The Science of Sport

Are marathon times getting faster or not?

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:42:00 +0000

A Further Analysis of Marathon Performances

As US fans continue to drink in the first American victory in New York since 1982, we thought we would follow up the race report with a further analysis of marathon times. If you read the comments to the race report, Joe Garland and cassio598 mentioned that in the early years of the race the course was four laps through Central Park, and that to examine the progression of times we should rather analyze the winning times since 1976. The graph in question is this one here:

So in 1976 the current race course was adopted, the one that passes through all five boroughs, and since then the average winning time has deviated year-to-year by only about 90 s and has gone below 2:08 only once (in 2001 when Jifar set the current course record). The blips, for your information, are from 1984 when the ambient temperature was in the upper 70s F with 60-90% humidity, and 1990, when the max temperature on the course was 79 F.

One of the readers, cassio598, suggested analyzing the data from 1976 to the present, because then it appears that the winning time creeps lower over time. And the verdict?

The regression line for these data does indeed move in a downward direction, however the coefficient of determination ("r-squared") is only 0.16, which does not suggest a very good fit. But the bigger issue is that since 1981 there have been six times that are very close to 2:08, and so it is hard to conclude that the times are getting faster when almost 30 years ago the winning time was one minute faster than the winning time this year.

The nature of the course: A peculiar finding

Perhaps the really interesting comparison comes from looking at the the "current" average times of all the big city marathons---London, Boston, Berlin, Chicago, and New York---and see how the times of this decade compare to the "average" times from a decade ago. So what you see below is the average winning time from 1990-99 (blue column) compared to the average winning time from 2000-09 (red column) for all of the above-mentioned races.

Recall that Chicago, London, and Berlin are flat courses, while NYC and Boston are not flat. You can see that the winning time for all the flat courses has decreased by about 2.0% while NYC and Boston have remained more or less the same. How is that? Even when scrutinizing the Boston data, it comes out that in 1983 the last American to win, Greg Meyer, ran 2:09:00. It also turns out that the average winning time for the Kenyans (and a Kenyan has won Boston many many times!) is 2:09:32.

One key factor is pace-makers - at least for the last few years, neither Boston nor New York have employed pace-makers, whereas Berlin, London and Chicago have. Berlin, in particular, has evolved into a staged record attempt every year. Fast times are designed on these flatter courses, and that is certainly a factor to take into account. However, it does not explain why the Kenyan dominance, particularly in Boston, has been sustained with slower times than in the 1990s (and, as in the case of Meyer, the early 1980s!)

This all leads me to believe that the less than flat nature of these two courses may "neutralize" the speed of the East Africans. How this works we have not figured out just yet, but how can it be that while the average best American marathon time is so many minutes slower than the best African times, yet on courses like these we had runners over 20 years ago running just as fast as the Africans are running now?

Conservative race strategy?

Perhaps the hilly nature of Boston and New York dictate a more comfortable (i.e. ~2:09) pace for the first half, as no one wants to blitz the first 20 km in 57 min only to have the wheels come off during any bumps in the second half.

One question we asked ourselves after New York was, "What if Wanjiru ran New York. . .?" Because if he ran aggressively like he ran Beijing, London and Chicago, at halfway he might have had only two runners with him and not seventeen others as was the case in New York. With all due respect to Meb, if the 21.1 km split was 1:03:00 and not 1:05:11, he and most of that pack would likely not have been there to contest the race around Manhattan. Having said that, however, it will be really interesting to see how Meb goes next year, because he did set a half marathon PB this year with a 61:00 back in April.

The fastest of the fast: Berlin

One thing that also comes out of the graph above is that Berlin has been the fastest course around for years. We all know why the average time since 2000 is about 2:06:20, but even in the 1990s Berlin was almost one minute faster than London and Chicago. Seeing as how the margins are so tight now, it seems that Berlin is perhaps the course most likely to produce the next marathon world record. Previously, when the record was "softer" and still above 2:05, the turns, bumps and cobbles of courses like London were not really obstacles. Now, however, the record is so close to the limits of the current crop of potentials that even having to take several extra 90 degree turns will be meaningful.

Dubai may become the new player on the record scene, and along with Berlin, has become one of Gebrselassie's two paced record attempts each year (as it will be in 2010). So it may have the fastest time of all, but being such a recent race, and really only by virtue of the fact that Geb has chosen it, it hasn't proven itself over decades, yet.

The answer to the title of this post: YES!

If we looked only at New York and Boston we might conclude that, no, times are not getting faster, because in those two races there seems to be a real limit in the form of the race course. While a 2:07 in either of those races will almost guarantee you a win and probably the course record too, a 2:07 in London is only good enough to squeeze into the top five and probably a podium in Chicago, but no guarantees you will be victorious. But obviously the times are getting faster, because we have seen a progression of world records in 5000 and 10000 all the way up to 42.2 km, and no one would argue with that.

What we have stated before is that the marathon class of 2009 has been particularly fast, and that actually warrants an analysis on its own---between Kibet's and Kwambai's 2:04:27 in Rotterdam, Wanjiru's 2:05:10 in London, Gebrselassie's 2:06:13 in Berlin, Wanjiru's 2:05:41 in Chicago, and even Vincent Kipruto's 2:05:47 in Paris, the average winning time this year is 2:05:28, which might be the fastest average for one year!

Jonathan

NYC Marathon 2009 race report

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:16:00 +0000

A day of upsets!

By now you would have heard the news and probably read much about it---in both races in New York the runners did not play to the script and there were big upsets all around. For some fans change might be hard, but we welcome it as it means there was unpredictable events and it made for exciting viewing in each race!

Lining up it seemed a forgone conclusion that Paula Radcliffe would run most everyone off her heels by halfway and then finish off any hangers on in the last 10 km. On the men's side seasoned vets like Gharib and Cheruiyot were pegged to take the win with Ryan Hall posting another good result after Martin Lel pulled out at the 11th hour. So those were the scripts, as they were, but what we saw was something entirely different.

The women - No one got the memo

It was a "normal" start to the women's race with Paula setting the pace, although it was not particularly fast. The early fireworks were not from hard running but from a fall from Salina Kosgei in the fourth mile. She went down, apparently tripping on her own feet, but the real casualty was Yuri Kano who hit the deck hard. Kosgei fought back and hung on to finish a respectable 5th, while Kano was probably more impressive with her 9th place after what looked like a very hard fall.

For much of the race Paula had a bit of an entourage in Kosgei, Tulu, Ludmila Petrova, and the French woman Christelle Daunay who was fresh of a three-minute PB in the Paris marathon earlier this year. Not surprisingly Kosgei was the first to go, but what was surprising was that Paula Radcliffe was the next. All it took was one surge by the the aging Petrova and Radcliffe was gapped, never to reel in the other three. Daunay was next as Petrova pushed the pace and tried to drop what surely would be a faster finishing Tulu.

Once Radcliffe was gone the writing was on the wall and some predictability returned. It would be Tulu sitting in and waiting for the final stretch before out-kicking Petrova easily and winning by eight seconds in 2:28:52.

The end of an era?

Already the questions are flying about whether or not Radcliffe is now over the hill, in marathon terms that is. It is hard to say based off just this one race, but one has to consider the string of injuries she has faced since 2004 pre-Athens. To be sure, training for and racing marathons places undue amounts of stress on your body, and it is the exception when we see an athlete have real competitive longevity---for example Gebrselassie. Instead the inevitable is that their bodies start to break down in the form of constant injuries that keep them just off their best efforts. They start and they finish, but it looks very much like Paula (and Ramaala) did in New York---they hang with the lead pack, probably cover the early moves, but when things really heat up they are straight out the back, but still finish well in the top ten.

There are reports that she will have another baby next year, and if that is the case it will likely give her sufficient time off from hard racing and training to mend some of the wear and tear. So the jury is still out, but the times of Paula running off the front and obliterating the field might well be past us.

The men - A new cast of US runners

Before his exit in the days before the race, Martin Lel was the hot favorite in the race. We have pegged him as one of the best racers and when healthy he is a lock to win it. In the absence of Lel Boston King Cheriyot was the heir apparent, although he has been plagued with injuries of alte and remained untested, which meant the smart money should maybe have been on Kwambai---don't forget he holds one of the fastest times ever when he and Kibet dueled to a photo-finish Rotterdam earlier this year. So like in the women's race, this was the script, although they also deviated from it wildly!

The early antics were provided by Bouramdane, who attacked and surged numerous times throughout the race. Nothing ever stuck, though, and he was always brought back into the fold. Perhaps it was the relatively slow pace that made him impatient? For the first half they were never below 2:10 pace, which explained the massive group of 18 men that stayed together through halfway.

In New York First Avenue normally signals the start of the fireworks, and for this part they played to script---suddenly the pace went from about 5:00 per mile to 4:42 for mile 17 and 4:39 for mile 18. It was race on as rookie Jackson Kipkoech pushed the pace as the pack of Keflezighi, Cheruiyot, Kipkoech, Gharib, Kwambai, and Bouramdane were all together. Gharib was the first to get popped, although he clawed back to finish third, and by mile 22 it was Meb vs. Cheruiyot.

Summoning strength from his fallen friend Ryan Shay, Meb turned on the jets with just over two miles to go, surging and getting a meaningful gap on the Kenyan. Cheruiyot looked undone at that point and not able to fight back to even with Meb, and so it was that Meb opened up a 41 s margin over those remaining miles, giving him enough of a lead to savour the victory and be the only one in the photo crossing the line in first.

The return of Meb? Or a shot in the dark?

No one would have bet on Meb winning in New York, especially with all the pre-race hype in the USA on the steady and great form Ryan Hall has been showing this year. But by and by Meb was on the road back from a disastrous 2008 in which he failed to finish the US Olympic trials, and let us not forget that he took silver in Athens. Interestingly, NYC was his first marathon win and also his PB, which was way off the course record by the way.

As excited as I was by the racing and also as happy as I am for Meb to win this race, I am not convinced we are going to see him on the podium in the marathon majors next year. The problem is that NYC is unique among the big city marathons---London, Berlin, Chicago, and even Boston are fast courses that tend to be won by the "fastest" runners. By this I mean those with the fastest 10 km times, the fastest 21.1 km times, and the fastest previous marathon times. In other words, the Wanjirus/Tergats/Gebrselassies/Khannouchis of the world. If he stays healthy I fully expect Meb to be with the leaders until 30+ km in any of those races, providing Sammy Wanjiru is not setting a suicidal pace like he did in both London and Chicago this year. But once it heats up he will fade and finish in the top ten somewhere because he does not even have the speed of Ryan Hall in the marathon and shorter distances.

What is special about New York

The funny thing about New York is that the winning time has changed little since 1974 when Norbet Sander (who?) set the then course record of 2:10:09:
It is likely a function of the course---turns and a little less than flat profile with all the bridges, and perhaps partly due to the race's position on the calendar, very late in the season. But it is hard to explain how it is that the world record has fallen substantially over the past 30 years, as has the winning time at all the other city marathons, yet in New York 2:08 seems to be the limit.

Technology does us in

That is our take on the race as I saw it, as unfortunately Ross was not able to access the live feed with any consistency. In addition the race website has an "interesting" choice of splits as they do not capture 5 km splits but mix those with odd strings of mile splits like 14-15 and 19-21. It was hard coming off our very successful reporting of one km splits in Chicago, but even the race coverage did not reliably report mile splits for either race today. So pardon the absence of the normal pacing analysis, but in this case the real story was not how it the race was run but rather that going into the race we all would have selected a certain finishing order, only to be totally wrong on the day!

There is more to say and ask about US distance running, too, as not since 1976 have so many Americans (SIX) finished in the top ten. Is this a resurgence? The fruit of several years of devoted efforts and incentives? A stacked field compared to other races? A lack of Kenyan entrants/finishers (two)?

Jonathan

New York 2009: Race analysis and splits

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:11:00 +0000

New York 2009: Splits and race analysis

If you've come here for live splits, I'm afraid I have been beaten by technology this time around. Between the feed from Universal Sports breaking up on me every 2 seconds, and the hotel wireless access in Boston, I did not manage to even watch the race, let alone document the splits. Even now, 8 hours later, I can't watch the race for long enough to even comment sensibility on what went down.

I have seen the race reports, and I would have loved to comment on what were two huge upsets - Meb Keflezighi and Deratu Tulu would have been long-odds leading into the race, but they came out on top in what must rank as the biggest surprises of the year's Marathon Majors, by a long way.

I'm off to New York tomorrow, where I'll try again to watch the race, and then maybe, I'll even feel compelled to comment. I'll try to get some split times up if I can (better late than never). But for now, I'm disappointed that I wasn't able to follow the race, and apologize for not delivering on our usual race analysis - this is, I noticed, the first marathon I've missed since London 2007.

So huge apologies, I will try my best to get a post on the race done at some point!

Ross

New York Marathon Preview and predictions

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:55:00 +0000

New York, New York: The final swing on the 2009 Marathon calendar

Sunday sees the final marathon of the Fall season in the World Marathon Majors in New York, and it's one of the most exciting fields of the year (only London matches the men's field for competitive depth). So I'm interrupting the series on coaching and science to pull out the crystal ball and look ahead to the race, where a course record, at least on the men's side, seems a real possibility.

New York is arguably the toughest course of the Majors. At least, it's record times suggest this, with a men's record only just inside 2:08. Back in 1989, Juma Ikangaa ran 2:08:01, and that would last for 12 years before Tesfaye Jefar nudged it down to 2:07:43, which stands are the current record.

Given that London, Berlin, Paris, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Dubai and Chicago all have course records under 2:06, that 2:07:43 stands out. The twisting roads, short hills on bridges and around Central Park make NY a tough race. And a tough race can throw up surprise winners, as it has in the past.

Last year, Marilson Gomes dos Santos managed to claw back "Mr Second place", Abderrahim Goumri, in what was an exciting finish. Goumri looked to have the race won, but dos Santos hung on and then shot past him, eventually winning by a large distance. It was dos Santos' second win, his first came two years earlier, in a race where it seemed the big guns decided to let him go, and couldn't catch up. That was a surprise. 2008 was a surprise (of sorts).

Don't expect another surprise on Sunday - dos Santos may be suited to NY, perhaps the tough course plays into his strengths, but I have a feeling that a top 5 is the best the defending champion can aim for. The way the marathon has leaped forward this year, I don't see a slow pace with surges, and I'm not sure that dos Santos is one to handle 2:05-intensity (even if the course turns this into a 2:07-pace).

The big 5

So then who to look out for? Well, three Kenyans, one Moroccan, and an American stand out as ones to watch.

The Kenyans are James Kwambai, Robert Cheruiyot and Patrick Makau. Neither Kwambai nor Makau have ever won a marathon. But Kwambai has twice broken 2:06 - once he accompanied Gebrselassie to 35km in Berlin (arguably contributing to a sub 2:04 time), and once he accompanied Duncan Kibet to the finish line in Amsterdam. On that occasion, he ran 2:04:27, the third fastest in history.

The problem for Kwambai, apart from not having winning momentum, is that he has a super fast half marathon very recently - as Lets Run.com have pointed out in their preview, a very fast half weeks before a marathon is often a sign that the athlete was on the edge for too long, and hits the marathon just slightly over-done. Wanjiru, they point out, ran a 61:08 in the same race as Kwambai ran 59:08, about six weeks ago. As you know, Wanjiru went on to run 2:05 in Chicago. So either Kwambai is going to rip New York apart, or he'll struggle after 30km. Not that it's unheard of to run great marathons soon after great half marathons, mind you. Martin Lel has won the Great North Run only a month before winning New York, his time in the GNR always under 60 minutes. So it can be done. But that's Lel, not Kwambai, and the final 5km may tell on Kwambai if he's is over optimal shape.

