this subject.

If you look over to the right hand side in Blake's pressure graph, you'll see that when he did eventually start (153 ms after the gun), the pressure it took was slightly higher than the pressure registered during his twitch. I have drawn a dashed green line across from the pressure threshold, and you can see that while the twitch came close to the required level, it was NOT sufficient to trigger the sensors. Had that twitch been any larger, then Blake would have exceeded the limit, and it would have constituted either a false or faulty start.

This says to me that it would be a pretty tough call to say that Yohan Blake is guilty of a false start, given that the sensitive equipment could not detect it. It would have been up to the recallers watching the athletes, and it was really a very small movement, only detected later in HD slow motion replays. Of course, technically, he twitched, and that is, by definition, grounds for at least an aborted start. But the data say the twitch was tiny, and let's be honest - if Blake was DQd for that, he might have been justifiably upset with the call himself! So I would conclude that in the end, the right decision was made, even if the technically correct conclusion is that this twitch should have been picked up. So I'll go with option three in that list above!

Just to add one last though - you can see Bolt's start on the graph above - it comes 104 ms BEFORE the gun even goes off (so it's 204ms before the legal limit), but then you didn't need data to tell you that! What this graph doesn't say is whether it was Blake's twitch (however small) that caused Bolt to jump, or whether Bolt would have gone anyway. That remains a point of discussion I guess. Regardless, it's all just conjecture now, the race is in the books!

Ross

P.S. Let me take this chance to also correct an error in the post I did earlier today - I said that the bronze medal in the men's 400m was won by Jonathan Borlee. It was in fact KEVIN Borlee who claimed third, while Jonathan was fifth! The danger of identical twins!

Enjoy the rest day tomorrow!

IAAF World Champs - Rudisha delivers and Kirani James "arrives"

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:41:00 +0000

IAAF World Champs: Rudisha, James and Zaripova get gold

Day 3 of the IAAF World Championships brought more success for Kenya, in the form of David Rudisha's anticipated gold in the men's 800m. It was their third gold of these championships, but may be tempered slightly by the result of the Women's steeple where they would have been hoping for another gold, but left instead with one bronze courtesy Milcah Cheywa, who was denied by Yuliya Zaripova of Russia. Russia had a great day with two golds - Zaripova's and Chernova's in the heptathlon, where she denied Jessica Ennis a much anticipated gold medal.

Other golds on the day went to Germany (men's discus), Brazil (women's pole vault) and Grenada, with perhaps the race of the day coming in the men's 400m, where Kirani James, the exceptional 19 year old (or he will be on Thursday) beat LaShawn Merrit in a great final 100m to claim gold. Having been identified as one for the future, James ushered the future in immediately by delivering on his promise, and setting up a great rivalry with Merritt ahead of London next year.

Short event summaries below.

Men's 800m - Rudisha delivers

The 800m event has traditionally been regarded as one of the most open and unpredictable in the World Championships. As recently as 2009, there were probably a dozen men all capable of winning gold and if you ran the final five different times, there was a chance that you'd get five different winners!

That was then, this is now - David Rudisha, so disappointed to fail in 2009 when much was expected of him, has since matured into a world record holder and dominant world beater. As a result,when he stands on the start line in any race on the global circuit, the thinking is usually how fast will he run, and competitively speaking, by what margin will he win?

The World Champs are a little different - the lack of pace-makers means that the race has to be won either tactically (which can see normally unheralded runners emerge in frantic final 200m sprints - watch the 1500m races to see this happen!), or it must be run from the front. So the question ahead of today's 800m final was not only whether Rudisha would come through the test (most expected it), but how would he run in order to avoid the numerous tactical pitfalls of the event?

Those who "guaranteed" victory on the basis of Rudisha's superior times alone perhaps overlook the difficulty of running sub-1:43 as a solo effort from the front, and even with Rudisha's dominance in terms of his PB compared to other athlete's, the field is competitive enough that a race finishing in 1:43 would be close until at least the final 50m - tension or tightness would be punished. So this was going to be an "anxious" race for the world record holder. The general expectation was that he'd avoid the bunching and boxing of a slow race and lead from the front.