Robert Cheruiyot is an interesting case - 18 months ago, he was a dominant force in the marathon. He won Boston by attacking at about 21km, and destroyed the whole field. He was a Major series champion, a four-time Boston winner, and without doubt one of the top 2 in the world (Martin Lel was the other). But age, injury and illness seem to have slowed him, and he has struggled. He was a late addition to the field, after the withdrawal of Paul Tergat, at the tenth hour, and the question is whether his form is good enough to compete. I have a feeling he'll struggle, and his time at the top may be at an end. However, he warrants a mention, because as I say, it was only 18 months ago that he was near invincible. It shows how rapidly things can change in marathon running.

Patrick Makau is also an unknown quantity of sorts. His half-marathon credentials are excellent, with a 58:52 performance earlier this year. And he did debut in 2:06:14 earlier this year. That's a frighteningly fast first outing, and even a slight improvement makes him a big threat. I pick him to come second - inexperience will still count against him - remember that Gebrselassie took a few attempts to sort out the marathon race, and so Makau may yet evolve into a great champion, but New York will be a step, not a leap, in that direction

Jaouad Gharib is the man to watch, however. The Olympic Games silver medallist had always been a championship type runner, but earlier this year, he made a step up and in London, mixed it with Wanjiru and Kebede to finish third in a new best time of 2:05:27. That time suggests that Gharib is on the way up, not down, despite his relatively long career (he was world champion back in 2003 and 2005). He followed Beijing up with a great London performance, and he comes into NY as the favourite, in my opinion, now that Martin Lel has withdrawn. The one problem for Gharib, in my opinion, is whether he is assertive enough to make the running. In Beijing and London, he tracked moves until he couldn't, but ended up outlasting everyone but Wanjiru (and Kebede). Will he be assertive enough to throw it down in the Park? Time will tell...

Finally, we have Ryan Hall, the great American hope. Hall has been training well in Mammoth Lakes, I believe - I was at a symposium in Colorado Springs recently where his coach Terrence Mahon was a speaker, and it was revealed that Hall was regularly completing 18 mile training runs at about 5:00/mile pace at 7,500 feet (2,300m). That puts his NY preparation ahead of what he was doing for Boston earlier this year, so his condition is apparently good (as far as training reports can be relied upon, of course). He has some good half marathons in him, and is full of confidence, according to a RW interview with him recently.

So can Hall do it? The simple answer is yes, of course, because he's up at the level required of a champion marathon runner with a 2:06:17, which is the 4th best in the field. In New York, the difference between a 2:05 PB and a 2:06 PB is not as large is it is in say, London or Berlin, and Hall knows and enjoys the Central Park section of the race. But, as Letsrun have pointed out, his best is only 25th in history, such is the explosion in sub-2:06 times recently, but Hall is certainly a contender. Third in Boston earlier this year, behind an incredible run by Deriba Merga, suggest that Hall will at least be involved until the final few kilometers. So he can win, but I suspect it may be just too challenging in those final kilometers, and he'll finish third again.

So what does the podium look like, to sum up?

1. Jaouad Gharib - 2:07:22. Yes, the course record will fall, because 2009 has thrown marathon running into the new era, and NY will be pulled along with it. Expect a first half of around 1:03:10, with surges causing a slight slowing in the last half. Hendrik Ramaala of South Africa will feature in the early surges after halfway, but after 32km, he'll drop steadily off the pace.

2. Patrick Makau - he'll be with Gharib until the 40km, and will then slip back, finishing around 20 seconds down.

3. Ryan Hall - expect Hall to make the move that splits the race, at around 32km. A large group will be whittled down to four or five, and Hall will last enough to claim third, in a strong run, just outside 2:08.

Women's race: Paula all the way

The women's race is much easier to call. A spate of withdrawals has weakened the field considerably, and only Selinah Kosgei, this year's Boston champion, stands as a reasonable threat to the dominant runner over the last decade.

Paula Radcliffe's races are also pretty easy to anticipate - she runs hard, setting a tempo that is simply too quick to hold onto, and the field is cut one-by-one, until she's either all alone (as is normally the case), or one or two hang one, as was the case in a memorable race against Gete Wami back in 2007, where she won her second title.

This year should follow the former pattern, with Radcliffe pulling away to win relatively comfortably. The next question is whether she can get the course record, the 2:22:31 of Margaret Okayo. Radcliffe is a three-time winner in NY, with a best time of 2:23:09, back in 2007 during the Wami race. She's just recovered from a bout of tonsillitis, and with Radcliffe, you never know what injury hassles may have affected her training. She's been close to marathon shape for a long time, almost running the World Championships marathon in August, but deciding to withdraw late on because her form wasn't quite where she wanted it.

Then she withdrew from her home World Half-Marathon championships thanks to tonsillitis, so she's clearly been hovering on the brink of racing shape, but for a few problems. They won't affect her victory, but they might just prevent the record.

So I'll predict Paula to win, but just outside the record - 2:22:49.

Selinah Kosgei in second, somewhere in the mid 2:24 range.

Coverage of the race

And that, as always, was my crystal ball prediction! Tongue-in-cheek, of course!

For race coverage, as has been the case for the Majors, join us on Sunday, for live splits - not the 1km splits like for Chicago, unfortunately, but five kilometer times, if possible!

Ross

Coaching and science: Asset or liability

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:00:00 +0000

Coaching and science: What's the big deal and who cares for the science?

As promised, today begins a series of posts on coaching and science, and how the science can be, should be, and sometimes is, and often is not, applied to athlete preparation. Obviously, it comes with an endurance focus, but there's no reason why sprint coaches and team sport coaches can also not glean some information from this.

This is a series that was inspired by my visit to the US Olympic Center in Colorado Springs. I was lucky enough to be invited there by Prof Randy Wilber of the USOC, who had organized a symposium on altitude training. The symposium brought together scientists, coaches, athletes and mangers from 22 different countries, and included 32 Olympic athletes, and numerous sporting codes, Summer and Winter Olympics among them.

An uneasy marriage?

So it was a symposium that created the perfect platform for the marriage of science and coaching. Yet, two days later, and I don't know that too much had been gleaned from the science part of the symposium. At the risk of dismissing its value, the coaches probably gained enormous value from other coaches' presentations - Bob Bowman (Michael Phelps' coach) would have heard some valuable tips from Terrence Mahon (Ryan Hall and Deena Kastor, among others), and vice versa, but I dare say that the science would not have changed the way any of the coaches are approaching altitude training for their athletes. They already had a strategy, and I doubt whether the science showed them anything to improve or change it.

And this is a typical problem - coaches have historically done things well in advance of the science proving (or disproving) that they work. The famous running coach, Arthur Lydiard, was once reported to have said that the coaches already know what works, and the scientist's job is to tell them why it works! Now, that's not always true, because often, coaches do the wrong things, or they fail to do things that would help, or they are unaware of methods to improve performance. So it's not quite as simple as saying that science chases after the truth long after the coach has discovered it. Lydiard said this long before much of today's technology was available, and perhaps his view would now be different

But the eternal questions remain:

What value does science add?;
How much science does a good coach need to know? and;
Is the science sometimes more of a liability than an asset?

I believe that as sport gets increasingly competitive, there is no doubt that the effective use of science (and we'll explain what this means in the series) is the difference between turning mediocre into good, good into great, and great into world-champion. The question is, what is effective science, and how should it be applied?

One person's view: heart rate monitors + books = science

And co-incidence luck would have it, I woke up this morning to discover LetsRun.com's quote of the day was the following, from Steve Jones:

"What I do is make it simple," Jones, now a teetotaller, says. "There's no science in it – no heart-rate monitors. It's just running – running instinctively. Anyone who saw Steve Jones run in the Seventies, Eighties and early Nineties knew that he ran by the seat of his pants nearly all the time. You don't see that any more and that's what I'm trying to teach these guys. None of it comes out of a book. It all comes out of my own experience."

Quite clearly, Jones thinks that science is the sum of heart rate monitors and books. And no doubt, some will agree. I don't. My definition of science, particularly as applied to the coach, is far broader than this, and I dare say that Steve Jones applies a great deal of science to his coaching without even realizing it.

Our purpose and these questions

So what then does this application look like? To begin, the video below is an interview that I did with Training Peaks a week ago, in Boulder, Colorado. For those who don't know, Training Peaks make software to allow athletes and coaches to manage and monitor training. The management of data is, as I mention in the interview, a fundamental aspect of the scientific process applied to training. I'll describe this in a lot more detail in the next post.

If you've not seen Training Peaks software, I really do recommend that you check it out, because it offers so much value that if your big obstacle is managing your training (or that of your athletes), it might be the solution, particularly if you have a large group and you want to keep tabs on many at the same time.

However, in the interview, at around 5:40, Dirk Friel (Training Peaks Chief Marketing Officer, former pro cyclist) asks about coaching, and my answer is really the key to understanding what I believe to be the scientific value to coaching.

Also in the interview are some thoughts on how we began The Science of Sport, and some of the good stories of 2009, but that's really just for interest's sake - the real content is from 5:40 onwards!

Science is the process, not only the theory

To sum it up in a nutshell, there are really two aspects to science for the coach:

First, there is the theory. How the body adapts to stress, overtraining, environmental factors, diet, hydration, biomechanics, cardiovascular system and nervous system, and so forth. Steve Jones would call this the "book", and many coaches would be put off from looking it up, since this is the domain of the white-coated academic in the lab. The better coaches, in my opinion, seek to take from this theory and apply it, and we'll discuss that in more detail soon.

However, the second part of the science is, in my opinion, even more important. It involves the ability of the coach to engage in a scientific process. And what is a scientific process? It is the process by which you ask a question, design an 'intervention' (in this case, a training programme), create a hypothesis (for example, the athlete will run a 5km PB in three months), and then measure and collect data. If the data suggest all is on track, then the coach continues. If it suggests the athlete is not adapting, then the plan is changed, and a new intervention begun.

That's science. Coaching is the application of the same process as a scientist would follow if they wanted to test whether a transcription factor was involved in regulating the activity of a gene. There are differences, sure, but the process of measuring the athlete's response to the training, and then adapting the training to maximize the response requires the same system of thinking, and that is why the best coaches are also "scientific-minded". The interview above hopefully clears that up a little more.

So join us next time when we look more specifically at what scientific theory is valuable for coaches, and how this process should actually work. I think you'll find that good coaches do all of this already, and for them, the improvement in coaching ability comes from tiny adjustments, also made with some science behind them!

Ross

Deaths during running: Is exercise safe, Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:57:00 +0000

Running and safety continued - some comparisons, and the key point to the debate

One of the best things about this site is that often it is a source of information for me as much as I hope it is for you! And in response to last week's post about the safety of running, we've had some great comments and more information, which warranted a follow up. Also, I felt I should re-emphasize the purpose of that post, which was really a call to the media to change the view they project of running.

And most importantly, it was a message to runners out there to help them 'filter' out what is basically over-hyped reporting about deaths during running, akin to the "shark attack" phenomenon, where sensational reporting skews our beliefs over the relative safety of an activity (surfing in that case, running in ours). Perception does not necessarily equal reality, in other words, and the post was a call to question very hard what the risk of running is. If you do, you'll find that it's not nearly as high as is sometimes portrayed!

And now we have some points of comparison, thanks to you readers!

Host a marathon every weekend

First off, a study last year from the British Medical Journal took a rather creative (Malcolm Gladwell-esque) look at marathon safety. Canadian researchers compared the risk of dying in a motor vehicle accident with that of sudden cardiac death during marathon participation. Because courses are closed to traffic for larger races, it's possible to ask how many motor accident deaths would have been prevented as a result of the race, and compare this to actual deaths (thanks to Bengt, Tony and Amby for raising this one! As an aside, the author Redelmeier seems to be an expert on driving fatalities - another 2008 study published in JAMA is called "Driving fatalities on US presidential election days")

The diagram below summarizes the main finding:

So basically, the study found that the closure of roads for the major marathons prevented an estimated 46 deaths as a result of motor vehicle accidents. However, 26 sudden cardiac deaths were reported during those races (based on newspaper reports, it must be pointed out, and thus potentially a slight under-estimate). The relative risk - 35% lower when marathons happened.

And a final really important point - the authors have controlled for the accidents simply be relocated to other areas, and so marathon closures do not simply shift the site of the accidents. If you want the paper to check out their solid stats, please just let me know, as usual.

The author's conclusion is shown in italics above, but it was that "Organised marathons are not associated with an increase in sudden deaths from a societal perspective, contrary to anecdotal impressions fostered by news media."

Some numbers

Interesting that they picked up on the "impressions fostered by news media", which is basically the point of these last two posts. Interesting also that in 14 million hours, there were 26 deaths, which amounts to approximately 1 per 540,000 hours, a figure which agrees with that which our friend Amby Burfoot put forward in his comment to our last post. For a similar analysis, check out Amby's report on marathon deaths written last year, which is far more comprehensive than I've had time to do here - it's a big read, but if you're up for more details after this article, check it out.

This figure of 1 per ± 500,000 hours is also about the same as a (very) crude calculation would provide based on the information that about 6 deaths occur every year in the USA, and that about 3 million hours of running go into those deaths (this was all covered in the last post, if you want to read the numbers more).

My point, however, not covered by this study or the latest reports, is that marathon running hours are not limited to the hours of participation. There is substantially more time spent running in training, and by those who run but don't participate. If you factor all these people in, do the numbers change? Without quantifying training times, it may remain an unanswerable question.

These people, and their training, are the most important component of the debate, because they are most likely to be dissuaded from running as a result of the negative portrayal of running. Yet they are clearly, based on a large body of research by the likes of Paffenbarger (again, see the previous post), more protected than the sedentary population, and so should be hearing affirmation, not condemnation or warning for their choice to run. And if running in events that may have a risk of 1 death per 500,000 hours is the goal, then it too should be encouraged.

Comparing running with some other activities

To compare running a little better, have a look at the comments to the previous post, where you'll see some stats about how many deaths are caused by other activities. Smoking, for example, claims over 300,000 each year. Flu, 15,000, and car accidents, 20,000. Of course, the problem here is that these numbers don't indicate the 'exposure', or how many people spend how much time doing the activity. Smoking may simply be high because many people smoke, whereas 6 sudden deaths during running may be because hardly anyone runs.

Risk and exposure

So, for another comparison, I received data from a reader who had put together some stats on deaths per million hours of the activity. That piece can be read here, and the original article is here.

Admittedly, it's a little uncertain where this data were sourced, and in this field of epidemiology, that is crucially important. So with a proviso that the data is not "gospel", here is the summary list:

Deaths per million hours:

Skydiving - 128.71
General Flying - 15.58
Motorcycling - 8.80
Scuba Diving - 1.98
Swimming (presumably competitive) - 1.07
Snowmobiling - 0.88
Motoring - 0.47
Water skiing - 0.28
Bicycling - 0.26
Airline Flying 0.15
Hunting 0.08

Running? Depending on which number you believe, the risk during marathons is between 1.8 and 2 deaths per million hours, so it's around the same as scuba diving.

One problem - that doesn't factor in the health benefits, which I emphasized previously. Regular physical activity reduces the risk of cardiac disease and a host of other health problems, and so the risk is moderated by the benefit.

Most important of all - applying this dizzying collection of numbers to yourself

To end off (before we tackle some more enjoyable topics like coaching and science in the coming days), a word on applying this to you. I know I've thrown figures and numbers at you, and your head is probably spinning, so let's try to simplify this.

The reality, at the risk of sounding callous, is that people do die during running. A big race, with 30,000 runners, seems likely to experience such an event every 3 to 4 years. Put differently, between the six major marathons each year, there would be a sudden cardiac death each year.

People who are predisposed to cardiac death are more likely to die while running than while sitting on their couch. This is undeniable. But equally, people who run, including those who run marathons, derive enormous benefit from it - their health gains as a result of running are sufficient to over-ride habits like smoking in terms of overall risk of mortality (Paffenbarger, et al).

You can investigate whether you might be one of those predisposed, higher-risk people, but the problem, as we've discussed at length before, is that medical testing cannot currently identify all the people at risk. Some, certainly, and so medical screening, particularly if you are concerned, would be advisable.

Even in the absence of such 'confirmation', however, you still have a choice. With the risk at one death per 500,000 hours of running, and with the knowledge that running can improve your health, your choice is to remain sedentary and avoid that 0.8 in 100,000 runner chance, or you can run and benefit from the numerous positive adaptations you'll experience. It is a risk-management matrix, where running and remaining sedentary must be weighed against one another, benefits and risks understood, and a choice made. Your ability to manage the risks, by undergoing tests, by training and by adopting a healthy lifestyle, makes this choice far simpler than leaving it to guess-work.

And finally, for the media, physical activity should be encouraged, not 'demonized' with threats of death caused by activities like running. Sensational sells, but when it deters people from running, it becomes a problem. So some perspective, some affirmation and positive reporting would go a long way to fixing what is a growing problem of inactivity and obesity, subtly being driven by the media reporting. By all means, educate and inform people of how to maximize benefits, but let's not give a voice to those who view exercise as radical from the safety of their couches.

Ross

P.S. As mentioned, a series on coaching and the application of science starts tomorrow. Join us then!

Further reading:

Amby Burfoot, Editor-in-Chief of Runners World has done a comprehensive piece on safety of marathon running. I've tried to make this article (and the one before) more philosophical and directed at the media coverage, whereas his is full of information and 'hard facts'. But this is a great piece, and if you're up for more reading, this is a great read:

Amby Burfoot: SPECIAL REPORT: ARE MARATHONS DANGEROUS?

Deaths during running: Is exercise safe?

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:17:00 +0000

Sudden death during exercise: The media, risk and running

For those who have not heard or read the news, three runners died during the Detroit Marathon/Half-marathon last weekend. All three were running the half-marathon, and were aged 26, 36 and 65. The three collapsed within 16 minutes of each other during the race. The timing, the wide spread of ages, and the fact that three deaths occurred in one race (which was not hot, I might add) have given the story 'legs', and it was even covered on CNN.

Whenever this kind of incident happens, there is debate and discussion around the safety of running. It's always bad press for running. It is a topic that pops up fairly regularly, and we've actually covered it in a fair amount of detail here on The Science of Sport. I'm not going to go into enormous detail on sudden deaths during exercise again, but for those who are interested, you may like to read the following posts:

A general perception of safety

So as I said, I wouldn't ordinarily post on this topic again and in the case of the Detroit runners, I don't know the cause or any details, and so it would be wildly speculative to discuss specifics. However, this latest incident, and the media reporting around it, reminded me of a thought I'd had while watching the NBC coverage of the Chicago Marathon about 2 weeks ago.

You may recall that Jonathan and I were in the control area, doing real-time pacing for the race, and also spent some time in the medical tent. But it was watching NBC's coverage, that I was struck by the fact that the person who was interviewed the most during a 3 hour broadcast was the race doctor, George Chiampas. On no fewer than four occasions, Dr Chiampas was featured in a two -minute interview, giving his thoughts on race hydration, race safety, post-race safety, recovery, training and so forth. And while he answered the questions very well, it was clear that the 'safety/danger' of running was of utmost importance to the broadcaster.

It struck me that there is a very real perception among mainstream media in the USA (remembering I'm from South Africa and so normally unaware of this message) that running is a risk. That is, viewers who watched the broadcast of Chicago and who were NOT runners would be left under no illusions that attempting to run a marathon is a dangerous task. The "shock and fear" coverage, which implies danger at every turn, sends a clear message that if you run a marathon, you are taking a chance with your life.

And this unfortunate, because it ignores the whole other side of the argument, and does so with little to back it up other than infrequent and over-hyped incidents. A thoughtful, balanced approach would cover two additional aspects:

It would consider whether the risk of death during running is in fact greater than during any other activities, and;
It would look at whether the average runner (from recreational to the marathon) was deriving a benefit from running, and whether this person was in fact less likely to die than someone who chose to stay on the couch because of all these "life-threatening" risks.

Millions of hours invested, but even stats don't tell the full story

Then there is the statistical approach, which many resort to in cases like this. I read in a report from Fox News that a total of 425,000 runners completed marathons in the USA in 2008, and another 715,000 completed half-marathons.

If you convert that to time, assuming that the average marathon and half-marathon time is 4 hours and 2 hours, respectively, then you can work out that a total of 3.1 million hours of running time goes into those races. And this does not include the training, or the 5km and 10km races done along the way. If you assume that the average person trains 2.5 hours a week for 3 months to run a marathon or half-marathon race, then you get a grand total of 34.2 million hours of training time per year for those runners. The total running time for marathon and half-marathon runners in the USA per year? 37.2 million hours of running (and this is an underestimate, I must point out - it does not take into account the millions who spend an hour a week jogging in the gyms, or those who train but don't race)

So what is the frequency of mortality for these runners? Fox News reports that about 6 deaths per year occur during races. How many during training? We don't know, unfortunately. But the point I'm trying to make is that these deaths are rather less common than they may seem - one per million hours, perhaps? One per three million hours? Until that is quantified, reports that marathon running is dangerous are simply irresponsible, the result of a classic 'media-led knee-jerk reaction', where news reporting makes us over-estimate the prevalence of such events. A classic example is shark attacks - they are exceedingly rare, but when they happen, they're so dramatic that they receive hyped-up media exposure and so we think they're more common than they are. I suspect the same is true for running-related deaths. (What would be great is to compare this number with other activities - driving your car, flying, playing other sports. If there are any economists or actuaries out there who know this, please speak up!)

The real story - the benefit that the media don't report

But these stats don't tell the whole story anyway. What you really need to ask is whether exercise adds up to a longer, healthier life, even taking into account what I believe is a tiny risk. In other words, you need to look at the overall benefit of being active, and ask whether those who run are less likely to die than those who do not? There is no doubt, based on the evidence, that exercise reduces the risk of morbidity (disease) and mortality (death). One of the most famous names in exercise science and health is Ralph Paffenbarger, and he demonstrated pretty clearly that increasing exercise was associated with decreased risk of disease and death. The most famous study is perhaps this one, his Harvard Alumni paper.

Paffenbarger went so far as to show that people who exercised AND smoked, were less at risk than those who didn't smoke, but didn't exercise either. So, if you want a debate about the benefits of exercise (and I include running here), the real issue is whether those three deaths, and then dozen or so that seem to happen each year during running, outweigh the fact that those same people, if inactive, would have a lower life expectancy and health status? I doubt it does.

And I wish that the NBC, and all the other media covering running events here in the US and the rest of the world, would acknowledge that instead of focusing on the small risk of injury or death, there is a far bigger positive outcome to being active. Maybe in future, doctors like George Chiampas will be explaining why those sitting on their couches SHOULD be getting up to run, rather than telling those who are running how not to hurt themselves doing it!

Fitness does not protect you, but nor does being under-trained increase your risk

One final point I have to make, in response to what I've seen is being discussed about this issue, is that people are not necessarily more likely to die from a cardiac event during exercise if they are untrained. A lot of people have said that people who die during marathons are themselves responsible, because they're running when they are not fit enough. This is not true, to the best of my knowledge.

The reality is that people who die during exercise have some underlying, probably undetected condition that predisposes them to a cardiac event during exercise. Those who are simply unfit don't die - they just stop at the 10 mile mark (or sooner) and walk the rest of the way, because their brain does not allow them to continue running. The fact of the matter is that there are conditions that predispose us to sudden cardiac death, and exercise can bring this out - but it could happen to the elite (Ryan Shay, a few soccer players in recent years) or to the average runner. It's not that they're unfit or undertrained.

Of course, behaviours contribute to some deaths - overdrinking, for example, can lead to hyponatremia and death. But even here, the criticism belongs with those who advocate excessive drinking, the dangers of "dehydration" and advertise sports drinks to unknowing consumers, not to the athlete who makes the mistake.

So in the light of the latest events, and until toxicology reports are in, deciding on the cause is premature. Agreeing that it's sad for all involved, but recognizing that it's not running that killed them, is the way to go!

Ross

Ross speaks: Fatigue and the brain

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:05:00 +0000

Anticipatory regulation of exercise

Apologies for the delay in posting after my lecture last week at UIC - the Chicago Marathon came and went, and since then, travels have taken too much time to post properly.

However, what I've done below is post segments of that talk, which was titled "Limits to exercise performance: World records, fatigue and unphysiological performances". Unfortunately, Jonathan was a little off at an angle, but hopefully the video is clear enough and the sound good enough to make out the argument. Just in case, the diagram is shown below the video, so you can follow it there (hopefully). Also, if you're getting this as an email, the YouTube clips might not play, so you may have to click here to go to the site and view the clip there.

The first video, 3:56 long, presents a model which I wrote about in an article published earlier this year in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, called "The anticipatory regulation of performance: the physiological basis for pacing strategies and the development of a perception-based model for exercise performance" (BJSM, 2009 Jun;43(6):392-400)

The model explained: Complex anticipation and RPE

Obviously, you're watching a part of a presentation slightly out of context, but hopefully it gives you the basic idea. This is a topic that has been covered a few times on the site - in fact, there's a whole series on Fatigue for those who are interested.

To summarize, your ability to regulate pace (which is something I'll bet you've never even think about) is vastly more complex than you may realize. Even the most basic decision of how fast to start a 5km versus a 10km race is the result of innumerable calculations, which take into account previous experience, training, motivation, environment (internal and external) and physiological changes during exercise.

It really is a remarkable system, and one which we believe is primarily regulated by the perception of effort. This is something you probably also haven't thought about much, but the way you perceive exercise is in fact so enormously complex that science is many years away from understanding it.

There is debate in science about whether your perception and the regulation of the pace is done consciously or sub-consciously, and that's where the debate seems "stuck" (or centered) right now. I suspect that, as with most things, it will turn out to be a combination, for conscious regulation is obvious (you choose to slow down), but so is unconscious regulation - you don't have to think about starting pace, and you also slow down 'involuntarily' during exercise, even though your perception of effort is not necessarily raised (very important point this).

To explain, the physiological inputs before and during exercise result in a conscious perception of effort, which is then interpreted based on the expected duration and the "template RPE", which is a construct representing what would be considered an acceptable rise in RPE. This interpretation of RPE underscores why exercise intensity changes dynamically during exercise. It explains how motivation impacts on performance, and it accounts for the effects of changing conditions on performance. This is why you speed up at the end of a race, even though your body temperature may be close to limiting, whereas you slow down in the middle, when you are not hot.

The idea that your physiology 'controls' pacing is flawed, because it ignores the importance of context - not all physiological inputs are interpreted equally!

Applying the model to the heat

The next video, shown below (2:30 long), shows a simplified model for what would happen during exercise in the heat.

We know that if your body temperature hits 40 degrees (maybe a little higher in highly motivated elite athletes), your ability to exercise is limited - this temperature is associated with nervous system failure, lack of co-ordination, dizziness, and a failure to activate muscle.

Put simply, if you hit an internal temperature of 40 degrees, your race is basically over - you either walk to the finish line, or you fall over in a cool spot and hope to cool off!

But luckily the body is too smart for this - the pacing strategy is adjusted in advance of this failure. The previous video, on the RPE and the model for regulation, explains how this would happen. What this second video is showing is that the 'calculation' is made in order to balance the requirements for fastest possible time with physiological 'safety'.

Obviously, stopping at the 36km of a marathon is failure. So too is death from heatstroke. But, equally bad is running twenty minutes slower than you could have done, because your brain has been "too conservative". So the balance is achieved by forecasting the physiological outcome of current behaviour. Put simply: "If I continue at this pace, storing this heat, will I finish the race before I run into danger?"

On a hot day, when heat storage is higher thanks to reduced heat loss, the answer may well be "NO", in which case the brain reduces muscle activation and thus pace, and the race can be completed in a slower, but feasible time. The endspurt at the end comes when the body temperature is at its highest, but the risk is now absent, because the brain takes into account the exercise duration remaining, as explained previously.

So that is it in a nutshell - it's not all dreamed out of thin air, mind you! The BJSM paper I linked to above contains all the references and evidence on which this model was built, so feel free to check that out!

Travel update

Just a quick travel update, seeing as how I'm making my way across the nation meeting all kinds of interesting sports science-related people: I'm now in the Rocky Mountains, at an altitude of 3,500m, where I am learning new respect for Kenyan and Ethiopian runners who train at this altitude all the time! I run at least a full minute per kilometer slower than normal, but my lungs feel as though they've completed 10 consecutive 800m races.

I head to Boulder tomorrow, where I will meet with a number of coaches, athletes and experts, and I'll be sure to interview and post interesting comments here. So join us then!

Ross

Chicago 2009 In-race splits

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:22:00 +0000

Splits from the 2009 Chicago Marathon

Below is a table with the kilometer splits (those we got) from today's Chicago marathon, which saw Sammy Wanjiru win his fourth major marathon - Fukuoka, Beijing, London and now Chicago.

His time? 2:05:41, one second inside the course record, so mission accomplished, at least from that point of view. The world record eluded him, but the cold, the wind and the pace-making (too fast early, didn't last long enough) didn't allow that.

The splits make for interesting reading. The early pace was unbelievably fast - 5km was reached in 14:34 and 10km was covered in 29:10, projecting a finish time under 2:03. It was hardly surprising that the pace slowed, and the second half of the race would be covered in 63:40, compared to the first half of 62:01. Abderrahim Goumri was sensible and probably ran the closest to an even split - 62:50 and 63:14.

Wanjiru's decisive move came just before 35km, when he shifted to drop the Kenyans who had kept pace up to that point.

The wind certainly played a role - it was coming from the North, and if you look at the table below, you'll see some really slow final kilometers - that's partly due to the race situation, the fast early pace, but also the wind, because the final stretch of the race is run directly into that wind.

Enjoy the splits below!

Thanks for following the coverage!

Ross & Jonathan

KM	Time	Elapsed time	Mile pace	Projected time	Weather
1	2:53	2:53	4:38	2:01:39	37F / 47%
2	2:53	5:46	4:38	2:01:39
3	2:56	8:42	4:43	2:02:22
4	2:53	11:35	4:38	2:02:12
5	2:59	14:34	4:48	2:02:56
6	2:53	17:27	4:38	2:02:43
7	2:52	20:19	4:37	2:02:28
8	2:58	23:17	4:46	2:02:48	38F / 43%
9	2:53	26:10	4:38	2:02:41
10	3:00	29:10	4:50	2:03:04
11	2:56	32:06	4:43	2:03:08
12	no time
13	5:52	37:58	4:43	2:03:14
14	2:58	40:56	4:46	2:03:21	37F / 44%
15	3:03	43:59	4:54	2:03:44
16	3:00	46:59	4:50	2:03:54
17	No time
18	6:02	53:01	4:51	2:04:17
19	No time
20	5:49	58:50	4:40	2:04:07
21	2:53	61:43	4:38	2:04:00
22	2:57	64:40	4:45	2:04:02
23	No time
24	No time
25	8:59	1:13:39	4:49	2:04:18
26	2:59	1:16:38	4:48	2:04:22
27	2:58	1:19:36	4:48	2:04:24	38F / 46%
28	2:50	1:22:26	4:34	2:04:13
29	2:59	1:25:25	4:48	2:04:17
30	3:21	1:28:46	5:23	2:04:51
31	3:00	1:31:46	4:50	2:04:54
32	2:58	1:34:44	4:46	2:04:55	38F / 45%
33	No time
34	6:16	1:41:00		2:05:21
35	2:58	1:43:58	4:46	2:05:21
36	2:54	1:46:52	4:43	2:05:15
37	2:55	1:49:47	4:42	2:05:12
38	3:00	1:52:47	4:50	2:05:14
39	3:01	1:55:48	4:51	2:05:17	38F / 43%
40	3:08	1:58:56	5:02	2:05:28
41	3:06	2:02:02	4:59	2:05:35
42	No time
F	3:39	final 1.195k	4:45	2:05:41

Note: The race doesn't do 1km splits, and so we're reliant on our own 'spotters' out on the course to report to us as the elites hit each kilometer mark, which we then match up against our official race timing. So we apologize for any missed splits, but here's our best efforts to track the race as it unfolds!