In the end, that's exactly what he did, and he ran the 800m final a lot like a middle distance race. That is, he started fast (23.81s for the first 200m), got into the lead, then controlled the pace in the middle of the race (27.52s and 26.66s for the next two quarters) and then picked it up again with 25.92s over the final 200m (see figure right) to win gold going away from the chasing field. This kind of pattern is what you usually see in 1500m and mile races, and that he did it so strongly in an 800m race (under pressure from behind) is testament to Rudisha's quality, and his obvious capacity to run faster when needed.

It was enough for a gun-to-tape victory, in a controlled manner that is possible only when you are completely in command of the event and the competition. The time of 1:43.91 was made to look comfortable, and the way the race was constructed suggested that it was. In second, a late charge by Abubaker Kaki (1:44.41) made good on the expectation that he would be Rudisha's biggest challenger, though in truth, he was never truly challenging. Yuriy Borzakovskiy claimed bronze for Russia.

Rudisha delivered on the expectation and if he stays healthy, it's difficult to see an 800m gold medal going anywhere other than Kenya for the next few World Championship cycles. The once-unpredictable event has become "routine" (but not quite a forgone conclusion), and that's a measure of the quality of David Rudisha.

Women's 3000m steeplechase - front-running championship record to Zaripova

Speaking of dominant front-running performances, gold in the women's steeplechase went to Yuliya Zaripova of Russia, in another gun to tape victory. She hit the first hurdle in the lead and never surrendered it, reeling off a 3:00, then 3:04 and a final kilometer in 3:03 for a world-leading time and personal best. In doing so, she went one better than in 2009, where she had been outkicked by Marta Dominguez of Spain (as Yuliya Zarudneva back then).

The challenge came initially from Kenya, but one by one they dropped off, and it would be Tunisia's Habiba Ghribi who claimed silver with a strong final 800m. The dominant athlete of the year so far, Milcah Cheywa on Kenya, who has basically wrapped up the Diamond League title for the event, would come third to claim consecutive bronze medals in World Championships.

It was, in one sense, a surprise, because Cheywa has dominated in 2011, going unbeaten until today. In another sense, perhaps it was not. The Kenyans, for all their depth and complete dominance in the men's steeple, haven't quite managed to dominate the women's discipline. Yet. Rather, Russia have been the championship performers, and currently hold the championship record from 2007, the Olympic gold, and the world record (in the Beijing Olympics). The steeple is clearly an event they have identified as a gold medal prospect.

Having watched Kenya's women in the 10,000m, and knowing the caliber of athlete they have over 5,000m, I suspect that it is only a matter of time before the same is true in the steeple. For now, the event is perhaps more "open" as a result of its relative newness in athletics, and I expect that to change soon, once athletes of the caliber of Vivian Cheruiyot, Linet Masai and Sally Kipyego start to run in it as well. Once athletes with 14:30 5,000 caliber begin to turn to the steeple, I'd expect the performances to leap ten seconds forward and sub-9 clockings will become common. Cheywa then, is the first great steepler from Kenya, but those who follow, I expect will surpass that level. It will be interesting to see if the rest of the world "follows" or whether we see the same situation to develop as for men's steeplechase.

But right now, Russia lead the way, and Zaripova leads the world.

Men's 400m - Kirani James delivers on his promise in the race of the day

Kirani James of Grenada became a name to watch when he ran a world-leader a few weeks before the World Champs. His talent was undisputed, and only two days short of his 19th birthday, everyone was saying that no matter what happened in Daegu, he was a name to watch in the future. Well, that wasn't enough for Kirani James - he was ready for success now. And so he won the gold in the 400m in a time of 44.60s, with a late charge to catch and pass LaShawn Merritt (44.63s, only 0.03s behind). It was a race reminiscent of the great finish between Amantle Montsho and Allyson Felix yesterday, but with one difference - this time, the charging athlete did overhaul the leader to win.