Donate and support The Science of Sport

Thank you for taking time to read and follow our coverage of the Chicago Marathon at The Science of Sport. We hope you've enjoyed the insights we've tried to provide! Your time and energies are greatly appreciated!

We run this site as a "labour of love" and will continue to do so, but of course, any support is greatly appreciated. So, if you would like to donate and support our continued efforts to bring you the insights and analysis, please consider donating to our site. You can do so in one of two ways:

If you are reading this on our site, then simply scroll up to the top of the page, where you will find the DONATE button at the top right of the page.
If you are reading this in our email newsletter, click here to be taken to our site, where you will see the DONATE button at the top right of our homepage.

Thank you once again, and keep on reading!
Ross

Chicago 2009 Preview

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:04:00 +0000

Predictions from Chicago: Sammy Wanjiru vs...?

Good morning from a cold, still dark, but as yet not too windy Chicago Marathon! Jonathan and I are sitting at the start line near Grant Park, preparing for the race, which sadly we're not running, but tracking from the IT center and medical tent.

Right now, the temperature is -1C, or 31F, and so with two hours to go to the start, the runners are in for a cold first few miles! The wind is a gentle breeze from the north-west, which will make the first few kilometers, in that direction, pretty biting!

All the talk, somewhat over-expectantly, has been around whether Sammy Wanjiru, the London and Olympic champion, can grab the world record of 2:03:59. That expectation, which requires that everything be absolutely perfect, from the pace-making, to Wanjiru's condition, and the weather, means that the race is likely to become about Sammy vs the clock.

We think that's too much to expect, though it's not because Wanjiru doesn't have a record performance in him. I believe on the right day, he would break that record. Earlier this year, he ran London in 2:05:10, after covering the first half in 61:45 (thank to an even faster first 10km). The second half of London was "tactical", and he still wound up running 2:05:10, which suggests that he has something quite a bit faster. That performance in Beijing suggests the same, and so I think Wanjiru is a real 'contender' to get that record.

However, for today, I think it should be seen as a bonus, because there are a few factors that may conspire against him. First is the wind - the northerly wind means that the last part of the race, perhaps 5km, will be run directly into it, and if the record is touch-and-go at 35km, it's likely to slip away. The cold temperatures may also be a touch too cold - it's not certain how Wanjiru will handle it.

Then there is the World Marathon Majors, which Wanjiru is odds-on to win overall. It means he will have a focus on finishing and securing that title, which may moderate his normally aggressive racing style somewhat. And finally, the only incentive I can see is for the course record. At least, nothing has been said about the world record in terms of financial bonus, and so it may be a factor that causes Wanjiru to shoot for a low 2:05 and not risk the Majors with a 2:03-something.

The prediction - Wanjiru to win, off the record

So I think what is likely to happen is that Wanjiru will start on record pace - he has in Patrick Ivuti a pacemaker who was winning this race two years ago. Ivuti is not in the best shape (otherwise, he'd be racing and not pace-making), but he should be good for a 61:50 to half way. After that, who knows? If Wanjiru feels brilliant, he may take it on. However, if I had to stick my neck out, I'd guess he'll assess that it's too breezy (assuming it picks up, of course), too cool, and there may be some pretty good company around him. He'll then slow down, and the section from 21 to 30km will drop the pace to around 2:06-projected.

The final 10 will resemble London and Wanjiru should win, despite some good competition.

So, the crystal ball calls it this way:

1. Sammy Wanjiru - 2:05:55 (after a first half of 61:57)
2. Tadese Tola - 40 seconds back
3. Abderrahim Goumri - a further 25 seconds down

Or, I'll probably be completely wrong! Time will tell!

Live split times:

The next post you'll see from me is a post on the split times. As I mentioned, we're stationed at the finish, and we're going to try to get live 1km splits. The race doesn't do this, by the way (they do 5km splits), and so we've got an ambitious project with 'spotters' located out on the course, and so we're going to do our best to catch the elites as they hit each kilometer.

So I'll do the usual live posting, with a table of 1km times. Let's hope it works! If not, I'll go with 5km times instead!

So join us throughout the morning (or afternoon, for those on the other side of the ocean!) for race coverage!

Ross

Jonathan speaks: site origins and coach-science conflict

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:24:00 +0000

The origins of the site and the eternal science-coach-athlete conflict

I realised the other day that in the two and a half years that The Science of Sport has been running, very few of you have ever heard directly from us. Sure, there are posts and opinions and replies to comments, but unless you're in Chicago or Cape Town (or you've seen the odd TV appearance), we've been no more than words on a page!

And so today, while Jonathan and I visited with the Vitality Group here in Chicago for a Q & A session, I decided we should change that! Being in the same city, something that happens only once every 18 or so months, affords us the chance to actually get "interactive" and more personal, and so there will probably be a few more of these in the coming days!

To start with, below are two videos of Jonathan at our Q & A, just so you know we're real people after all!

The origins of The Science of Sport: modest beginnings

Nothing false about that - when we started, I'd wake up in SA and check the site and discover that a grand total of 4 people had visited the site the day before. I recall the first day we hit 100 visits, it was a momentous occasion! And no, we don't have that many friends, so by then we had at least spoken to some 'strangers'! To all the "strangers" since, thank you for your continued support!

But seriously, what Jonathan doesn't allude to is that we started out with the view to being a coaching site, but very quickly recognized that the news was where the gap existed, because, quite frankly, the mainstream media often didn't deviate much from "the script" when it came to reporting scientific angles on stories. The very first big story we hit was Oscar Pistorius, where the media, particularly here in SA, lapped up everything they were fed by the PR machine, and there was no science. Some have disagreed with our version of that science, but that's OK, I would prefer for there to be disagreements around the science than none at all!

I guess the very latest controversy, that of Caster Semenya, again highlights just how the general sports media are often 'blind-sided' by sports news that requires scientific reporting. It is ironic that both these cases involved SA athletes, so I was 'fortunate' to be exposed to much of the media coverage, and the claims of 'pull down her pants' made by esteemed politicians here in SA, which provided plenty of opportunity for comment!

We're actually very fortunate to be in a field where so many opportunities for this kind of insight are needed - whether it's pacing during marathons, dehydration, muscle cramps, world records, doping or sports management, sport creates news, and science and management help interpret it. So we're in a good position to be swept up by the current!

The marriage between science, coaching and medicine

The next video has Jonathan talking about one of the biggest challenges facing sports science today. That is the challenge of taking knowledge and applying it to the 'end-user', the athlete, coach, and occasionally, the medical doctor. Case in point is hyponatremia, which is what Jonathan speaks about in this clip.

So that's a few thoughts from Jonathan.

Tomorrow might be my turn - I give a talk at Jonathan's University, and so we'll see if we can film some of it and post clips here.

Ciao!
Ross

Pacing strategy and limits to performance

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:02:00 +0000

Chicago 2009: Thoughts on pacing and the limit to performance

Well, I have arrived in Chicago after a great couple of days in Washington, and now the build-up to the Chicago 2009 Marathon can begin! A little later today, Jonathan and I will be meeting with some of the Marathon organizers to discuss race-day logistics and to figure out how (if at all) we can go about doing live 1km race split reports here on The Science of Sport.

We're also meeting with a local health insurance company for a Q & A and a short presentation, and then tomorrow, I am at the UIC to give a talk to the department. So a busy few days have begun!

However, the marathon is the focus, and particularly, the presence of Sammy Wanjiru, Olympic and London Champion. There was talk of sending pacemakers out at 61:40 to halfway, in a quest to break the world record. The most recent reports suggest that he won't go for the record, but will rather focus on solidifying his lead in the World Marathon Majors. Is that an attempt to deflect attention and downplay the occasion? I have a feeling he'll go for it though, only because he's spoken of his desire before, and if he's in good condition, Chicago represents a real opportunity. Wanjiru is also so aggressive - remember his Beijing performance in the heat - that I can't see him holding back if he has good form.

So far, the weather forecasts look favourable - it won't be too hot, that's for sure. The only concern may be around the wind, which has been pretty gusty since I arrived. Regardless, 1km splits will be interesting, because if it's a slower race, then the surges, which Wanjiru used in both Beijing and London will make for an interesting analysis.

Pacing strategy analysis

And it's pacing strategy that is the focus of today's post. At least, some thoughts on pacing and the limits to performance, which were inspired by the talk I was preparing for UIC tomorrow.

Below is a graph of the pacing strategy from every men's world record in the 800m, mile, 5,000m and 10,000m events. "Interval number" on the x-axis refers to the lap number for the 800m and mile races, and the kilometer number for the 5,000 and 10,000m

So, looking globally, in the 800m event, the first lap is on average 2.4 seconds faster than the second (52s vs 54.4s). That's why I've often written that if you run an even-paced 800m, with a second lap that is as fast as the first, you're underperforming (more on this another time).

However, from the mile up to the 10,000m, the strategy (at least globally) is similar. Fast first interval, then a gradual reduction in pace in the middle, before what is called an "endspurt" in the final interval, be it the last lap, or the last kilometer (note that in the long distance races, that fast end is probably also due to the last lap, not a whole last kilometer).

Physiology of pacing - not as simple as it may seem

Now, the physiological basis for this pacing strategy is very interesting, but not really the topic of this post. Briefly, if you've always been told that you slow down because you become anaerobic, because lactate affects your muscles, or because of other chemicals that run out or accumulate, then you have a very difficult time explaining how the fastest part of the race comes at the end. Does the muscle suddenly overcome the inhibitive effects of the chemicals? Does the muscle suddenly 'tolerate' being anaerobic to allow a shift in pace that is often as large at 6 seconds over the final lap?

The peripheral fatigue explanation doesn't allow that. The only explanation is that the athlete had some reserve during those middle kilometers when they were slowing down. This is obvious to most people - except if they're taught otherwise! Most athletes and coaches will readily agree that there is reserve, but this reserve was not acknowledged in exercise physiology, amazingly, until quite recently.

What does this reserve look like? Well, there is evidence that the activation of muscle is increased at the end of the event, when the finish line is in sight. Also, it's pretty obvious that when you are running a 10,000m race, you are not going "all-out" and so there is without doubt a reserve capacity. During the middle part of the race, for reasons I won't go into here, you don't use that reserve, but at the end, your brain allows you to use it and you speed up. So now, you should be asking how large that reserve is, how it is maintained, and whether you can 'eat into it' to run faster? That is another series of posts altogether, and I must confess, I don't know the answers to those questions, I can only theorize!

Simple observations, complex physiology! I won't go into more detail on this, but if you'd like to read further, then I'd recommend two review papers which I had published earlier this year, in which I did theorize and propose a model for how the brain regulates performance (Tucker, BJSM, 43(6), 2009)

Pacing and performance limits - a change in how records are paced

In any event, this post is about the limits to performance, and for that, we must look more closely at the 5,000m world record. The graph below somewhat arbitrarily breaks 32 world records into three eras:

1920 to 1953 (9 records)
1954 to 1973 (11 records)
1974 to present (12 records)

It will be pretty obvious that something has changed in the way the world records have been paced. The first era, from 1920 to 1953, reveals a typical pacing strategy where the start is fast, the middle gets slower and slower, and the final kilometer is very fast.

The second era starts to look a little different - the drop in pace from 1 to 2km is not as large, and overall, the mid-race slowdown is nowhere near as pronounced. However, the same pattern exists, with kilometers 1 and 5 being significantly faster than the middle kilometers.

And then comes the third era. There is no longer a slowing down in the middle part of the race, and the only 'pacing anomaly' is a faster final kilometer. This period, from 1974 onwards, has seen the 5,000m WR fall from 13:13 to 12:37 (36 seconds), but the difference in the first kilometer is only 4 seconds.

So what is the significance of this change? Well, there are a lot of differences between the present era and the 1950s, for example. Training methods, technology, diet, equipment including shoes and track surface, genes (since the population is different in the third era - it's dominated by African runners), and dare one say, doping...do these differences explain why not only the pace, but the pacing strategy has improved? Perhaps - that is an interesting debate!
(Incidentally, if you look at the 10,000m record, you find exactly the same thing - a distinct trend towards even pacing has driven most of the performance improvements in the world records)

Eroding the reserve to reach the limit

So what does this mean for limits to performance? Well, it suggests that the absolute limit may be reached when the optimal pacing strategy is achieved. That would be the point where the reserve is entirely 'eroded' and the athlete is performing to the maximum of their physiological capacity on that day.

Of course, you may be thinking that the reserve and 'maximal physiological capacity' is dependent on training and fitness. And I agree, which is why it's possible that as you read this, you may believe you're already pacing yourself optimally, but you fancy that you can still improve with training. Your reserve (both on the day, and over months of training) is larger.

But we're talking about the elite here, and the very best elite athletes in the world at very close to the peak of their fitness. And once you're looking at this group, the notion of knocking 2 seconds per kilometer off becomes a lot more difficult. Their reserve, collectively, is much smaller, and even months of training doesn't change that. Haile Gebrselassie illustrated this in Berlin, when he ran close to perfect even pace the whole way and then imploded in the final 7km. That suggests that he had run just a little too fast for the conditions and for his physiological capacity, which means he's very, very close to the limits of what he is able to achieve.

Someone else may come along (maybe Wanjiru this weekend), but they're not going to blow records away to the tune of even 2 seconds per kilometer anymore! The reserve available to an elite athlete, even with many months of training, is much smaller than to your 20-min 5k runner. That's why the only improvements in the last ten world records have come from running the middle kilometers faster, and not just running the whole race faster, which is what you'd do if you went out and ran 19-minutes after 3 months of good training.

The key is in the reserve, and for the very best runners in the world, at the very peak of their fitness, there is very little of it. But that which exists represents the margin by which performances can be improved, until performances are almost perfectly even-paced and only minute improvements will be possible. Perhaps the limit to performance is near.

Chicago Marathon - even paced for the WR?

So it's in that light that I'm looking forward to Sunday's race, in the hope that Wanjiru does go out and try to get this record. If he hits halfway in 61:40, I dare say it would be too fast. That would put him on course for a 2:03:20, which is a 40-second improvement, and I believe that's too great. I'd rather suggest a 61:55 for the first half, with something close to that on the second. Time will tell!

More to come from Chicago in the coming days!

Ross

Rio 2016

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:18:00 +0000

Rio 2016 continued

Just wanted to make a late addition to my earlier post, and thank Lauter for pointing it out. I'd said that I couldn't think of a city that had hosted two huge sporting events in the same cycle, and Lauter promptly pointed out that Mexico City in 1968/1970 and Munich in 1972/1974 had done the 'double'. In both cases, they hosted the Games and then the FIFA World Cup. Rio gets to do it in the opposite order, hosting first FIFA and then the IOC.

So thanks for the correction - Lauter took time off celebrating, since he lives in Rio himself! My cognitive function must be fading! I could list the Olympic venues and the FIFA venues, but the lists didn't seem to overlap! Clearly, I need that US-holiday!

Well done again Rio!

Ross

It's Rio in 2016

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:09:00 +0000

Rio 2016: The Olympic Games head to South America

Rio de Janeiro will host the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The decision from Copenhagen today sent crowds on Rio's Copacabana into raptures, and for the second time in a few years, Brazil celebrated being awarded a major international sporting event.

The 2014 FIFA World Cup will now be followed by the 2016 Olympic Games, which means Rio is in the same position as Mexico City back in 1968/1970, and Munich in 1972/1974, hosting two huge events in the same cycle. The only exception is the order, since Rio gets the FIFA World Cup before the Olympic Games (of course, the FIFA World Cup is shared across Brazil, not just Rio, but the point remains). Still, the FIFA World Cup and Olympic Games are the biggest sporting events in the world, and so Brazil will be in a prolonged sporting spotlight for the next 8 years. (when I first posted, I'd completely forgotten about these two - losing my memory, clearly! However, can I escape by saying that since the "professionalization" of the events, no city has hosted two events consecutively?)

The defeated applicants - Chicago falls in round 1

The Rio decision left three very disappointed cities - Madrid, Tokyo and Chicago. In that order of elimination, too. The voting process, which saw one city eliminated in each of four rounds, saw Chicago fall at the very first hurdle.

This was the big surprise, and I'll be honest, a big disappointment for us at The Science of Sport. Both Jonathan (a Chicago resident, of course) and I had supported the Chicago bid, and so we're disappointed in the vote for personal reasons. For anyone who loves sport, the Olympics are such a highlight that it would have been great to share in the buildup and maybe even get involved in the preparation for the 2016 Games (the one occasion where sports science is in demand in in the lead-up to major events. Not that the US has this problem - here in SA, we need that stimulus far more!).

Chicago was one of the favorites in what was one of the closest races in Olympic bidding history. The two front-runners were Chicago and Rio, and when Chicago was eliminated first, there was shock and amazement from Chicago and from the delegates in Copenhagen. Among the public, however, there were a few protests leading up to the decision - people who feel that the spending required on the Games cannot be justified when other social services are deemed inadequate. Justifying billions on sport is always a tough task to those not passionate about sport. Others see it as a platform for change, an economic stimulus, a force for positive change. Perhaps Jonathan will give us a local perspective on the response to the decision a little later.

In my sports management work, I've been involved at different levels with a couple of bids, and know people who have headed up bids for other major events, and I will say that the only thing you can ever know with certainty is that you know nothing about how the voting will go. The typical bid process requires a committee to jump through all kinds of hoops, to meet certain requirements in an attempt to make the bids as uniform and objective as possible. How much money, guarantees on the money, commitments to facilities, rooms for tourists, the Olympic village, and so forth.

But the reality is that the bid often swings on personal issues, voting blocs and alliances with future promises or previous favors being called in. So you can meet every criteria, and even exceed them, but you can't guarantee success. Sentiment plays cold, hard cash and business sense, which is NOT as simple as seeing which city can spend the most money or raise the highest sponsorship (as people have tended to oversimplify it) - the business sense is often a function of how much the rights owner (the IOC in this case) is assured of by the host city, and this goes beyond the sponsorship and government/business backing.

And both sentiment and business are often trumped by politics, and politics is personal. The result is a voting process that is always debated - just look at the 2012 decision, where Paris was a 'sure thing' until the last moment, or any vote before it.

But onto Rio and 2016

But onto Rio, which did have a great bid - you can read a really great summary of the four different bids here. It was comfortably the largest financial bid - close to $14 billion split between operating expenses ($2.82 billion) and capital costs of $11.1 billion (Chicago had the largest operation budget at $3.8 billion, incidentally). I suspect some of the capital costs will have to be absorbed into 2014 planning and construction, since both will really have to be done simultaneously - resources are going to become very lucrative in Rio!)

For Rio, a big selling point was "distribution" of the Games, because it had never been to South America, and so 2016 will be the first time. This is quite an amazing stat, actually.

Brazil will be a fantastic place between 2013 and 2016, with one major sporting event following the next. The culture, the energy, should make for a fantastic Games. It will be interesting to see how Brazil uses the Games to prepare its athletes - we have seen China spend millions on its athlete development, and Great Britain have done the same leading into 2012. Brazil are not a classic powerhouse in Olympic sport (you can be sure the soccer at the 2016 Games will be a highlight, though), and so I'm really interested to see what hosting status does for their high performance sports strategy.

I'm sure there is more to come, maybe some opinion from Jonathan on the reaction in Chicago, maybe more related to the voting process (as is typical), and the reaction of some elite athletes - one thing that is for sure, there'll be a lot of 15 to 18-year old prospective Olympic athletes who are marking their calendars tonight..."Rio, here I come!"

Ross

USA trip and sports science "pilgrimage"

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:47:00 +0000

USA 2009 on the horizon, and some stats on cricket fitness

As promised the other day, I just wanted to reveal a little bit of my upcoming itinerary, which takes me on something of a "sports science" (and management) pilgrimage to the USA, starting on Monday next week.

My last trip to the USA was in January 2008, when I had the opportunity to get a taste of places like Chicago and Boulder, and so this trip is very much the main course, and I'm definitely going back to those places, plus a few new ones that I'm very hopeful will inspire many posts in the coming months!

So first things first - please don't worry, you're not going to get my "Diary of..." entries, where I tell you about the wonderful monuments and museums I visited. Rather, I hope that the trip gives me so much content that I'll be able to run a series of posts on people and topics that are inspired by the places and jobs I'm over there do to. So look at this more as a "Forthcoming attractions" post!

Chicago for the marathon - pacing and environmental research

First stop is Chicago, for the Chicago Marathon on October 11, and to give one or two lectures at Jonathan's university, UIC. Not to run (sadly), but to do some research in the medical tent, building on some of the work that Jonathan did last year. He and I will both be on the ground on race-day, where he'll be monitoring environmental and weather data from the route, and I'll be tracking the elite athletes and doing an intensive sample of their pacing.

The environmental data analysis was really a consequence of a really bad year in 2007, when it was so hot that the race was effectively ended early, and many runners were forced to abandon. Tragically, one athlete died. Since then, the organizers have made a point of monitoring conditions on the route, and Jonathan has headed this up - we'll post more on this in the coming weeks, and also some of the significant findings and implications of the measurements!

The pacing strategy data should be very interesting. By now, you have perhaps seen our typical marathon offering, where we do the 5km pacing strategy analysis of the elite fields. Well, in Chicago, we're going to try to be 8 times (well, 8.439 times) better and bring pacing splits for the elite fields EVERY 1KM.

That should be particularly entertaining if Sammy Wanjiru delivers on his promise to attack the world record. Word is that he's looking for pacemakers to hit half-way in 61:40, and we'll be tracking him, kilometer by kilometer, from the finish line!

So join us for those two analyses, in the build-up week and then on race day, 11 October!

Onto Colorado - Boulder and the US Olympic Centre

From Chicago, it's off to Colorado (13 October), and the highlight of the 2008 trip, Boulder. Boulder is one of the world's endurance sports meccas. I remember joining up with a training group last time (thanks Simon) and running out at the reservoir, and we saw hundreds of other runners, all in groups, all coached, doing their thing that morning.

It's a place that is a hub for innovation, a home to Training Peaks, who very kindly hosted me last time, who are now one of the leading lights in the monitoring of training quantity, quality and performance in the world. Magazines, authors, coaches, and a world-class university are all part of the Boulder charm, and so I will spend a few days there, meeting people, and hopefully doing a series of interviews to follow on from our previous interviews with Yorck-Olaf Schumacher and Prof Bengt Kayser.

From Boulder, I head down to the US Olympic Centre in Colorado Springs, at the kind invitation of Prof Randy Wilber. While I'm there, I'll be attending a Symposium on Altitude Training from 21 to 23 October, where some really great scientists and coaches will be speaking (they include Prof Wilber, Prof Christopher Gore of the Australian Institute, Bob Bowman and Terrence Mahon of swimming and athletics, respectively).

While there, I'm hoping to see inside the US system, particularly how they have integrated sports science into the preparation of the elite athletes. As you know, my current passion is really the management of science, strategic and scientific methods for high performance. So you can expect a fair share of opinion pieces and interviews from this phase of the trip as well!

Boston, Prof Dan Lieberman and barefoot running shoes

Finally, on October 30, I head to Boston where I'm going to take a visit to Harvard University, and a visit with Prof Dan Lieberman. To those who don't know, Lieberman is Professor of Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard. In his words, from his own website: "I study how and why the human body looks the way it does". Lieberman has looked in great detail at our ability to run long-distances, and his theories are really fascinating, warranting a series all on their own! One of his research papers (co-authored with Bramble) can be seen here.

What makes me particularly keen for this visit is that Prof Lieberman is also one of the big names who has endorsed the Vibram Five Fingers running shoe, which I'm sure many of you know about. The site above has some quotes from Lieberman in it.

I'm quite excited about this because I'm really looking forward to hearing the rationale from one of the men closest and most capable of explaining the concept. It's a topic we've covered many times on this site in our series on running shoes.

My opinion on this whole 'minimalist' shoe movement is that it is sound in theory, but it's been rushed to market too soon, and incorrectly. The biggest problem is not the concept, but its implementation (the same is true of Pose running, by the way), and so I'm really keen to hear Lieberman's views, which are far more balanced than many who've advocated in the past.

I know that he's of the opinion that we should move away from bulky, heavy shoes, which is an opinion I share, but that he recognizes some of the limitations behind the 'minimalist movement' claims to date, and the lack of "hard science" (his words). His own views are not 'diluted' and so a meeting with him should produce some fascinating posts and maybe an interview!

So do join us over the next five weeks, and perhaps I'll be able to meet many of you while on my trip!

Cricket fitness

In my last post on Monday, I commented on Graeme Smith's cramp problems during SA's loss to England. I also mentioned my OPINION on the fitness levels of cricketers in general, including those in SA.

I received an email this morning with some facts that need to be published, along with an apology from me for any unfair criticism or offense that I may have caused with those opinions.

It was revealed to me that Smith achieved "a Level 13 on the Bleep test three weeks ago which is excellent (for any team sport). We know that Graeme is susceptible to cramp, but this does not mean that he is unfit. Cramping is not primarily due to a lack of conditioning. It is related to fatigue and genetic susceptibility. Many of the fittest team sport players in the world cramp as a result of numerous factors including, the intensity of the game, environmental conditions etc. Professor Noakes wrote an article (attached) several years ago (to which I contributed) showing that the cricketers were just as fit as the rugby players and that 11 of the 15 players in the 1999 world cup had played provincial level or higher in other sports."

It's necessary to state that opinion, and again, if I was unfair in delivering my opinion, then I apologize. Certainly, that 1999 paper exists, and I would not dare question its validity. It was ten years ago, of course, and the whole issue is that this current team may not be as fit as its predecessors, but it illustrates an aspect of cricket fitness that I did not acknowledge in my post on Monday. Of course there are fabulously fit cricketers, and I should have mentioned this. Smith, having achieved level 13, may be one of them, and those in charge should take credit for this.

So perhaps a congratulations are in order for those responsible for preparing the team and players, for Smith did bat brilliantly, spending 95 overs in the field to make his 140, and an apology for not acknowledging this in my original post.

A disclaimer (again)

Finally (I wish it were finally, I seem to do this every few months), I must emphasize that you're reading an opinion piece on this site. And it's my opinion, pure and simple. In fact, after the Caster Semenya controversy, when I was 'reprimanded' by the Minister of Sport (before, I must point out, it emerged that Chuene was lying, which is what I was suggesting), I put a disclaimer on the site. It says: "The views expressed on this site are not those of UCT, Sports Science Institute of SA, or UIC"

One thing I have realised in the last few months is that everyone is 'objective' until you disagree with them. Then they become subjective, inaccurate and wildly accusatory. Between those who've said I should resign on the basis of views on Oscar Pistorius, and Ministers and others who think we should remove "science" from the website name, I guess we're plenty subjective...!

But thanks everyone for reading and for supporting the efforts!

Ross

Chuene's survival and South Africa's cricket exit

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:21:00 +0000

Leonard Chuene survives (for now), but SA Cricket does not - random musings

Well, it's been five days since the Council of Athletics South Africa decided to give their President Leonard Chuene a vote confidence to continue to lead the federation. Yes, you read that right, a vote of confidence, which effectively means condoning his actions leading into Berlin and the subsequent lies to the President of South Africa, the IAAF, various political parties, the media, the public, Caster Semenya and the rest of the world. When one puts it that way, it suddenly doesn't seem so bad...

On a serious note, Chuene remains in power, much to the consternation of the South African public (and the bewilderment of the world, I would imagine) and media. It's still unclear exactly what went down at the meeting last Thursday. I have it on good authority that there was no secret ballot, no anonymous voting process, but rather a very open, very transparent, and very intimidating environment, which effectively said to all Chuene's opponents on the ASA Council "Come and get me, but you'll face a challenge if you do". Rather than offer Council members the opportunity to vote on the matter, they were invited to come forward, into a potentially hostile environment, and the entire meeting was controlled from inside.

And, sadly, in the South African sporting landscape, the whole is never bigger than the sum of its parts (it's not even close), and political and personal agendas supersede those of performance (and, in this case, it would seem, ethics and competence) . The result is that the small voice that may have wanted Chuene out was silent, and we were instead told a "unanimous decision" was reached to keep Chuene in power. Television pictures revealed Chuene supporters driving away holding up posters saying "100% Chuene" and "Hands off our president", which typifies the atmosphere of the meeting and the partisan environment in which "mature adults" discussed a very serious issue.

What next? Quiet before the next announcement

In response, the ANC and Cosatu (a powerful trade union in SA) have voiced displeasure, as have a few other political parties. SASCOC, our Olympic Commission, have already begun investigating, and may take action. Newspapers yesterday reported that Caster Semenya's lawyers have requested transcripts from ASA meetings, where it is believed Chuene will have disclosed far more than he has in the media.

These transcripts, and whatever arises from them, probably hold the key to the next steps in this drama, which will now be a little quieter.

More questions than answers

It emerged last week on 3rd Degree that Leonard Chuene DID in fact agree to withdraw Semenya based on the medical advice, but then changed his mind and consulted a politician before deciding to go ahead and let her run, dealing with the repercussions later.

This revelation suggests that Chuene had more than a "rumor" from his doctor to act on, as he has claimed. It was alleged that Chuene sent ASA's Vice-President to tell Semenya that she would NOT be running, and that she wept when she received the news.

It's quite clear that there is a LOT MORE that we don't know - what was Semenya told, both at the first medical tests and on this occasion? Why did Chuene change his mind? Who did he consult with? What happened to the medical report that ASA produced after doing the testing? Why did the IAAF not insist that this report be made available, since they had access to Dr Harold Adams themselves? Was he silenced by forces high up?

More questions than answers, and some may never be answered. As I said, I think the story will be quiet for a while, possibly until November, when the IAAF will make some kind of statement. If anything does come up, I'll be sure to post. But I guess to leave this issue for now, maybe the biggest question of all is: What would a sports administrator actually have to do to be relieved of his position in South Africa? We've seen failure at global competition, which is enough in most countries, where people are employed to achieve high performance. We've seen financial irregularities, lying, corruption and who knows what else. Seems a fair question to me...

Cricket news - SA out of their home tournament...again

Then, in news more relevant to those in the "Commonwealth" (apologies to US readers), South Africa crashed out of the ICC Champions Trophy last night, losing to England.

Cramp - fatigue and conditioning in play

The match was eventful for a number of reasons, the most relevant (to us at The Science of Sport, anyway) being the cramping of SA's captain Graeme Smith near the end of the match. Smith is prone to cramping, it has happened before. What made last night intriguing is that Smith requested a runner, and England's captain Andrew Strauss turned him down.

The way it normally works, for those not in the know, is that when a batsman picks up an injury during the innings, he can request that a team-mate come down and run on his behalf. The opposition captain has to approve, and this is where Strauss declined, forcing Smith to finish his innings hobbling around with what seemed to be hamstring cramp.

A few people wrote in this morning, asking my impression of this, and I must say, I was always going to post something on it when I watched it.