For Merritt, it would have been a disappointment in the sense that he was 10m from defending his title, but he may be satisfied nonetheless. A 21-month ban for a drug infringement (Extenze - improve your manhood) meant he was in Daegu as a wildcard, his drug ban ending so recently that he didn't even have the opportunity to race in the USA trials. He leaves Daegu knowing there's work to do, but in possession of silver and the world lead from his first round heat. Third went to Kevin Borlee of Belgium, one half of the identical Borlee twins, in 44.90s (Note - the initial post said Jonathan - my apologies! That's the trouble with identical twins! My mistake!)

James has a combination of power and relaxation, and today he came under pressure from Merritt with 180m to go. Despite looking a little more ragged than he has in previous races, he responded without losing his form, and becomes the third youngest world champion in history (Ismael Kirui and Eliud Kipchoge were younger). If he continues to improve, he's the man to beat for a long time to come. At the very least, his rivalry with Merritt over the next few weeks and into London will mean the 400m is an event to watch.

Other events

In other events, Robert Harting won the men's discus. The only reason I mention this is that in Berlin, this provided one of the highlights of the Championships, because Harting's celebrations involved picking up Berlino and spinning him around. Berlino, the greatest mascot ever seen in athletics (and who should have been imported to Daegu for a week). Ok, that was a little tongue in cheek, but Berlino was a highlight and added a bit to the entertainment value of the Berlin Champs. There's a video at the bottom of this post.

Jessica Ennis did NOT win the heptathlon, which was a bit of a surprise. It had gone mostly to plan for the British athletics icon until the javelin, when a large underperformance saw Russia's Tatyana Chernova leap ahead and then defend her points lead in the 800m to claim gold. Sebastian Coe was the invited dignitary for the medal ceremony, and he was no doubt expecting to hand gold to Ennis, who is one of Great Britain's stars in the build-up to the London 2012 Olympics. A disappointment for Ennis then, and one wonders whether this increases or decreases the pressure on her. She'll take heart knowing that it was really just one very weak event that cost her the points, and she has the opportunity to bounce back in a home Olympics. It certainly adds intrigue to the event for London, and perhaps reduces the pressure on Ennis (though not by much).

The women's pole vault was won by Fabiana Murer of Brazil, with a 4.85m clearance for a South American record. Silver and bronze went to Martina Strutz of Germany (4.80m, a national record) and Sveltana Feofanova of Russia, respectively. Completely out of the medals was Yelena Isinbayeva in sixth. Her comeback hasn't gone quite according to plan, though London will surely be the goal. This result, as it has done in many events, perhaps asks more questions than it answers ahead of the Olympics.

Tomorrow is a rest day (bizarrely - I don't recall a rest day in an IAAF Championships before, so beats me why). It sees the 20km walk. The next big track action comes on Thursday, and I can't understand why this rest day has been introduced. If anyone knows, please let us know in the comments!

Ross

And lastly, here is Berlino. The Daegu mascot is trying, but these are big shoes to fill! Enjoy the athletics on Thursday!

The Blake-Bolt false start dispute

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:23:00 +0000

Did Blake flinch, and was Bolt unfairly disqualified?

So it may be a new day, but perhaps not surprisingly, the debate about the men's 100m final has continued. But with one unexpected twist. Rather than talking about the "what if Bolt had not false started?", this morning I woke to the question of "Should Blake, and not Bolt, have been given the false start?".

The question was raised on Letsrun.com, but came via all-athletics.com, and basically, it has been noticed in slow-motion replays that Yohan Blake, who starts in Lane 6 to the immediate right of Usain Bolt, twitches very slightly in the "get set" position. Below is a video, which is courtesy of Letsrun.com, showing the start. The moment in question is at around 13 seconds, so you may need to play it back and forth a few times

You'll see Blake's left leg move on the block, and then Bolt jumps out. It was very clearly a false start by Bolt, make no mistake. The question is whether the twitch by Blake, that tiny movement, should have constituted a false start or not? And if "yes", then should he have been disqualified along with Bolt, or were they two independent events?

It's important to explain the rules on this one. In terms of the starting, the rules say the following:

From Rule 162.5. "On the command 'On your marks' or 'Set,' as the case may be, all athletes shall at once and without delay assume their full and final set position."
From Rule 162.5. "After the command 'On your marks' or 'Set,' if an athlete disturbs other athletes in the race through sound or otherwise, the Starter shall abort the start."
From Rule 162.8. "The Starter should warn or disqualify only such athlete or athletes who, in his opinion, were responsible for the false start."