The fact of the matter is that a cramp is NOT an injury. Andrew Strauss was 100% correct to deny the runner - maybe he knows something the SA team apparently doesn't (maybe he even reads The Science of Sport), because he must know that a cramp is primarily caused by fatigue, and is thus influenced by conditioning, where the fatigued muscle goes into spasm, possibly as a result of reflex neural stimulation.

This is a complex subject, make no mistake, and generally, there are two schools of thought for what causes cramp - it's either the "Dehydration and heat model", or the "Fatigue and reflex disinhibition". We covered these models in a post almost two years ago, which you can read here.

There is controversy around which you believe - read the entire cramp series and you'll see what I mean. Some say that electrolyte loss (particularly sodium) is the cause, despite the fact that no evidence exists for this, and no one has ever managed to show that people who cramp are deficient in anything (either fluids or electrolytes). There is also a major theoretical problem with that argument, because when you sweat, your electrolyte concentration goes UP, not down. Therefore, if a cramp is caused by electrolyte loss in sweat, it's hard to explain when sweat loss doesn't cause electrolyte levels to fall.

So rather, the fatigue theory is interesting - a tired muscle loses the ability to control the reflex activity, and a cramp occurs as a result. You can read more about this here.

I joked earlier that maybe Andrew Strauss knew this, and his quote below seems to bear this out:

"The umpires were not particularly keen to give him one. I felt that at the end of a long game, after a long innings, you're going to be tired. Cramping to a certain extent is a preparation thing. To a certain extent, it's a conditioning thing. I didn't feel that he merited having a runner at that stage."

I agree.

As for SA cricket, I don't think that Smith's cramp impacted on the overall outcome of the game. He batted brilliantly, but it was a lone-hand and I think they may well have found the target a bridge too far, even without the cramp.

For the team, it's another disappointment, and all the more disappointing given that some of the team-members were quoted as saying that they were "unbeatable" prior to the tournament (Dale Steyn, that is).

And finally, is the team fit enough? That's a matter of opinion of course, and "fitness" is difficult to quantify, a lot depends on where you set the benchmark. Fitness is also contextual, with a gymnast having a different level of fitness to a marathon runner, simply because its parameters differ. There is cause for speculation, questions have been raised, and I know a good many people who do not believe that cricketers, in general (not specific to any team) are comparable to the athletes who play sports like rugby, soccer or maybe NBA basketball. Exceptions exist, of course, in both sports and so it would be generalizing to answer that question.

What I will say is that if a runner cramped in the final 5km of a marathon, my first area to investigate is whether they were adequately prepared for the pace, the distance (and obviously the combination of pace and distance) and the nature of the course (hills, that is). The same logic, applied to cricket, suggests that cramp (a function of fatigue, if you follow that model) is a function of conditioning to the same extent.

So I don't know the answer on the fitness issue - I have it on authority that the players have done substantial fitness work and are fit enough, and I won't question that. I must therefore retract what was written earlier that the players are not fit enough, and apologize for any offense caused. Of course, these are my personal opinions, but I realise the possibility that they'll be taken as representing an 'official' position. So I apologize for any unfair criticism on my part.

Upcoming travels to the USA

And finally, to end, I am building up for a trip to the USA, which starts next week this time (in fact, I land in Washington in exactly a week from now). Six weeks, seven cities, and a lot of work mixed with recreation awaits.

I'll post some details a little later. Don't worry, it's not that I want to give you all my "Dear Diary" entries, but a lot of the trip is related to sports science - there is a visit to the US Olympic Centre, a conference, research trials at the Chicago Marathon, some media work, a visit to Boulder, a trip to Harvard and a meeting with some great scientists and coaches.

All of which should make for some great posts in the coming weeks. I'll post more on this later this week.

Ross

Caster Semenya - cover-ups, lies and confusion

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:38:00 +0000

The debacle that is Caster Semenya's case. And more will follow

For those who have not been following this astonishing story, Athletics South Africa boss Leonard Chuene admitted on the weekend that he lied about not having prior knowledge of the doubt around Caster Semenya, and has admitted that he authorized tests on Semenya in South Africa before the team left for the IAAF World Champs in Berlin.

He has also admitted that he received medical advice from the team doctor that she should NOT run against women, but that he over-ruled the expert opinion, saying that he would not act on 'rumor', and entered Semenya anyway.

The time-line of this story now looks as follows:

31 July - Semenya runs 1:56.72 in Mauritius
3 August - the IAAF requests testing or some investigation
The request is acted upon by Dr Harold Adams, who was the Team Doctor for the Berlin World Championships (Chuene denied this, by the way, even though his own federation issued a press statement naming Adams as the doctor)
7 August - testing is done at a clinic in Pretoria. Semenya is told that the process is for doping purposes, not a gender test. She was apparently very distressed and confused, but no explanation was given
Adams then advised Chuene to withdraw Semenya, since his results revealed that she should not compete. We do not know what he found - was it the same as the Australian media are alleging? Was it definitive? Was further testing required? We may never know the answers to these questions
Chuene (via a process that has yet to be revealed, but SA readers can watch 3rd Degree on E-TV tonight at 21h30 for more) over-ruled the expert opinion, and entered Semenya anyway
Chuene launched a campaign of misinformation and denial, failing to give the IAAF the results from this testing, and denied that it had ever been done. He sowed confusion to allow Semenya to run and win the medal
Once the leak to the media had occurred, revealing that the IAAF had commissioned its own tests (which it had to, since ASA "buried" theirs), Chuene attacked first Australia, then white media, then everyone else. Political leaders threw their weight behind him, and the IAAF were slammed for their discrimination. And let's be clear - the IAAF should be ashamed of that leak, but should not have to defend that they requested testing, on two occasions. Their handling of the case has in fact been by the book, with the exception of the leak. Unfortunately, that leak gave ASA and others the license to pass the accountability, which has delayed the inevitable truth somewhat.

Chuene's confession - not all that surprising

Chuene's confession, which has been viewed as a revelation here in SA by many of our politicians and media correspondents, is in fact nothing more than confirmation of what a lot of people have been saying since the beginning. In fact, if you go back to the start of this debacle, you'll see many people were saying that this smacked of a cover-up, and that Chuene was lying from day 1. Once Wilfred Daniels resigned as high performance coach, and alleged that ASA had done testing, it was a case that someone was lying. Daniels had nothing to gain from lying, having sacrificed his job to come clean. The vocal support thrown behind Chuene disregarded that the possibility that he was lying even existed.

Saturday's press conference merely confirmed this. It was, to be clear, inconceivable that ASA could NOT have known of the situation, and the sum of all the allegations and reports added up to the fact that ASA did know and that Chuene was lying all along - it took his confession to finally open people up to this possibility.

Take for example, the following piece that I wrote the day after Semenya won the 800m gold medal:

"Next, it is VERY MUCH ASA's responsibity to manage Semenya's the athlete, which surely includes this aspect. It is only in a completely amateur organization, which has zero strategic plan, where a federation can limit it's responsibility to training athletes only.

To put this as simply as possible, there are only four possible scenarios here:
ASA did not do a single test on Semenya. If this is true, they have ignored the controversy, and the very obvious impending situation, and sent her into the Worlds, where this problem was going to surface. In this case, we have a case of neglect and irresponsibility.
ASA did do some tests, but only cursory tests, which they believe sufficed. As we've explained, and many of you have commented, the sex determination test is enormously possible, with a risk of false results. If this is what happened, then it is a case of carelessness. And yet Semenya was sent, without proper process being followed, ASA should be held accountable.
ASA did very comprehensive tests, or did a minimum level of test, and uncovered that there was in fact grounds for suspicion. If this was true, then there is no way ASA should have entered Semenya, because they knew that a problem would arise. If they did, effectively playing Russain roulette with a young women's life, it would be despicable.
ASA did a very comprehensive test, and discovered no reason at all to doubt her sex. If this was true, ASA would be in the clear, and no problem would exist. I think it's safe to say that this was NOT done, because Cheune would have said so in his interview and this problem would have been managed"

- Science of Sport, 21 August 2009

What time has revealed is that the answer was Number 3 - ASA did the tests, they knew the problem existed, and they chose to enter her despite this. And then they launched a campaign of aggressive accusation, slander and denial. Among some of the gems we've heard was Leonard Chuene labelling entire nations as racist, calling entire universities stupid, and attacking anyone who dared suggest that perhaps ASA had not managed this situation appropriately.

We had a Minister of Sport threatening Third World War if Semenya's medal was taken away, even though two statements by high-ranking officials from the IAAF said that this would not be the case.

And we had a range of political figures discussing Caster Semenya's genitalia while she sat, expressionless, on the stage at a political rally/press conference when the team arrived back. Female athletes were labelled as ugly, others had their genitals discussed in public, and people were told "so what if she is a hermaphrodite".

Complete disregard for expertise, which was a phone call away

It has been, to be blunt, an embarrassing time to be a South African in athletics and sport. Nowhere in this entire fiasco did a person of authority actually state that expertise will be called in, and that they will respect the scientific evidence and process presented to them. Only after the allegations got so bad that they were compelled did they finally announce "internal inquiries" and scientific panels, whose purpose was primarily to expose the flawed process of the IAAF.

Not once has a public figure acknowledged the role of experts in potentially preventing this problem - Chuene has now admitted that he overruled the expert advice he was given (that advice is being called "rumor", which is hardly surprising when you consider that universities are apparently "stupid").

All the while, experts were a phone-call away - one thing that I have discovered in following this is that there are people, who in 30 seconds, can explain the complexities of the science to you. Endocrinologists, chemical pathologists, a neuroscientist, a genetic counselor - I've had the privilege of interacting with all these people, and they clarify the issue within a minute.

The Minister of Sport actually wrote me a letter, asking that I stop speaking critically about their role (specifically, he referred to my criticism of his "Third World War" rhetoric). In his letter, he said the "science is complex". Problem is, it's not. What is complex is the ethical debate, as Zoe, Alessandra and Tina have been showing at a previous post - but the science is pretty straight-forward, what you do with the science, that's less obvious.

Many people - endocrinologists, psychologists, geneticists, physiologists - deal with it all the time. It's only complex when you're not listening, because the facts get in the way of the story...

Perhaps away from the media glare, people have cared, but what has been said in public has betrayed a scrambling for the moral high ground like we've not seen. Unfortunately, those who clamoured for the high ground are now looking down, and discovering that they're standing on a mole-hill.

What next?

I can also guarantee that this is by no means the last of the revelation, and more will follow. Tonight, on South African television, Debra Patta of the show 3rd Degree will reveal more information - I'll leave it to her, and the media in the next few days, to reveal that, but if you are in SA, make a point to watch at 21h30, because she will explain exactly what transpired in the build-up to Berlin.

Then, ASA has a council meeting on Thursday, at which the future of Leonard Chuene will be discussed. Whether the council will recommend that he step down is anyone's guess. The media and most political parties have called for his resignation, which he has refused, saying that he will not run away. So if the council elect to leave him in (this is the same council that commended him for handling the matter "exceptionally well" only 10 days ago, so it's not inconceivable), then there may well be intervention from higher up, since SASCOC (our Olympic Committee) have rightly said they will investigate that he lied openly to them as well.

I would also suggest, however, given that Chuene had medical results which he deliberately buried and kept from the IAAF (and it seems that these medical results are incriminating and would have prevented Semenya from running), that he be held to account for what was effectively fraud. I would also propose that ASA should be sanctioned, possibly by denying them participation in the 2011 IAAF World Championships.

Unfortunately, this has exposed the administration of sport and failure of athlete management to the highest degree. People have focused on the events since August, when the IAAF first requested. But, in reality, a professional system would have picked up problems long before this. It's a telling indictment on SA sport that this did not happen. The authorities dismiss as "allegation and rumor" anything that is not proven, but an organization that manages high performance sport effectively is able to predict the future, and control it, precisely because allegation and rumor are the first signs of an impending problem.

Reactionary high performance, combined with ambition to win and which ignores expertise, produces what we are seeing now.

Ross

Berlin 2009: Haile Gebrselassie 2:06:08

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 07:57:00 +0000

Berlin Marathon 2009: Live splits and first report

Haile Gebrselassie has won the Berlin marathon, but no world record this time. His time was 2:06:08, which was the result of a dramatic slowing of the pace over the final 10km, and particularly, the final 5km. The record was on, all the way to 35km, but the wheels came off, and a 15:57 5km split between 35km and 40km saw Geb end well short, in what is actually his slowest marathon in 5 attempts.

The numbers tell a story - the table and graph below illustrate just how the race unfolded. I will look much more closely at these numbers in the coming days, and look to compare this race to the 2007 and 2008 races, where the record did fall.

But for now, take a look at the table and graph:

In the graph below, I've plotted the 5km interval times, and in green, the projected marathon time based on the split time. The dashed line at 14:41 shows the pace that was required at the start in order to sneak inside the world record - it represents a pace of 2:56.2/km, and it's clear that Geb was under it (by some margin) for 30km, and then over it (by an even bigger margin) for the final 12km.

How the race unfolded

It's pretty obvious from the numbers how this race unfolded. The early pace was pretty much bang on - they'd requested something around 61:35 at halfway, and so when the mark was reached in 61:44, it suggested the record was on - if anything, they were slightly slow.

Then the pace really picked up - the 15km interval between 15 and 30km was covered in 43:46 (the 10km interval was 29:10!), which projects a marathon time of 2:03:04. That searing pace accounted for Duncan Kibet, who was dropped before halfway, in a very disappointing outing for him.

It meant that Gebrselassie would have only pacemakers for company, and when the last pacemaker fell out just after 32km, the race against the clock was on.

Unfortunately, the clock would be the winner. You'll see from the chart that Gebrselassie fought bravely. He fought to hold the pace together between 30 and 35km, but that split was considerably slower than anything before, and at 14:53, it suggested that the record was starting to slip away. He was still on course, based on his 35km time, but the true story is that had he maintained 14:53 pace for the rest of the race, he would have missed the record by 1 second!

As it was, we didn't see that sprint against the clock, because the split from 35km to 40km was where it all ended. 15:57 for the interval, and the record was very clearly gone.

In the end, the time of 2:06:08 meant that the final 7.195km were covered in 23:31, a pace of 3:16/km, and when you consider that the pace required was 2:56, then you appreciate just how big the slowdown at the end was.

The pacing strategy: Too fast in the middle?

Overall, it shows just how fine the margins are between a good day out and a blowout. It's hypothetical, of course, but what would have happened if Gebrselassie had covered the 15km stretch in the middle in 44:00 instead of 43:46? He'd still have been on course for the record - you will see in the table above that his projected time was well under the 2:03:59 he ran last year.

He hit 30km a full 41 seconds faster than last year, and given how close to the limit he was, this was simply too quick (easy to say in hindsight, I know, but I felt it was ambitious even before). Could have have given up 30 of those seconds and finished faster? Probably not, I think he the record would have eluded him anyway, but the fast pace pushed him out to the very slow finish, I have no doubt.

Of course, perhaps it was just a bad day. There are many ifs and buts, but we saw one thing confirmed today - this record of 2:03:59 is pretty close to the limit for Haile Gebrselassie, and probably ever other man currently racing. That's not to say it can't be broken, and maybe Sammy Wanjiru will be able to edge it down by a few seconds in Chicago, but the days where we expect to see up to a minute cleaved off a time are gone.

I remember back in 2007, when he broke the record for the first time, people waxed lyrical about how it was a matter of time before 2:03 would be broken, and even 2:02. Some people even spoke about a sub-2 hour marathon. I think what Berlin 2009 has shown is that 2:03 is mighty close to the limit, at least for the current generation, and unless everything is perfect, even running 2:04 is a mountain.

As for the pace, I think it was too ambitious. Given the tiny margin for error, setting off at 14:30 pace, and then hitting halfway in 61:44, projecting a 2:03:28 and a record by 30 seconds, that's too ambitious. Of course, some may disagree, but I think the middle of this race was too fast - 2:03:04 pace for 15km in the middle, and that time is paid back with interest at the end!

Nevertheless, a great attempt, very courageous, and maybe there'll be another for Gebrselassie. Age may count against him, and this is the second marathon in a row where he's fallen away at the end, and it's his slowest in 5 outings, but he showed enough in the first 30km to suggest he's still in the kind of condition to run 2:04-something. Whether he has another record in him, time will tell...

Ross

Donate and support The Science of Sport

Thank you for taking time to read and follow our coverage of the Berlin Marathon at The Science of Sport. We hope you've enjoyed the insights we've tried to provide! Your time and energies are greatly appreciated!

We run this site as a "labour of love" and will continue to do so, but of course, any support is greatly appreciated. So, if you would like to donate and support our continued efforts to bring you the insights and analysis, please consider donating to our site. You can do so in one of two ways:

If you are reading this on our site, then simply scroll up to the top of the page, where you will find the DONATE button at the top right of the page.
If you are reading this in our email newsletter, click here to be taken to our site, where you will see the DONATE button at the top right of our homepage.

Thank you once again, and keep on reading!

Ross

Berlin Marathon: Revised prediction - no world record

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:39:00 +0000

Berlin Marathon revised prediction: The weather rules out a world record

I have to get a last minute revision to my prediction in. Yesterday, I called the upcoming Berlin Marathon as a world record to Duncan Kibet, some 30 seconds clear of Haile Gebrselassie.

However, this morning, two excellent sources - Letsrun (for news) and Globerunner (for great writing and stories) mentioned that the weather forecast for Berlin is not looking great. Peak temperatures of 25 degrees Celsius (touching 80F) mean the record, which really requires ideal conditions, might prove a touch out of reach. Add to this light breezes and relatively high humidity, and the record, now so tough that things need to be close to perfect, seems a longer shot than usual!

So I'm taking this 'gap' on the weekend to revise my prediction, and say that the record will NOT fall tomorrow.

How might it unfold? The SoS Crystal ball works overtime

Also yesterday, Haile Gebrselassie announced that he intends going through halfway in 61:30. He said "...I don’t want to be slower than 61.30 at halfway (compared to 62.04 last year), and would like to run 30k faster than last year”.

Last year, 30km was reached in 1:28:25. Given how quickly Geb finished last year, I dare say that if they're not at least equal to that in tomorrow's race, the record will elude both him and Kibet. Of course, in a head to head race over the final 5km, anything can happen, but I suspect the pace will not reach the levels it did last time, particularly if the temperatures get up there.

So what can we expect? To break the world record, the pace needs to average 2:56.2/km (or 4:43.6/mile pace). If Gebrselassie and co hit the target pace, they'll reach halfway having averaged a shade faster than 2:55/km, which puts them on course to crack the record by almost a minute, of course (a 2:03 projected time).

Look for the first 10km to be unaffected by the temperatures. I expect if the pacemakers are on target (which they have been for the last two years), then 10km will be reached in 29:09.

However, if the temperatures are high, even in the low 20s (last year it was 15 degrees the whole way), then I expect that the pace will start to drop from 10km onwards. Expect halfway to be reached in 61:57, which is slightly faster than last year (by 6 seconds), but which represents a significant slow down from 10km to 21km.

Progressive slowing due to the temperatures

That slowing of the pace will continue up to 30km, by which time the record will be out of reach. The crystal ball says 30 km in 1:28:41, which means the 20km interval from 10km to 30km will have been covered in just under an hour, a pace of 2:05:36. That will be testament to the higher temperature and humidity, but will mean that in order to break the record, the final 12.195 km will have to be run in 2:53/km (4:39/mile), which is a bridge too far, even in a competitive race.

So the record will slip away between 10km and 30km, which is typical when it's warmer - the body is too smart to simply carry on at the same pace until the athlete is forced to slow dramatically, and the physiology of pacing in the heat dictates that the slowing happens before the athlete hits that limiting temperature.

So the general trend will be for a fast start, then a progressive slowing up to about 35km, before it might pick up. However, warmer races are usually wars of attrition, and the winner will likely be the runner who maintains the pace, rather than lifts it. Sammy Wanjiru has rewritten the 'rule book' when it comes to racing in unfavourable weather conditions, but to crack a record as tough as this, I fear that every degree Celsius above about 16 degrees will cost the athletes a few seconds...

As for the race, I'm going to stick with the original projection - Kibet to win, Gebrselassie to finish about 30 seconds behind, but no world record for either. Look for the break to happen at about 38 km, as the pace just edges up to drop the Ethiopian.

So my revised finishing times, plus 10km, 21.1km, 30km splits, is shown below:

1. Duncan Kibet - 2:05:04 (29:09 - 61:57 - 1:28:41)
2. Haile Gebrselassie - 2:05:33

And referring to Giovani's question about confidence intervals...I'd say I am about 5% confident! But very confident it will be a great race!

Anyway, that's just a bit of fun, we'll see how far off the mark I am tomorrow.

Join us soon after the finish for our post race analysis and splits!

Ross

P.S. Good news for running - Martin Lel races again this weekend, in the Great North Run, where he has achieved success in the past. He takes on Jaouad Gharib in another great race this weekend. And then Lel heads to New York in November, so that's great news for fans of Lel, who, when he was on form about 18 months ago, was a fearsome runner, and my favourite marathoner.

Showdown in Berlin: Marathon WR to fall?

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 08:03:00 +0000

Gebrselassie vs Kibet, with the marathon world record on the line

Bring on Berlin and the start of the fall marathon season! Here at The Science of Sport, our "flagship" posts are our marathon analyses (that is, they're the most fun to do!), and so we love this part of the year!

Only weeks after bringing down the curtain on one of the greatest IAAF World Championships ever, Berlin is bracing itself for a great race (and time) in its annual marathon.

Mr Berlin, Haile Gebrselassie, has used this event to set a world record two years in a row. Last year, he strode to the world's first sub-2:04 clocking, courtesy a great finishing 10km. The graph below, taken from our analysis of the 2008 race, shows Gebrselassie's 5km splits and it's clear that he got faster and faster from 30km onwards. The dashed red line shows the pace required when he started the race, and it was those last 2 intervals that brought him home in under 2:04. You'll see from the red block that at 30km, he was on course, with a projected time of 2:04:21, followed by a phenomenal split from 35 to 40km, where he averaged 2:53/km.

This year - a race against Kibet

This year should produce a race over and above a fast time. Haile Gebrselassie has been criticized in the past for avoiding races, including a rumor that he has an agreement with the Berlin organizers that gives him a 'veto' right against who else may be signed up to race. Sammy Wanjiru is alleged to have fallen prey to this veto - Berlin's loss was Chicago's gain, since the number 1 marathon RACER will line up in the American city on October 11.

However, Berlin 2009 is not simply a paced time-trial for Gebrselassie. Enter Duncan Kibet, a man who one year ago possessed a PB of 'only' 2:08.33, when he placed second in the Vienna Marathon.

In October 2008, he ran 2:07.53 to win in Milan, and he followed that up with an astonishing race in Rotterdam this year, where he pipped James Kwambai to run the third fastest marathon in history.

His time of 2:04:27 makes him the second fastest man in history, only Gebrselassie has run faster (twice, of course, both in Berlin).

Duncan Kibet - an intriguing character

So the presence of Duncan Kibet in the race makes it intriguing. Kibet is himself an intriguing character. You can read a really great piece on him here, courtesy Pat Butcher. He's a character, much needed in the sport (ala Bolt). He gives great interviews, tells great stories and brings something extra to the procession of super-fast distance runners from Kenya, which really benefits everyone. Speaking of characters, Gebrselassie is the original crowd-favourite, and so Berlin has much more than a fast course and good time going for it.

Kibet has declared himself to be in great shape, and looking for a PB. The great thing, as our friends at LetsRun.com have pointed out, is that when your old PB is 2:04:27, then a new PB brings you into reach of a world record.

Add to this the great course, the great competition, and what has historically been great pacemaking, and reports of ideal weather (at this stage) and the record is certainly on.

Gebrselassie - does he have a 'hat-trick' in him?

As for Geb, does he have a third consecutive world record on the streets of Berlin in him? He has alternated successful attempts with unsuccessful attempts in Dubai. However, Berlin has been his stage for two years and there is every chance he'll have another record in him.

The manner with which he finished last year, as shown in the above graph, suggests he may have a bit more in him. I felt last year that he started a little quickly, lost time in the middle and then sped up at the end. Not that his pacing was poor - it was magnificent, but we are talking 10 second-improvements over 2 hours, and there is certainly reason to suggest that Gebrselassie might have it in him with slightly improved pacing and a good race to push him for 42.2km, rather than the 38km he got last year, courtesy James Kwambai.

A prediction - the crystal ball is out

So here's my first prediction of the 2009 Fall season. This is tongue-in-cheek, a wild shot in the dark, and it's likely to be wrong, but that's never stopped me before!

1. Duncan Kibet 2:03:52
2. Haile Gebrselassie 2:04:24

So I'm picking Kibet to win this race, his younger legs and progressive improvement over the last year the difference on the day. Halfway to be reached in 61:50, slightly faster than last year (62:03), and Gebrselassie and Kibet to race together up to about 40km, when Kibet starts to pull away gradually. Gebrselassie then switches off somewhat, not wanting to push Kibet even faster and help him break the world record (as he did in 1996 in Zurich with Daniel Komen), producing a bigger time gap than would normally have been the case.

Then again, I could be completely wrong, in which case, just swap the names "Gebrselassie" with "Kibet" in the paragraph above, and go for the greatest distance runner ever to claim a third consecutive world record!

Whatever happens, we'll bring you the splits, the projected times, the analysis, during and after the race! So join us on Sunday!

Ross

Semenya's performance advantage: An irrelevant question?

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:06:00 +0000

Caster Semenya's potential performance advantage may be a non-factor as medical consideration takes over

As mentioned in my tennis post below, I had a quick thought to share on Caster Semenya and the discussion around whether she has a performance advantage and should be allowed to run, assuming the reports of internal testes are correct.

A lot of the discussion revolves around whether Semenya will be banned. Politicians and officials have threatened World War III if this happens, and vowed that Semenya will continue to run regardless of her condition. Her supporters are saying that she should be allowed to run no matter what, while others are saying she should not run if she a enjoys a performance advantage as a result of the condition.

The reality is that there may never even need to be a decision, and any controversy around the issue may well be dealt with as a result of medical concerns taking precedence over performance concerns.

Having initially written this post on Saturday 12 Sep, I've learned a bit more, courtesy colleagues in pathology and from your comments, and so I've edited this post to improve its accuracy. Thanks as always for your time and comments!

The IAAF Decision: Performance advantage vs Semenya's decision: Medical

The issue of what the IAAF should do regarding Semenya's participation in sport may very well be completely irrelevant. That's because, if the reports are true, and she has internal testes, then SHE would almost certainly have to seek medical treatment.

In cases like this, three options options often exist

Surgical removal of the testes, which is likely the recommended option. According to Alice Dreger, an expert on intersex conditions, "Women with testes are at risk of testicular cancer. So doctors typically recommend having them taken out and having women take hormone replacement therapy (to retain bone health)". Thanks to Amby for that comment, as well.
Hormonal treatment and gender re-assignment. However, according to Dr Pete, a commenter in the post, this is very unlikely in the current scenario. It would require the correct internal anatomy and according to experts I've spoken to, is quite unlikely. Also, the testes would need to be removed anyway.
Do nothing. It is still possible Semenya chooses to do nothing (against medical advice). This is risky, because the danger of malignancy and cancer is substantially higher. Also, it's more difficult to detect with internal testes, and so she'd need careful monitoring. Once again, from Alice Dreger: "But one option is leaving them in and using watchful waiting so far as cancer risk is concerned, and more and more women with AIS feel that is a reasonable option"

Of the three, I'd say 1 and 3 remain on the table.

So why might this make the argument over performance advantages and the IAAF irrelevant? Because this situation has by now become a HEALTH issue first, and a performance one second. If Semenya has surgery, then the source of the potential advantage - the testes and the testosterone - will no longer be present and she can compete without any question (obviously, provided the issue is cleared up, as for the IAAF policy on sex reassignment). The necessary medical intervention may eliminate any debate over whether she has complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome or a partial AIS, and how much the testosterone might be helping her.

So rather than ask what the IAAF will do about her performance advantage, one should perhaps be asking whether the medical treatment SHE seeks is going to affect performance, and whether that medical treatment might negate the responsibility of the IAAF to make a decision at all.

Of course, it's possible that she chooses to do nothing, and then the ball is in the IAAF court once again, and they'd have to look at performance advantage. I'll look at that in the future, for sure.

But here are the two scenarios:

She goes for surgery, has the testes removed. 2010 will bring one of two results:

She runs just as fast as in 2009, but should then not be questioned, since the "advantage" is no longer present.
She slows down, but should still not be doubted. Either way, there is no issue of a 'ban' because of a performance advantage.

In this case, the Minister of Sport, ASA and everyone else 'threatening' the IAAF don't ever have to carry out their threats. In fact, the only way they would be able to stand their ground and occupy their current position is if they refuse to allow her to seek medical advice for a potentially life-threatening condition.

Meanwhile, those saying she should not run because of an advantage need not worry about the advantage. The medical concerns may well negate all the controversy.

Ross

Tennis humor: Djokovic vs Mac

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:38:00 +0000

Weekend tennis humor (and one thought on Semenya)

In among all this controversy over Caster Semenya, I thought I'd take a day off (well, kind of a day - I still have ONE comment to make at the bottom of this post, I promise it's one). And for the day off, here's a video I really enjoyed, of Novak Djokovic first imitating and then playing John McEnroe after his US Open victory against Radek Stepanek the other night.

I've not been a huge fan of Djokovic, mostly because he seems so petulant and has that annoying habit of reliance on his support box. But it's really great to see tennis players (any sports stars, for that matter), becoming entertainers to add value over and above what they do on court or on track.

We've seen with Usain Bolt that one man can add enormously to the entertainment value of a sport. Bolt has taken athletics to a new level of entertainment, and hopefully that persists beyond his career. He's already inspired many others to 'imitate', and then there was Berlino, and a great world Championships, and suddenly athletics seemed exciting!

So below is Djokovic, famous for his impersonations, giving a court-side interview, then an imitation of commentator John McEnroe, followed by a few rallies with the American legend. It's a good laugh, and a nice change from the somewhat heavier topics of recent times (if you're getting this in an email, click here to go to the site and view it there - it may take some download time if you're in South Africa)!

On court, the finals have been moved to Monday, thanks to a complete washout yesterday. Federer, Djokovic and Nadal are all still in, Nadal finding himself with the challenge of playing three matches in three days to finish, while battling abdominal injuries and doubts over a knee injury. It should produce an intriguing climax.

Caster Semenya brief thought

There is that brief thought on the Caster Semenya issue, but that is above, in a separate post!

Ross

Mike Hurst speaks on Semenya

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:04:00 +0000

Journalist Mike Hurst speaks about the Semenya article: An outstanding interview

I've just been fortunate enough to catch an interview with Mike Hurst, the journalist who wrote the piece on Caster Semenya being a hermaphrodite in an Australian newspaper. This was the article that has been the catalyst for the latest round of allegation, accusation, denial and debate on the issue of the 800m world champion. I still think there are some inaccuracies in the article, some 'liberal' assumptions over the action the IAAF may take, but those were addressed earlier today. This is a post on sports management.

For those not in the know, Mike Hurst was the journalist who broke the story, and his interview to Radio 702 Eyewitness News is one of the best I've heard on this subject, by a long way (you need to click on "audio" on the video box on the righ of the page to listen).

Perhaps unencumbered by the political baggage and the minefield of allegations and anger, he spells out some truths that the authorities really do need to hear. I highly recommend that you give it a listen, it's honest, insightful and direct, particularly his views on how the issue has been managed. Sometimes, it takes someone from outside to point out the obvious...