Technically speaking, there is an aspect of each of the above rules that was contravened by Blake with that tiny movement. Realistically, however, it's a little more tricky than this.

If you read the IAAF Starting Guidelines (kindly sent by JC, thanks!), you'll see point 5.2 say that following:

There is no perfect holding time in the set position. In reality, there must be a discernible hold to ensure all athletes are steady and in the correct starting position. The Starter must stop a race if:

An athlete, after assuming a full and final set position, commences his start before receiving the report of the gun (Rule 162.6).

He receives a signal from the false start equipment.

Any Recaller observes an irregularity with a start.

In addition, not all movements in the “set” position are to be regarded as “commencing the start” and thereby potentially leading to a false start. Such instances should be dealt with either by standing the field up or in serious cases, invoking the disciplinary provisions.

So a couple of things about this clause:

First, the starter and a pair of Recallers are present to watch athletes and make what is basically a judgment call about any irregularities, such as those small movements. They also have electronic timing equipment, in the form of pressure sensors in the blocks that pick up any movements prior to the gun. In theory, if an athlete is found to have started (that is, applied pressure to blocks) while in the "set" position, or sooner than 0.100 s after the gun, it is deemed a false start because it is theoretically not possible to REACT this quickly. The equipment, combined with visual judgment, is supposed to detect unusual premature movement.

Importantly, note that it is not necessarily the case that all movements are deemed to lead to a false start - some instances can lead to an aborted start where the field stands up, and if serious, they can lead to disqualification, but it's not necessarily a given that it will be disqualification.

So, returning to the Blake/Bolt incident, that movement, as clear as it was in super slow-motion replays and HD, may not have been deemed sufficient to be called "irregular". I suspect that such small movements are quite common, though the Blake movement is clear on the replay. It's a judgment call as to whether it should have constituted, at best, an aborted start where the field stands up. At worst, it was a false start of its own. What we can almost certainly surmise that it didn't produce enough of a pressure change on the block to register on the equipment, and it clearly wasn't seen by the officials at the time. The rest is likely subjective judgment, hence the controversy.

Next: Does this mean Bolt should NOT have been disqualified?

The next thing is that IF you assume that Blake did twitch, is it true that Bolt should not have been disqualified, or were the two false starts independent events? This is important because again, if you read the rules, you see the following:

In theory, a Starter can award a false start to several athletes if it is indicated that their movement was more or less simultaneous. Otherwise, the false start must go to the athlete indicated as making the first movement (Point 5.3)

In other words, if there are two false starts, then there is a call to be made about whether they are independent, or whether one influenced the other. You may recall the case of Sally Pearson and Laura Turner in the Delhi Commonwealth Games last year - here, these two athletes false started 0.001 seconds apart. Turner was first, and so she was disqualified, but raced under protest. Pearson was initially not disqualified, but was later DQd on appeal, because it's clear that her false start was independent of Turner's - there's no way you react and produce a start 1/1000th of a second after the "instigator". So in this case, both athletes were rightly disqualified for what are independent or simultaneous false starts.

So, back to Bolt and Blake...

If you believe that Bolt was 'triggered' to jump by Blake's movement, then Bolt should NOT have been disqualified, but Blake should have been.
If you believe that Bolt was unaffected by that movement, then BOTH should have been disqualified.
And if you believe that Blake's movement was too small and not "irregular", then Bolt is the only athlete who should have been disqualified.

A range of scenarios, and ultimately, it comes down to a mix of technicality, but needs a judgment call. The way I see it, Blake's movement was small and slight enough that it wasn't seen by the recallers and wasn't detected by the equipment. Therefore, I'd say an aborted start, not a false start is the fairest sanction. After the fact, that helps nothing, of course. As for Bolt reacting, he himself hasn't mentioned it, but the argument is that it may be sub-conscious. In theory, they are close enough that it is possible. But ultimately, seems a judgment call. What would yours be?

Ross