The reaction in SA - "third world war"

Juxtaposed against this is the reaction to the issue within SA. Following the pattern set in the last few weeks, officials here have been scathing in their criticisms. We even got threats of "a third world war" today. Seriously , those were the exact words of our Minister of Sport who threatened a third world war if the IAAF tried to ban Semenya from competing. You can listen to his words at this site, on the right hand side if you click on "video" in the embedded box (there is also a text summary of the Mike Hurst interview I mentioned above, and of course the audio file of Hurst speaking about his article).

To quote the Minister of Sport in response to the allegation that Semenya is intersex:

“That means nothing. There are many hermaphrodites in the world so what does it matter. This girl is running as a girl who has been accredited as a girl. Nobody has questioned that. She doesn’t have a womb, so what?"

This might just rank right up there Leonard Chuene, President of ASA, calling scientists and universities "stupid" about two weeks ago, and it again betrays the complete lack of value that seems to be placed on facts, law and science in this case. Given that this blog was set up to try to provide some insight, this willful ignorance has to be mentioned. The fact of the matter is that it has to mean a great deal to the IAAF, and to the rest of the world's female athletes who run 800m, and to the sport as a whole. It matters a great deal, and unfortunately, South Africa is not the only nation that the IAAF thinks about. Much like 4-year olds who don't perceive that other people's needs exist, we have yet again adopted a position that says a great deal about professional sports management in this country.

The ethics of sex verification - a very valid argument

One can very well argue the issue and the ethics of sex verification testing, as many of you have done. Should we even bother? That's a separate question altogether, and there is a very real case to be made for allowing athletes to compete with any intersex condition, and many have made this point very well. Personally, I believe the line between male and female must be defended and so you cannot simply allow any condition under the guise of "she's just lucky in sport, in the same way as Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps is lucky in sport". I am afraid that doesn't wash with me - the difference between male and female categories, and the requirement for fair competition necessitates that extreme cases (and this may be one) are handled as serious by the governing body.

Disdain for process and mismanagement

However, to dismiss the whole issue as meaningless and to say that she should run as a girl because she has been accredited that way (by ASA, who wanted a gold medal and thus have a strong incentive to adopt this position, I might point out) is so disingenuous, it beggars belief. Also, in response to his statement "nobody has questioned that" - I'm afraid they very much have, and that is the issue.

This case seems destined to drag on and on, heading almost certainly for the CAS. And just for the record, I certainly don't wish to defend the violation of confidentiality that must sit, surely, within the IAAF, based on Hurst's reports. One leak was bad. A second, so soon after, that's a grave error and we've heard that 8 cases like this have been handled in the last 4 years. This should have been the ninth, dealt with confidentially, but Semenya was let down by the IAAF on that front, no question.

However, from within SA, the accusations and the complete disdain for process has done only harm, and I can only echo Mike Hurst's sentiments in his interview, where he suggested to ASA that they really should co-operate with the IAAF on this, and stop fighting ignorantly against what seem to be slowly emerging facts. At the very least, the human rights violations that ASA are so quick to accuse the IAAF of may be even more serious from them. Mike Hurst spoke about "games being played by ASA" - these are some serious games to be playing.

ASA should adopt a position supporting Semenya, condemning the leaks in confidentiality through the media (not the entire process) and then respect the authority and the scientific process being undertaken.

And time will reveal how ASA managed this situation before Berlin, which is where the real questions should be asked.

Ross

Semenya and hermaphroditism

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 05:42:00 +0000

Hermaphroditism in sport: More on the latest Caster Semenya allegations

Here in South Africa, local media coverage has been dominated by the reports that Semenya is a hermaphrodite who has internal testes, but no uterus or ovaries. Some time has passed and more questions raised, and so following are some more thoughts following my initial post yesterday, and discussion of the complex issue facing the IAAF. The first part is all based on the assumption that the source is accurate, of course. I address the validity of the article at the end.

Hermaphrodite: What does this mean exactly?

The first point is to clarify some terms, which I think have been used rather loosely. The article says that Semenya is a hermaphrodite who possesses internal testes but no ovaries or uterus. Strictly speaking, Semenya is NOT a hermaphrodite, she is a pseudohermaphrodite (which is itself an inadequately broad term).

Hermaphroditism is a very rare condition in which a person has both ovaries and testes (and thus produces eggs and sperm), and the external genitalia are a usually combination of male and female. Having only testes (internal, in this case) means hermaphrodite is the wrong word to use. Also, Semenya cannot possibly have male reproductive organs externally, because this would be immediately obvious to a doping official during doping controls. Therefore, she must have, at worst, ambiguous genitalia, which would suggest pseudohermaphroditism (a very broad term indeed).

Classifying intersex and some options

The classification of these intersex disorders is actually very complex, but it's important, because the eventual decision that gets made is influenced by it. Some authorities (Ritchie et al., 2008) suggest the following classification:

Conditions resulting in the masculinized female
Conditions resulting in the under-masculinized male
Pure hermaphroditism

As mentioned, I'd rule out 3, if she has testes only. Option 1 seems unlikely, since she would have no uterus or ovaries, which leaves option 2. The diagram below shows how 'normal' physiology is that an XY combination produces a male with testes, and an XX gives a female with ovaries, but that AIS, and a few other chromosomal abnormalities (XXY, XO, mosaicism) and enzyme deficiencies can lead to the intersex condition, where the genitalia are ambiguous and the genetic sex does not match the physical appearances.

Referring to the figure above, and given that the reports also suggest that she has elevated testosterone levels, and no uterus, a possible scenario is the following:

She is genetically male - that is, she has an X and a Y chromosome
She would have produced testes during development (the gonads differentiate at about 7 weeks, directed by genes linked to the Y-chromosome)
She may be insensitive to testosterone, as a result of a condition called Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS on the diagram), which means that we will have high levels of testosterone that do not exert the normal effect on the reproductive system
As a result, she develops as a female despite the presence of the male hormone and organs
Because she was "directed" to become male, she does not develop a uterus either

The A-5-reductase deficiency shown on the diagram is a condition where an enzyme, alpha-5-reductase, is deficient, and so the person cannot convert testosterone to dihydrotestosterone (DHT). DHT is essential for the development of external male genitalia, and so this person would also develop with internal testes, and be male (lacking a uterus or ovaries) with an external physical appearance - both would fall into the 'masculinzed female' category above.

Hermaphroditism, intersex and sport

The next important point is that people with intersex conditions CAN still participate in sport as women. If one were to go along with the somewhat oversimplified definition of intersex conditions as a mismatch between the chromosomal sex and physical appearance, the incidence of this seems relatively high in sport. The diagram below summarizes the results from the Olympic Games from 1972 up to 1996, before the IOC stoppped genetic screening of athletes. What you are seeing is the number of female athletes who "failed" the genetic test which looks for the presence of a gene (called SRY) that is normally found on the Y-chromosome (in other words, these are women with a Y-chromosome).

Of particular interest is the 1996 Olympics, where 8 women were identified as "genetic males", but all 8 were allowed to compete. These 8 would have presented with the same results as Caster Semenya supposedly has - no uterus, no ovaries, and (possibly) internal testes. All 8 were cleared to compete.

So, the issue not quite as clear cut as it may seem. And that is one of the question marks around the Australian report - the source is adamant that Semenya will be banned from future competition, but this is clearly not a guarantee. It may happen, but it may not.

In fact, the section below is taken directly from the IAAF policy document on gender verification (2006):

6. Conditions that should be allowed:

(a) Those conditions that accord no advantage over other females:
- Androgen insensitivity syndrome (Complete or almost complete - previously called testicular feminization);
- Gonadal dysgenesis (gonads should be removed surgically to avoid
malignancy);
- Turner’s syndrome.

So, as you can see, someone with AIS is still able to compete, which explains why those 7 women in Atlanta were cleared. The issue, and this is where it gets complex, is around what "complete" means.

In my opinion (which is subject to biases, I confess), I cannot see that Semenya has complete AIS (assuming it's AIS, that is - it may be something else). She displays too many characterisitics that would only be found in someone who DID respond to testosterone, like body fat distribution, skeletal structure, deepening of the voice, hirsutism. So now the issue is whether she has an advantage, and that gets grey...

Next steps: Remove testes, and then compete?

That said, the most important thing is to have the internal testes removed. This has nothing to do with performance, but is for health reasons - those testes can very quickly become malignant and lethal. The irony in this drama is that Semenya's life may actually be saved as a result of the sex verification process, because had she not been an athlete, it may never have been detected.

So the first thing is to remove the testes. Once that is done, then I can see no reason why she cannot continue to compete as a female. In fact, the IAAF allow males to have sex changes and then compete as females, provided they serve a 2-year period out of the sport and undergo hormone therapy. Internal testes seem minor in comparison. So Semenya's career need not be over as a result of this.

The article: Valid or not?

Finally, I have had a little bit more time to look at the leaks and the articles written in the press Obviously, all discussion is based on these leaks, so it's certainly worth asking how valid they may be.

First of all, I agree with the LetsRun guys, that Mike Hurst is a decent journalist, and also recognize that the first leak way back in August turned out to be accurate as well. So that suggests that the information may well be believable. That said, there are some inconsistencies - the IAAF have stated that the medal will probably NOT be taken back, while the source in the Australian article says it will be. That contradiction undermines one of the two reports - either the source is wrong, or the IAAF are lying, it can't work both ways. That's a question mark.

The second question mark revolves around the implications of the finding. There are two aspects to evaluate - the actual test results, and the IAAF's actions with those results. Even if the source is accurate regarding the test results, knowing that the IAAF will disqualify Semenya is not quite as clear cut. I've covered this above, but the bottom line is that the source in the article appears to be making rather over-simplified statements about what action the IAAF would take, when in fact the IAAF may not know this themselves, pending the review by an independent panel.

Caster Semenya press conference Saturday

Then, ASA announced yesterday that Semenya would be holding a press conference tomorrow, though that seemed to be before the latest round of allegations and rumors surfaced. Whether that will go ahead, I don't know. Judging from the reaction when she arrived back in SA after Berlin, it may well become another rally and will probably not reveal too much.

Should the authorities just come out and disclose everything they know to date? Obviously, there are massive implications, and the patient confidentially dictates that this not happen (I'm asking the question rhetorically). However, the silence allows leaks and allegations and maybe some facts would satisfy the demand, at least for a while.

Ross

Caster Semenya leaks begin

noreply@blogger.com (Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas) — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:48:00 +0000

"Caster Semenya a hermaphrodite" vs. "Results in November". The rumor mill starts spinning

Following on from my post yesterday, which looked at the latest developments in the case of Caster Semenya, I have two very quick links to provide you with. I'm rushing off to do a presentation on the issue for a local scientific organization, so I have little time to comment, but the links will come up and you might as well see some comment here first.

IAAF position: Semenya will find out in November

First, the IAAF have announced that the results will be available in November only, because this is when they have an executive council meeting. According to Pierre Weiss, Secretary General of the IAAF, "there will be nothing before that".

You can read the article here. It includes some really interesting quotes, most notably this section:

"Weiss said Semenya's case was the eighth dealing with sexuality issues the IAAF had handled since 2005. "Four athletes were asked to stop their career," he confirmed, without giving further details."

That is very interesting, because it serves to highlight that this current issue is in fact nothing new. Unusual, yes, but the big difference is the leak and the subsequent uproar over unfair treatment.

The article also highlights the fact that the IAAF have been trying to get hold of Semenya over the tests, but that ASA are keeping them from her, which is extra-ordinary behavior, but not out of character given the last few weeks and ASA's behavior. Why the rush to reach Semenya? To tell her the verdict? Or maybe a health-reason (as discussed below)?

Regardless, the IAAF have stated that she is unlikely to lose her medal, which puts an end to at least some of the speculation (for now). Read on to have it re-ignited...

"Caster Semenya is a hermaphrodite" - news reports

Almost by design, at about the exact same time as the IAAF said that results would wait until November, newspapers in Australia are reporting that "Caster Semenya is a hermaphrodite - a person with both female and male sexual characteristics". You can read this piece here.

This issue was always going to inspire massive speculation, leaks and rumors, which is why I wrote yesterday that the idea that this would be kept confidential (as it should be, according to IAAF policy) was a dream. It took only one day for the rumors to start flying.

I don't know what to make of the article. It's unproven, of course. There are also statements in the article that are directly contradictory to the article I linked to above, where the IAAF said that Semenya's medal would not be taken away - the Australian piece says it may be. Also, some of the science is likely over-simplified - the use of the term "hermaphrodite" is probably not entirely accurate, since the classification of intersex conditions doesn't use the term much anymore, except in very rare cases, and this seems unlikely to be one.

More to the point, there are a lot of claims that are not necessarily true. For example, in the article, it says the following:

The tests, not yet publicly released, show the 18-year-old has no womb or ovaries.

The International Association of Athletics Federations is expected to disqualify the South African from future events and advise her to have surgery because her condition carries grave health risks, The Daily Telegraph reports.

And she could be stripped of the gold medal she won in Berlin in last month [as mentioned, this seems unlikely based on the IAAF comments]. Semenya has three times more testosterone than a normal female. A source closely involved with the IAAF tests said Semenya had internal testes - the male sexual organs which produce testosterone.

Even if all this were true, it still does not necessarily mean that she will be disqualified from future events. There are conditions which are allowable, which would see Semenya being able to compete after surgery (the surgery, by the way, is for health reasons. If you have internal testes, then they can become cancerous, and so must be removed. This might explain their desire to get hold of her, with ASA standing in the way).

The point is that even if the article is accurate, and the source is reliable, the actual decision around Semenya would not necessarily be disqualification. Unless something is known and is not being disclosed by the source. The crux is that they have to establish that she has some sort of performance advantage as a result of the condition.

Now, let's just very quickly look at the claims - the presence of testes, and the absence of a uterus, would suggest that she is genetically male (has a Y chromosome, possibly XY, possibly XXY). In order to develop as a female, she may be insensitive to androgens, or have a deficiency in an enzyme in the androgen pathway. This means that if the reports are accurate, she may have AIS (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome) or alpha-5-reductase deficiency, or possibly a genetic abnormality that is much rarer than these (which are pretty uncommon themselves) and results in the development of an under-masculinized male (there are three categories of condition - under-masculinized males, masculinized females and hermaphrodites).

What people need to know is that AIS, if complete, as well as alpha-5-reductase deficiency, are both conditions which the IAAF policy says are "allowed". The problem is with partial AIS, where it becomes a decision around whether she has an advantage or not. And that is exactly the same position as we were in before, though now we have a possible biological piece of the puzzle to add to yesterday's debate.

Still waiting - as you were...

So the point is that all these reports, regardless of their accuracy, still reveal nothing of the action that may or may not be taken. While it may be suggested that being an intersex individual, or someone who is "not entirely female" is grounds for disqualification, it is not. In Atlanta in 1996, 8 women "failed" the sex verification test because they had a Y-chromosome (strictly speaking, they had the SRY gene on the Y-chromosome). All eight were allowed to compete.

So Semenya may well have a condition, but may well continue running. The decision would be made based on whether the degree of a condition (assuming it is there) gives her an athletic advantage. The testosterone level, as we saw yesterday, is part of this, but by no means the only factor. Nor is the presence or absence of male or female organs, rather bizarrely.

What I do find very intriguing is the possibility that she has internal testes that require removal - what is the magnitude of the effect this would have on her performance? An intriguing question...

And then of course, she may have nothing at all - there are enough question-marks in the Australian report to wonder about the accuracy of the article. I am reminded that they were correct the first time around, when the story broke. It certainly does not seem good for Semenya, as the issue gets deeper and deeper.

I'm sure once the rest of the world's media picks up on this, there may be more to say. Until then, as you were...

Ross